#the most obvious example being gay and bisexual men

[ex-furry]

yeah there is like. no way to get around how awful and immoral conscription is. you can try and dress it up all you want, but a government forcing its people to enter the military and defend it is so demented

[samble-moved]

Sayaka is Biyaka (or, a Lesbian Tries to Disprove the "Sayaka is a Lesbian With Comphet" Bi Erasure Theory)

For some reason, there's a loooot of belief in the PMMM fandom (this was especially bad in the mid 2010s) that Sayaka isn't bi (despite her canon, on screen romantic interested in both Kyosuke, a guy, and Kyoko, a girl), she's "just" a lesbian struggling with compulsive heterosexuality.

While many lesbians do struggle with comphet, erasing Sayaka's status as bi/pan/omni/mspec to claim she's a lesbian is...not great!

Usual signs of comphet include, but are not limited to:

Only attraction to guys involves ones who are entirely unobtainable (ex. a celebrity, fictional, etc)

Any man you fantasize about is faceless/nameless

Interest in men in theory, but not practice

"Choosing" a man to have a crush on to seem "normal", or because it's expected

Attraction based on logic, not actual emotion (ex. because your parents would approve)

Liking a guy until they return the interest

Being attracted to certain guys just because of something like a talent

(...and more examples here!)

However, Sayaka's attraction to Kyosuke doesn't seem based on any of these, but seems more to be genuine attraction/interest.

For one, Sayaka has been close to Kyosuke ever since she was a child. They're described and shown as childhood friends, and he isn't a guy Sayaka "just met" and "chose" to be into.

Sayaka also just isn't into Kyosuke at a surface level. If she held no true attraction towards him, why would she willingly trade her relatively safe, happy life for his happiness? Her wish was to heal his hand. While this was the stated wish, it's outright shown that Sayaka didn't just want that. It's outright shown canonically that, while not fully said, Sayaka wants Kyosuke's appreciation and recognition for this. She wants him to know the miracle was her doing, and wants him to love her for doing it.

The various interpretions of this won't be majorly touched here, as whether or not Sayaka's thinking there is "selfish" isn't important. What is important is that Sayaka shows a true level of attraction to Kyosuke, and wishes it was reciprocated.

It's not that she "just" likes him for his skills (she still visits him in the hospital, even during a time where it's implied that he won't be able to play his violin again). It's not that he's a guy out of reach — he's a childhood friend. She's not being pressured into liking guys. She literally jokes about Madoka being her wife in front of Hitomi, publicly.

Her feelings are obvious and genuine enough that Hitomi tells Sayaka that, if she wants, she will give Sayaka a day to confess to Kyosuke before Hitomi does.

A bisexual person who ends up later liking someone of the same gender later on isn't "actually gay" instead. A bisexual person with a preference isn't "choosing a side". Erasing a canon bisexual character's identity to claim "ummm, akshully, 🤓 they're Really X sexuality instead" is biphobic!

I'm probably not the best person to make this post, as I am a lesbian, not bisexual. However, people erasing a bi character's sexuality to call them a lesbian instead is not okay, and it wouldn't be okay the other way around either. It's not "progressive" to insist a bi character can't possibly be bi, they have to be gay. Sayaka shows no sign of comphet, no sign of "just" likely Kyosuke because she feels it's "right". She shows actual, real interest in him and Kyoko, and that doesn't make her "actually a lesbian". She's bisexual. A character being bi isn't some stepping stone to them being "really" gay later on, and it isn't a dirty word to call them bi! It's an identity like any other.

Most fans ignore Kyosuke. This isn't something I think is a major issue, as Sayaka seems to lose interest in him after Rebellion (saying Hitomi deserves better). He's probably not the best guy. But that's not an excuse to erase Sayaka's identity, because she liked a not-so-great dude. A lesbian with a shitty ex isn't suddenly not a lesbian, and a bisexual person with a less than stellar former crush isn't suddenly not bisexual due to it.

Tl;dr:

[ranger-ribbons]

Ranger Series Operators Headcanons

Ziggy isn't an orphan, he has a father. His father runs another cartel and has been quietly running it underground so far that not even the other cartels have heard more than whispers of.

Dillon and Tenaya's birth names are Daniel and Genevieve

Tenaya's implants are more complete than Dillon’s so once Venjix is defeated, she remembers everything. Dillon's memories come back slowly

Summer, Scott, and Flynn are ride-or-die friends. They'd hide bodies for each other if necessary and can communicate without speaking if necessary

Dillon thinks he stayed in Corinth for Summer, under the impression that she was the one who hooked that first fight into the satellite for Dillon’s borrowed car. Ziggy, forever the king of playing himself down, doesn't correct Dillon, he's just happy Dillon stayed.

None of the Series Operator Rangers are straight. Scott, Flynn, and Summer are all bisexual, Dillon is unlabeled and likes anyone (demisexual if he vibed with labels), Ziggy is gay (or bisexual leaning towards men), and Gem and Gemma are queer. Doctor K is the only one who's straight

If he knew to go looking, Dillon would find his parents' graves in the Wastes. They died protecting their children from Grinders, they were traveling to Corinth. Dillon's car belonged to his father

Gem and Gemma have a form of telepathy left over from the experiments done on them at Alphabet Soup, it's why they can finish each other's sentences

Ziggy has had a crush on Scott, Flynn, Dillon, and Gem, and a platonic one on Summer. He can't help it! They're badasses and Ziggy’s got a thing for people who could obviously kick his ass

Flynn is the oldest of the core Rangers at 25, Scott is 24, Dillon and Summer are both 21, Summer being a few months younger, and Ziggy is 18. Gem and Gemma are in their late 20s, Doctor K is 19

Dillon didn't just click with Ziggy, he actually only tolerated his Wastes partner for the few weeks they were in the Wastes together. But, somehow Ziggy grew on him

Ziggy is Dillon’s best friend, baby brother, and maybe more rolled up into one. Dillon adores Ziggy, but won't let it show. Ziggy, of course, knows this and adores Dillon right back

Scott, Summer, Flynn, Dillon, and Ziggy are all in what amounts to a Queer Platonic Relationship. They seek each other out automatically at this point. If so inclined, that relationship could turn romantic real quick

Scott gives doberman vibes, Summer gives white cat vibes, Flynn gives husky vibes, Dillon gives black cat vibes, Ziggy gives orange cat vibes

Ziggy was once a gymnast, which is the only reason he was able to fight as well as he did at first

The Rangers spar together even after Venjix is defeated

Dillon doesn't like Scott, but he does respect and love him

They're all fucking idiots at best, but Scott can and will chain himself to any of the Rangers if they try to run away.

All the Rangers have some form of abandonment issues. The least of which is Flynn, who has issues regarding his mother's death, the most of which is Ziggy, who was abandoned at the orphanage at age five

The Rangers are always in a rainbow of shipping, but none is more obvious than the RPM Rangers. You can ship anyone with anyone (except Gem/Gemma of course)

The hit on Ziggy’s head never went away, and he never expected it to. He was in the mob from age 10 to age 17, he knows better than to expect kindness from people who would kill him in a heartbeat

On that subject, Ziggy doesn't leave the garage unless he has another person (Dillon) with him

Dillon and Tenaya don't go back to their original names, but they do take their original surname of Sevenson (which is where Venjix got the Seven from)

All the Rangers have PTSD and nightmares. They sneak into each other's beds or have puppy piles on the floor. Usually, you'll see specific patterns with sleeping arrangements. For example, Ziggy hasn't slept in his own bed since the Venjix virus started taking over Dillon, but he rarely ended the night in his own bed even before that

Flynn is the fan-favorite Ranger, but it's a close tie with Dillon and Scott

[menalez]

Can you explain how the split model is harmful?

i can try my best, i’m a little rusty bc i haven’t really touched this topic in quite some time.

speaking as a lesbian who once was closeted, and knows many lesbians who faced similar— the split attraction model simply does not work, is illogical, keeps us closeted + confused longer, and encourages denialism.

the split attraction model separates “sexual attraction” from “romantic attraction”. it argues that people can have sexual attraction in one way and romantic attraction in another. the most common examples are heteroromantic asexuals, aromantic asexuals, aromantic bisexuals, and the like. basically ace/aro on one axis and then a sexual orientation on another (and if it’s a “romantic attraction” then just remove the -sexual and replace it with -romantic, even though the -sexual just refers to the sex ur attracted to and doesn’t mean u necessarily want to have sex or have a libido). the logical conclusions of this is that sometimes someone may be homosexual but biromantic, meaning they’re “romantically attracted” to both sexes but only sexually desire the same sex. in normal speak, that’s either just being homosexual (& telling urself u could totally be able to tolerate a relationship that makes u unhappy bc at least ur with the opposite sex) or bisexual with strong preferences.

firstly, it’s homophobic— under the split attraction model, lesbians can be attracted to men if they’re “biromantic” or if they’re “homoromantic bisexuals” (ie bisexual with a strong preference). gay men can be into women for similar reasons. somehow, you could be gay AND straight at the same time (heterosexual homoromantic / homosexual heteroromantic).

secondly, it literally just confuses you further and keeps you from figuring yourself out. if you’re a lesbian and can’t figure out why men’s bodies repulse you and you feel nothing for men but you toooootally want a boyfriend (ie u want social acceptance and approval) then you can just tell urself ur heteroromantic homosexual or biromantic homosexual! and then u don’t have to accept that ur just a lesbian and can keep forcing urself to fake interest in men. this overwhelmingly will harm gay ppl, namely lesbians, especially since we are raised to revolve our futures around having a husband and kids & male approval the way all women are.

speaking anecdotally here, but i was literally just not into men but was able to tolerate being close to them (neutral on stuff like holding hands or hugging etc) and told myself that meant i’m “biromantic homosexual”, which was a step up from my previous belief that i was “heteroromantic homosexual”. before then i was just thinking i must be demisexual or asexual or aromantic or acespec etc because i simply did not consider the obvious possibility that maybe i’m just not interested in men. this is not a unique experience— many lesbians i know have spent years confused and closeted because they were telling themselves that not liking men must mean being asexual or aroace or whatever else. it keeps us in denial and ignoring our obvious feelings because simply finding a label that fits your current confused state & validating it as an Identity is much easier (& also somewhat fun esp when ur a teen struggling to know ur place in this world)

also a lot of it hinges on the assumption that the average gay person is like hypersexual as hell and it’s just generally not good to pretend like there’s these “separate forms of attraction” the way the SAM does.

i honestly don’t see an actual upside to it, it encourages heterosexuals to delude themselves into thinking they’re “””””queer””””””” because they have commitment issues or don’t want to be in a relationship or because they have a low libido, it convinces others that you can somehow be gay and not gay at the same time, it’s illogical, it encourages gay ppl to remain in denial and be closeted, it just. isn’t good

[coraniaid]

The online Buffy fandom seems to really like talking about the "original plans" for the show, but also to hate the concept of citing sources or providing evidence. So there are all sorts of ideas from the "original plan" floating out there in the aether that you seem to have to choose whether or not you believe based largely on vibes.

Generally I'm inclined to be pretty skeptical of the concept of an "original plan" for the show, whether that's the idea that Dawn was "originally" going to have telekinetic powers or that Faith was "originally" going to kill herself in the middle of Season 3 or that Buffy's parents were "originally" never going to be appear on screen. It is very hard for me to square ideas like these with the general tone or theme of their respective seasons. (If they're true, I think my main takeaway would be that we're fantastically lucky that the show turned out as well as it did.)

Similarly, but somewhat distinctly, I'm very dubious of readings which suggest that, for example, Amy's actions in Season 2's Bewitched, Bothered & Bewlidered are a sign that Amy's characterisation in the first half of Season 6 was actually planned out well in advance. I don't think that interpretations like this are really supported by the text of the show at all, and frankly I don't think they give the writers enough credit for the very real skill involved in making things up as they went along.

For the most part, and barring evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to put most of the "original plans" people like to talk about down to misunderstandings or miscommunications. Maybe an idea got idly tossed around for a few minutes while a season of the show was first being brainstormed, or maybe an actor initially only signed up to appear in five episodes, and from those tiny true fragments an "original plan" for the character was retroactively inferred which was never intended by the show's creators.

But there are a small handful of exceptions to this general rule -- the idea that it was "originally" Xander who was going to come out as gay, not Willow; the idea that "originally" Angelus was going to kill Oz rather than Jenny Calendar; the idea that "originally" Kendra was going to survive Season 2 and go on to have Faith's Season 3 arc -- that I think are different. I haven't been able to find hard sources for these claims either, but they've all been repeated for so long, and for so often, with so little variation, that I think it's more likely than not that the writers have at some point described these as the original plans for the show. These, I'm reasonably sure, aren't misunderstandings on fandom's part.

Let's call them what they are instead: lies.

The show's writers may well have claimed these, but if they did I don't think there's any reason to believe they were telling the truth.

Yes, it's very easy to read Xander as a (deeply, deeply repressed) gay or bisexual man. It's the most sympathetic way to make sense of his awkwardness around Larry Blaisdel, and of his frequently expressed opinion that Angel and Riley and Spike and Oz (and all the other men his two best friends date) are attractive and of his jokes about wanting to date them. And if you believe that Buffy herself is bi -- as I do, but (perhaps crucially) the writers explicitly don't -- then it makes a certain amount of sense that her metaphorical Heart should be as well.

But nothing about the way the show actually treated gay men over its seven seasons suggests to me that the writers would ever have seriously considered having one of the leading male chararacters come out as attracted to men. The actual show gives us Larry (who boasts to Xander about how out he is without ever actually showing romantic or sexual attraction to another man on screen, then is quietly killed off and seemingly never mourned), and Andrew Wells (whose obvious but unacknowledged attraction to both Warren and then later Xander is always played as a 'hilarious' joke) and Jane Espenson tried to smuggle Giles/Ethan past the other writers for an episode or two but ... that's really it, isn't it? (Not counting things unique to Angel the series, anyway.) We didn't even get the (supposedly) originally scripted kiss between two men in Smashed, allegedly because the writing team that brought us Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered were worried about there being "unfortunate implications" to having sexual attraction be something that magic could influence.

Equally, yes, it really sucks that Jenny Calendar died and it's nice to imagine that the writers at least considered keeping her alive and trying to do something interesting with the character. But I'm pretty sure that the writing was on the wall for her as soon as the show retconned her as being linked to Angel's curse (if not well before).

Why would Angel kill Oz, specifically? What links these two characters? Why not go after somebody Buffy has actually had a conversation with first? Or somebody that Angel ever had a conversation with? When you know the show's full history -- when you know what happens to not just Jenny herself but also Gwendolyn Post and Maggie Walsh and Joyce Summers, to Cordelia and Tara and Anya, to every adult woman with any impact on the plot and to any woman who dares to break up with one of the Core Four -- how plausible does it really sound that the writers ever considered sparing Jenny at the expense of Oz?

And yes, it also stinks that Kendra only got to appear in three (or, let's be honest, something more like one and a half) episodes before she was killed off. And that her name is only spoken once after Becoming, and only as a bit of exposition to set up the new, more plot significant, more interestingly written vampire slayer. It's infuriating to realize that of the six Slayers we see called before Chosen it's exactly and only the two white Slayers who get to live and have full character arcs. It would have been great if Kendra could somehow have stuck around, or if the writers had found a pretense to bring her back somehow.

But the fragments we see of Kendra's personality -- painfully shy around boys, a stickler for following the rules, raised from a young age to respect the authority of her Watcher -- suggests she's utterly unlike Faith. How could she have had Faith's Season 3 arc, without her character being totally rewritten from the ground up? How could she have this arc and still be Kendra?

Yes, Kendra should be important. She's the second Slayer we ever meet, somebody who's very existence upends everything we know about the show's mythology. The first -- and for a while, only -- person we meet who can really understand Buffy and appreciate exactly what she's going through as a Slayer. Kendra should be one of the major characters on the show, and her untimely death should have long term ripples and ramifications for years to come. But equally it seems very obvious that the writers didn't care about her at all, and that they never did and were never going to.

So she isn't a major character, and her death doesn't matter.

I think it's doing the show more credit than it deserves -- and willfully downplaying its very real and persistent homophobia and misogyny and racism -- to pretend that any of these things could have been different. Even if it does turn out that the writers ever claimed otherwise.

[dueling-jesters]

What are your thoughts on women romanticising or fetishising gay men via shipping. And when you draw the line when this happened. (Sorry for bad english)

Anyone who's been following me since I started this blog knows that I'm personally annoyed with the fetishization of gay people that has run rampant in fandom spaces for decades. Shipping on its own is completely fine, but I think it becomes something of an issue when people use it to implement harmful stereotypes or to hurt someone directly.

One way I often see is when some people will take two male characters and change their appearance and personalities to project heteropatriarchal standards upon them, essentially turning them into a stand-in for an abusive straight couple. This is, of course, an extreme example.

One related form of it is,via headcanon, the association of body type, personalities, and sexual positions (i.e., making the shorter or curvier male character more feminine, weak, and submissive). This oftentimes overlaps with fandom racism (making a darker-skinned character aggressive and abusive) and transphobia (people who have a trend of making all of their transmasculine-headcanoned characters soft, submissive bottoms exclusively paired with cis-male-headcanoned characters).

One of the most obvious indicators of someone doing this is if they are obsessed over whoever is the top and who is the bottom in a way that's one step from asking "But who really is the guy and who's the girl in the relationship?". This becomes incredibly apparent when a multishipper exclusively headcanons submissive/feminine bottoms and dominant/masculine tops, devoid of any variety or versatility. It's a telltale sign that someone may not care what gay people are actually like in reality.

This doesn't necessarily mean that top and bottom headcanons are inherently fetishizing, but rather, when there is an amalgamation of it being a fandom member's main priority in shipping alongside reinforcing heteronormative stereotypes.

I personally think it's fine for someone to be primarily focused on shipping characters in fandom. It's extremely common for lgbt+ fans to project their experiences onto characters or to otherwise feel connected to them through shipping-even if they're of a different gender/ orientation. (Cisgender, heterosexual fans can be avid shippers as well without harming gay people!) A fan lusting over a character and shipping through projection is not inherently problematic, either. Perhaps my stance is biased as I am guilty of both. There could be a grey area or situations that may seem suspicious if taken out of context.

The perpetrators of fetishization are not exclusively women, nor should they be blamed for it as a whole. Just as some gay people are homophobic, and some trans people are transphobic, there are occasionally members of our community who treat gayness and/or transness as an "othering" quality- whether they separate themselves from the rest of us in doing so, or if it's a form of internalized bigotry.

There are, of course, plenty of cisgender, heterosexual men who display a similar, dehumanizing attitude towards lesbians and bisexual women - whether through media or in-person. In its entirety, this is not a fandom-exclusive phenomenon.

Fetishizing behavior has been weaponized in harassment and abuse towards gay people. Essentially, the preconceived bigotries and assumptions one may have fuel harmful stereotypes cast upon fictional characters, which in turn reinforce one's beliefs and can result in one holding the same assumptions about actual people. I won't go into much detail, but I have personally experienced and witnessed sexual harassment from self-proclaimed allies and fellow members of the lgbt community due to fanfiction-influenced mindsets.

In many aspects, I think the fetishization of gay men in fandom runs parallel to the patriarchal gaze prevalent in similar spaces - although it can absolutely converge at times. It can definitely make someone who would otherwise participate as a fan, or even as a shipper, feel alienated.

[endingboyhansel]

Welcome back to this whole analysis business. Today we’re talking about Alan Partridge and his repressed bisexuality. He’s definitely an interesting character to talk about when it comes to his attitudes with anyone queer!

I’ve probably missed out other stuff, or gotten things wrong, so if that’s the case, feel free to add on or correct me!

It is no surprise to anyone that has seen the Alan Partridge franchise that Alan in his early days is a bigot. He occasionally followed remarks with “and please don’t write in saying that is [discrimination], it’s not” and has a general very dislikable attitude towards those that are minorities. Later on in the franchise he does adopt a much more polite attitude, though keeps quite a bit of stereotypes when discussing minority groups.

His attitude towards queer people, however, is very interesting. Alan describes himself as a “homoskeptic” - thinly veiling homophobia - and acts negatively towards Glen Ponder when he finds out he’s gay. Alan has also shown transphobia, such as dismissing a trans woman on KMKYWAP - though in more recent shows he seems to have become more relaxed.

However despite this open attitude, Alan has a lot of telling facts about him that hint towards the fact he is heavily repressed in his own sexuality.

Let’s talk first about his attitude to trans people. In the I'm Alan Partridge episode Watership Alan, it is revealed Alan watched a short bit of a porno film titled “Bangkok Chickboys” to which he denies to the staff of the hotel. As the conversation goes on, it becomes more and more obvious that Alan watched this on purpose.

Now it’s important to understand the meaning of “chickboy”. Chickboy in this refers to the term kathoey. In English it has two meanings - trans women or effeminate gay men. In Thailand, the term can also mean being intersex.

Another thing of note is that the term is also named “ladyboy” and this is how they are referred to throughout the series. It is made very clear that the meaning of “ladyboy” to Alan is trans women. Alan seems to express some sexual interest, if the above example and his fascination suffice.

—

One of the biggest mysteries of I'm Alan Partridge is what is in the drawer of Alan’s desk.

Episode 1: Lynn: For example, in this drawer… (opens the drawer and pauses, shocked) You, er… you have, er, things, and um… sometimes, you have too many things. (Later in the conversation) Alan: They were there when I moved in.

While Armando Iannucci says that the contents of Alan’s drawer are of magazines of fat women on the toilet (in Dutch) this doesn’t really seem to make sense given Alan’s disgust of “water sports”.

Steve Coogan, Alan’s actor, says in contrast in the commentary for the show that the contents of the drawer is a plastic cock.

However it should be important to know that it was never decided what was really in the drawer. Honestly it’s completely up to interpretation of the viewer, though it very much leans towards something that implies Alan’s repressed sexuality.

Throughout season 1 of IAP, Alan has daydreams where he is acting as a stripper for someone important, most of the time Tony Hayers. Alan seems perfectly willing to let himself act this way in these daydreams, despite the fact that in the real world he has a clear hatred for these people.

Episode 1: Daydream Alan: Would you like me to lap dance for you? Daydream Hayers: (offers money) Daydream Alan: Nuh-uh. I want a second series.

Alan seems to also have some kind of celebrity crush on Roger Moore. He notes him in KMKYWAP as his favourite Bond actor and keeps a framed picture of him in his room at the Travel Tavern. It is also revealed that he keeps this portrait of Moore in his daydreams.

One thing that’s important to know regarding Alan’s sexuality is his relationship with Michael.

While Michael never refers to Alan other than “Mr Partridge” and Alan treats Michael with some disdain, the two have a notably strong bond, with Alan even calling him a friend.

In This Time, we look at Alan’s photo gallery. While his gallery contains photos of, among several things, pictures of Noel Edmonds and Alan posing with a car, one of the photos in Alan’s gallery is Michael, followed by a drawing of him.

The fact there’s a drawing of Michael is very telling. Michael tended to not have any real friends apart from Alan, so it can be implied this is Alan’s own drawing of Michael. But then, why did Alan draw Michael? It seems a tad odd.

When Alan and Michael finally reunite after the latter being missing for a decade in From the Oasthouse, Alan is clearly very happy to see him.

Alan: Oh my god. It’s ringing. I think I might have solved it. … nah, he’s absolutely going to hate- Hello? Michael: Hello? Alan: Michael? Michael: Aye. Alan: Oh my god, oh my god- Michael… it’s- it’s- it’s Alan. […] Michael: Oh hello Mr Partridge! Alan: Yeah, that’s me! Yeah! I knew you’d remember! Michael: Aye. Alan: I- oh my god, I can’t believe I’m talking to you. Michael: Aye. Alan: I can’t believe I’m actually speaking to you. […] Alan: It’s actually you. You didn’t drown then! Michael: Me? No. Alan: Are you alright? Michael: Aye. Alan: Oh I’m glad because we- we used to have fantastic chats didn’t we? […] Alan (after the call is over): Ah, that was amazing. I got goosebumps again now.

While Alan has had friendships (Simon) and rivalries (Simon & Clifton), Michael is the one friend he’s had permanently over his time in the franchise, and is one of the few main recurring characters - alongside Lynn.

—

Anyway thanks for reading my lil analysis on this silly little pathetic guy /aff. Hope you enjoyed reading, and I hope it gave you something to think about.

[alwaysahiccupandastrid]

House of the Dragon Finale/Series thoughts

As someone who finished Fire and Blood a few days ago… oh boy do I have some thoughts.

Obviously spoilers below the cut for all of S1 and for F&B, don’t read if you don’t want spoilers, etc etc.

Oh fucking BOY what a goddamn mess

Let’s get the rant/complaining out of the way first:

Just to be clear, the cast are all amazing, my complaints are NOT directed at them, I love them, they did the best with what they had. The writers, however: 🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻

The writers so wanted to make Team Green as likeable as possible, it’s actually pathetic, and they basically whitewashed every single one of their actions instead of allowing them to do morally bad things - instead, everything was a misunderstanding or an accident.

Like hear me out, the reason Team Green is even interesting to read or watch is BECAUSE of the bad things they do. That’s literally ten times more interesting than “oopsie daisy! Accidentally started a war” and no one actively choosing to do anything

All of the key Team Green players have basically no agency, it’s actually sad: this is especially obvious in regards to Alicent and Aemond

In F&B, Alicent intentionally ignored Viserys’ wishes of putting Rhaenyra on the throne and put her r*pist son on there instead. In HOTD, it’s “Alicent misunderstood the ramblings of a clearly delirious and dying man and is not in the wrong”. Also in F&B, she is much older than Rhaenyra, who is only 10 when Alicent and Viserys marry - which makes it kind of funny because Alicent is literally beefing with a 10 year old. But in HOTD, they aged Rhaenyra up and Alicent down to be the same age, and invented some “they were clearly lesbians” BS for no reason - and no, it’s not me being “homophobic”, the fact is that Rhaenyra and Alicent’s friendship/relationship has constantly reminded me of a toxic friendship that I was in for more than half of my life, so no, I don’t ship that thank you very much

By the way, accusing Daemyra fans of being homophobic because we don’t ship Rhaenicent is so fucking dumb, most of us are gay/lesbian/bisexual/not straight?!? And most of us are mad that they erased Laena/Rhaenyra in favour of some toxic nonsense with Alicent

I don’t even like Alicent but the whole Larys-foot-scene was so unnecessary. What was the point in showing her as a victim even after her husband’s death? What was the point in showing yet another example of abuse? I’m so tired of shows using abuse and violence against women for shock value or plot drama, it’s so gross and it’s never treated seriously or with the sensitivity it deserves. This whole show has basically made the female characters defenceless weak victims and made the men key players

And no, I’m not saying victims of abuse/assault are weak or whatever. I’m saying that the show has gone out of its way to make every single female character a victim instead of showing any of them actively making any decisions/taking any action, and instead of giving them actual character development. And I’m also saying that this show hasn’t dealt with the topic well, it’s been very mishandled.

Basically… Let let women be evil! Let women be fucking unhinged!

Then there’s Aemond: his character defining moment is him becoming a kin-slayer and murdering his teenage nephew in that Storms End moment. He celebrated the fact he did it. But in HOTD, it’s painted as “oops he didn’t mean to! He just couldn’t control his dragon!”… which is so lame for him as a character, like what makes him and Team Green interesting is that they do awful things. It being reduced to accidents is just so lame.

The fact that people out there are actively stanning Aegon II even after seeing the scene of the maid sobbing after being r*ped AND knowing he’s done it before… y’all are sick. Literally sick. And I also blame Sara Hess for basically saying “yeah he’s a r*pist but we can still redeem him”, like no??? Shut the fuck up and stop trying to say we should like a r*pist?!?!

It’s so painfully obvious that the writers for each episode all disagreed with each other and never tried to work together because characterisation is all over the fucking place

In one episode you’ve got writers like “daemon is evil and I don’t know why people like him”, and then another it’s “he loves his family and he’s got light sides too”… it’s a MESS

Can I just say that Rhaenyra has also been diminished and denied any agency as a character either; we saw some of that fire and fierceness in her when she was younger, but then when older she kind of just became really complacent and lost that fire. And that’s not me blaming Emma, they did great with shitty scripts they had, but it’s a problem.

Like you seriously think that book!Rhaenyra would have just accepted being choked?!? She’d have fucking murdered the man who did that

WHICH BRINGS US TO DAEMON

Matt Smith clearly pissed someone off at HBO because how is it that every single scene that shows Daemon in a remotely positive light is deleted?!? Eg. Hugging his daughters, comforting Rhaenyra after Visenya, etc. Matt Smith HAS to have somehow rubbed someone the wrong way because that poor man has been done so dirty

Matt Smith is quite frankly the ONLY one who fucking understands Daemon at this point, judging by his interviews, even GRRM is getting the side eye from me at this point given how he signed off on this travesty of an adaptation, especially given that he said Daemon is his favourite Targaryen

Daemon would NEVER hurt Rhaenyra is the thing (not unless it was in a kinky way), and anyone who respects the source material knows that. Are they the healthiest couple? No, not in the slightest, but this is the world of ASOIAF, pretty much no couple is 100% healthy in this universe, and they were actually one of the healthier examples quite frankly (as opposed to Aegon/Helaena, Sansa with Joffrey and Ramsey, etc)

“Why are you so surprised he choked Rhaenyra? He killed his first wife” — that’s just it, in F&B he was nowhere NEAR the fucking Vale when Rhea fell. Like the book made it painfully clear that he was not there when she fell and died several days after… but the show had to make him evil somehow, because apparently feminism is now “all men should be evil”.

By the way, you think a little OOC choking is gonna stop me shipping them and writing fanfics for them? Bitch, you wish, I’ve shipped pairings with worse problems than a little tension-charged choking

One thing I will say is that at least the show made their relationship less of a probable “groomer” thing. Although, in the context of the world of ASOIAF, a teenage girl would be considered of age and married off - by modern standards, no, that’s wrong, but that world isn’t running by modern standards so 🤷🏻 but yeah, I felt like the show made it less like Daemon was grooming her at the start and more like they had a chemistry simmering under the surface that they were both playing around with? Idk

Also, no, don’t give a fuck that they’re uncle and niece: incest is quite literally a Targ tradition, literally all of them marry their brothers/sisters/uncles/aunts/cousins etc. In real life? Absolutely agree, in real life that’s gross and I don’t condone that, but this is a FANTASY show. Also, if you’re watching a show about a family that is literally built on incestuous relationships, then don’t complain when there’s incest 🤡

This show has given the show-only fans brain rot because they literally saw Rhaenyra go “I’m not a child, I want you” to Daemon and STILL think he forced her into their marriage, like no sis, girlie was gagging for him and I don’t blame her!

I literally don’t care what the show runners and writers say, they’ve proven they don’t know what the ever-loving fuck they’re talking about: I am going to continue firmly believing that the reason Daemon left suddenly at the brothel is because he didn’t want to fuck her in a dirty brothel because he knew she deserved better than that - that, and he realised that she was still very young and inexperienced, and he didn’t want her to jump into it spur of the moment only to regret it later. If Rhaenicent shippers can believe Alicent and Rhaenyra are in love (lmfao) and that Alicent cut her arm open out of love (🤡) I’m allowed to believe this if I want to!

I will admit that leaving her there with her pants down was a shitty thing to do, but hey, it’s Daemon, he’s morally grey and that’s why we like him! I’m going to theorise that he had to get out of there as soon as possible because he knew if he stayed, he’d do something he’d regret (like taking her against a wall)

The fact that Baela and Rhaena had barely any lines, especially in the last episode, is fucking disgusting. Like truly disgusting. The show had time to show us that disgusting feet scene as well as Aegon wanking out a window but NOT to give those two girls any lines??? Especially since they’re black???

Also, Baela in F&B is described as having cropped her hair as short as a boy's, so it would not whip about her face when she was riding, and as being a tomboy - not just as a child but as an adult too. We saw a little of that when she was younger but they seem to have abandoned that since aging the kids up?!?

By the way, Laena was done SO dirty by the writers; changing her death from childbirth to basically offing herself was… definitely a choice. On the one hand, yes, showing her dying in childbirth five episodes after Aemma dying in childbirth may be repetitive, but guess what? That’s life for women in this universe! And it’s like she decided that it’s more honorable to kill herself than die in childbirth, like the way she talks about not wanting to die giving birth is very… off. It’s like the writers are saying it’s not feminist to die giving birth or some shit???

I do genuinely feel like some of the time skips (especially the one after Rhaenyra and Laenor’s wedding) were a mistake. I personally didn’t feel connected to most of the characters who died because we didn’t get to actually spend that much time with them or get to know them. Like Harwin??? Laena??? A lot of what happened between time skips was simply told and not shown, which is lazy storytelling quite frankly.

The way that Visenya’s death was handled was so bad, oh my god?!? They didn’t even mention her name, the fact Rhaenyra in E1 had named the baby in Aemma’s stomach Visenya if it was a girl, also the fact that Dark Sister (Daemon’s sword) was wielded by Visenya in the days of Aegon the Conquerer… none of that is there. It just comes and goes like it’s nothing.

Also the fact that Daemon’s grief over the simultaneous deaths of his brother and his daughter are just… brushed over completely. It just really pisses me off because men’s feelings are often brushed aside when it comes to miscarriages/stillbirths, and also for any kind of loss quite frankly; we got two quick shots of him on the beach and that’s it. And we know Matt Smith shot more because there’s photos of him on the beach shooting it, doing all kinds of shit like on his knees in the water etc. It hits especially hard considering a) he already lost Laena and their third baby under similar circumstances, b) he’s also grieving his brother, and c) according to leaks, he was supposed to comfort Rhaenyra after she gave birth to Visenya. They were supposed to have a moment of grief together… and HBO/this show shat all over that.

I’ll write a fic to explore it, I swear-

And now for the bridge scene in E10 because that BULLSHIT deserves its own fucking section

You’re telling me that Rhaenyra is more emotional over a book page she ripped out of a boring old history book twenty fucking years ago than she is about losing her only daughter?!? Than she is about her father’s death?! You can fuck off with that bullshit right now

To me, that’s just more proof of Alicent’s manipulation - it’s a crap attempt but it’s still toxic and manipulative as fuck. “Look, this page from 20 years ago that you ripped out of a boring history book while we were under the tree - we’re friends, remember! Now let my rapist son sit on the throne and we can be friends again 💚”

If I were Rhaenyra, I’d send that page right the fuck back with the words “an eye for an eye, a son for a son” written across it in bold

Like I don’t know how Rhaenicent shippers think that’s a win, that’s literally Riverdale levels of cringey and crap writing, I would be so embarrassed if I shipped that

It does make me laugh that people are ripping that scene apart like literally most of us know how fucking dumb it is - and people are so busy making fun of it that they’re not even that mad about Daemon, so that’s a win in my book

I also need to say something about Rhaenicent shippers in general: yes, maybe there are some Daemyra shippers out there who have been dicks - there are literally shitty people in every fandom. I’m sorry if any Daemyra shippers out there have harassed or bullied Rhaenicent shippers because that’s not okay, most of us don’t condone that. But it’s not like Rhaenicent victims are all innocent because on the Daemyra discord, for nearly two months straight, we’ve had numerous trolls (including Rhaenicent shippers) come into our chats and harass us, saying we’re disgusting and even a few privately messaging me to tell me to end my life over a fucking tv show pairing. Like if you don’t like it, I understand, I truly do - but harassing us over it isn’t okay. Just stick to your corner and we’ll stick to ours.

Anyway, there are some wins out of this whole trash heap:

DAEMYRA 🖤 I’m gonna write the fix it fanfics for you, don’t you worry, it’s my week off this week and I got you

I’m just gonna come out and say it, that brothel scene was hot and you know I’m right, stop booing me

That beach sex scene was beautiful, especially since there’s a copy floating around that’s removed the music and increased the breathing/kissing noises 👀

We got to see Matt Smith’s bare ass, I’m not complaining even if that scene was awkward and uncomfortable as fuck

The acting was phenomenal throughout, I may hate certain characters and also the writers, but I can’t fault how brilliant the actors are

The soundtrack was really top tier the entire show, Ramin Djawadi NEVER misses, every piece of soundtrack absolutely fucking slaps, THANK GOD IT GOT RELEASED TODAY

The Valyrian wedding ceremony was perfect, I just wish we’d seen more of it and heard the words!

DAEMON CROWNING RHAENYRA AND KNEELING TO HER FUCK YEAH

When I say I will defend Caraxes with my life, I mean it, I love that huge boi with his squeaky deviated septum roar

I love the designs of the different dragons and that no two look the same, especially Vhagar - they did not make her pretty and I respect that wholeheartedly

RIP Luke 😭🖤 knew it was coming, still hurts so bad

Kind of shipping Jace and Baela even though I know what’s coming and also that knowing these writers they’ll make him sleep with Sara Snow

And finally…

“I would rather feed my sons to the dragons than have them carry shields and cups for your drunken, usurper cunt of a king.”

Daemon Targaryen, you will always be a fucking iconic legend 👏🏻 it’s also especially fitting given that both of his sons with Rhaenyra become kings!

[colourfulgreyscales]

On biphobia among normies.

Instead of talking about celebs or characters or fandoms (since that's a common trend around here., although I see nothing wrong with that)... I will regale you with examples of normies in my life (as well as myself) to whom biphobia affects.

My two bi friends, a man and a woman, who are married. The wife's gender expression fluctuates within the femme side of the spectrum, whereas the husband's gender expression has a lot of feminine elements to it, from flamboyance to painting his nails. Their hetero appearance affords them less advantages because of this. Instead, they are confronted with accusations of the wife identifying as bisexual because she is either a "good friend who wants to beard," or a "tool" for her "gay" friend. No need to explain about the husband. They had been in an open relationship in the past, but as of right now, they are monogamous, which might or might not change in the future.

A lot of trans friends of mine of different genders who identify as bi. Both their gender and their sexuality is under a microscope, constantly.

There are at least four bisexual male friends in my life in the following situation. Two of them are very proud bisexuals to the point of activism. All three have mostly queer friends, but in many cases their circle of friends read as gay, with different ranges of gender expression. They spend a lot of time in the gay locations (bars, neighborhoods, vacation spots, you name it) Three of them are married to gay men. The fourth one has been polyamorous with two boyfriends last time I saw them. All four of them have shown clear attraction to women from flirtatious interactions, to the way they looked at them, that clearly look different from the way gay men do it. One of the married guys has a husband who might or might not be attracted to more than one gender as well (the evidence is inconclusive from my end).

The woman friend who after many years of dating and living with men, one of whom she became engaged to, ended up married to a woman. She did question her sexuality and realized she was bi, because i her experience, her feelings were legit. She decided to go unlabeled out of pressure from her circle, who had issues with the word "bisexual" and insnsted she should identify as a lesbian; and she was tired of explaining why she felt bisexual or fluid (her wife was her first obvious attraction to a woman she experienced) suited her better. Her wife (who I don't know how she identifies,) is fine with her as she is.

My most recent ex-girlfriend is a febfem woman. She has also felt the pressure of identifying as a lesbian, especially as she has been open about not being attracted to men or male presenting people of late.

And finally, there is me. After years of being single and dating female-presenting people when I was not, I followed my heart and I am currently seeing a man. I feel intimidated about the implications this might carry, on top of feeling terrible about the potential passing advantages that this relationship will grant me that I haven't had in a while (even if my gender expression fluctuates, but rarely goes high femme). I already lost some friendships after coming out, but I still deal with comments like "I thought you would be deep into women/pussy right now." I am only open to my close friends of all sexualities and my bisexual friends.

[maguneedsalife]

For Aoife: 3, 6, 13 because it's funny

For you: 20

This one is also going to be long!! and since I already answered 3 on 1nky's ask I'll just do the others

6. How does your oc feel about labels? Theirs, or in general?

Ok, assuming that xiv world has sexuality and gender identity labels the way we do (havent seen evidence to suggest this is the case yet, doesnt mean it wouldnt have them, etc etc), i don't think Aoife would be too keen to slap a label on herself. Polyamorous sure, but I think she'd feel some discomfort with advertising that she's "bisexual" - not that she's uncomfortable with her wlw thoughts, but since she's such a public figure, she wouldn't want to be held up as an example of "bisexual rep" or called a "bisexual icon" when she's mostly been involved with men. She would feel nervous about taking space away from people who express their bi-ness more visibly.

(disclaimer aoife's opinion on this is not reflective of my own, i have no problem being open as a bisexual while also being married to a man and i know that being in a m/f relationship doesn't negate my bisexuality)

13. Would your oc be open to a poly relationship? Why or why not?

LOL. LMAO. i know you know the answer to this but i appreciate you asking it for the funny anyway

Aoife is a poly force of nature with 3 current boyfriends, 1 genderfluid robot partner, and 1 guy i still count as her boyfriend/actively ship her with even though he's been dead for most of my time playing this game.

Aoife decided to go the poly route after she and Aymeric both realized they were also in love with Estinien at around the same time. The two of them ended up talking it out with each other and decided to try to make it work. They both pitched the idea of a relationship to him shortly before he left Ishgard post-hw (this is part of why he left lmao, he needed time to think about it but did eventually accept). Later on she added G'raha and Omega to the pile with the others' consent. Aoife only really does threesomes with Aymeric and Estinien though (and Omega in 2 different bodies, but, shh)

ANYWAY. Aoife's reasoning for her poly r/s is that she simply has too much love in her heart to confine it to just 1 person, and she'd rather everyone just be open and honest with each other. She gets different kinds of emotional fulfillment from each of her partners and feels like she would be unsatisfied just having to pick one of them.

20. Have your ocs helped you in self discovery? How?

you also know the answer to this one lmao. Anyway Aoife was the reason I realized/was finally willing to admit I was bi myself. Like not to be like "final fantasy made me gay" but final fantasy did make me gay. I love my wol as an extension of myself but i also do very much want her to be my girlfriend. you understand

i'd always appreciated women aesthetically but didnt think i was interested romantically or sexually (despite you know making 5 different asami sato clone female love interest ocs in college and thinking this didnt say anything about me personally. god i was so obvious about it). playing as aoife and enjoying dressing her up in sexy outfits for ME was what made me realize that hey yeah i think i do like women and i can feel comfortable saying that openly now

bc i mean LOOK AT HER. LIKE JESUS CHRIST

anyway yeah. women hot

[vintage-bentley]

Is it bad that I kind of resent the implication from "femme-presenting A/C" fans that if Aziraphale and Crowley did (for some reason) decide to become women one day instead that they would become 1) feminine instead of GNC, and 2) suddenly interested in women/become lesbian out of nowhere?

Whenever I see "femme Aziraphale/Crowley" they're always big boobed and hipped, hyper-feminine clothing, fully dolled up, lipstick lesbians. I've never seen them drawn with normal figures (feat. Tennant's lack of tit and hip for example), never in the same outfits they normally wear, never bare-haired and hairy, and middle-aged women. Also despite Aziraphale being obviously attracted to only men, they always make fem!Aziraphale a lesbian 🥲 like if someone wrote a fic that was completely genderbent (where they had been lesbian women from day one, none of the gender fuckery) I'd probably read it but I just can't even invision our Aziraphale being attracted to women, even if he did suddenly decide to change his gender.

Oh I feel the same way!

It doesn’t surprise me that a fandom so obsessed with gender stereotypes seems to also be obsessed with drawing women like pinup models….but it’s certainly disappointing. Nobody can convince me that A/C would believe in gendered expectations and that if they were women, they’d be hyper feminine. Those ladies are hairy and barefaced. They are NOT falling for misogynistic beauty standards. And Female Crowley is skinny and flat and Female Aziraphale is chubby with a tummy. They are not Jessica Rabbit lookalikes. And they’d also wear comfortable clothing. Not…whatever the fuck people are drawing them in.

If I could be assured that every singe ineffable wives depiction was the AU where they’ve been lesbians from day 1, I’d love it. But because I know that most people doing it are of the mindset that A/C magically changed into lesbians just because, I don’t like ineffable wives for the most part. Especially because of how uncomfortably hyper feminine they tend to be.

The whole sexuality changing thing comes from the fandom’s obsession with “fluid sexuality” and their idea that bisexuality is the only moral sexuality. For obvious reasons I just can’t get behind it. To me, A/C are either always gay men from day 1, or always lesbians from day 1.

Anyway. Day 12345 of desperately wishing the fandom would stop worshipping gender stereotypes

[cagedchoices]

I saw a post the other day that said it's weird when people say “[muse name] is so spicy right now” because, in their words, “people who do that are just writing smut as a self-insert fantasy to get off to" I thought that was kind of reductive and untrue and it kind of highlights a growing issue I’ve noticed in the RPC and I kind of just wanted to talk about it from my own perspective.

I am an asexual, aromantic, and nonbinary afab person. My most consistently present roleplay muse for the past 4 years is a cis man I headcanon to be bisexual and biromantic. I feel like it should be somewhat obvious that this is not a self insert fantasy for me, but if it's not that obvious, I'll try to explain.

Initially, I based Caleb's sexuality off an admittedly narrow perception of his canon background. I interpreted his relationship with Francis as romantic partially because at the time, I thought “There’s no heterosexual explanation for how emotional Caleb gets whenever he thinks about Francis, so therefore he must have been in love with this man.”

In addition to that, Caleb had 2 failed relationships after Francis died and there’s nothing dictating what gender(s) those partners were.

I was also partially motivated by spite. How many times has everyone heard “ugh not every close emotional bond between two men has to be gay 😒” ? How many times has that been used to shut down any conversation on the question of sexuality when it involves two male characters? I was sick of it.

I used to say that though. Before I knew any better. I'd see two characters who had a connection I liked seeing as platonic, and instead of reasoning that it's perfectly valid to interpret these characters how you want, I would be like “no. absolutely not. these characters aren't gay because the author didn't write them to be and didn't say they were and actually it's pretty homophobic to think the only way men can be emotionally vulnerable is if they're gay” which is…STUPID lmao don't be like Past Me. That was a DARVO tactic and a particularly shitty one at that. I'm not like that anymore and I'm glad I learned to do better.

Anyways... I love shipping, but I’m less attached to looking through shipping goggles these days and I try not to look at anything from such a narrow point of view anymore. Now whenever I think about the bond between Caleb and Francis, I can see it in a multitude of ways. Which is the same way I see his bond with Dolores in season 3 and his bond with Maeve in season 4. And further how I see potential for ships I develop in roleplay.

But recently I'd been struggling a little bit with truly defining the difference between romantic versus platonic ideals. Most of the generic definitions I see out there describe romantic attraction as being “the desire to do romantic things with someone” and then the examples listed are something like “kissing, holding hands, getting married, spending time together, etc.” and I'm just like “okay what about when people do those things *without* romantic attraction involved?”

Like it just breaks my brain. People get married for reasons that aren't out of love sometimes. And as much as I like kiss scenes in fiction and I like writing them when my brain stops short circuiting long enough to actually do that, I think the entire act of putting your mouth on another human’s mouth and sometimes getting tongues or teeth involved in smushing your lips together over and over again is a really weird ritual to show someone you like them. I still write it though because it's cute. As for holding hands and spending time together?? Are we just not supposed to spend time with friends ever? What the fuck.

I stumbled across a video a few days ago by a neuroscientist who has studied the concept of love in the human brain and what she said helped me put things into a better perspective. Someone asked her if there's a good way to differentiate between platonic and romantic relationships when, especially in modern society, we don't have as much separation between the things humans do WITH romantic partners versus in non-romantic relationships and the lines blur more than they used to in the past.

What she said was that romantic love behaves similarly to an obsession or addiction in the brain. It's not just the fact that you want to DO so-called romantic activities with someone, it's more that you want to do them so badly with a specific person, you can't really let go of the thought until you follow the impulse to do it.

Kissing, for example. It's possible you might want to kiss a friend you have a strong platonic bond with, but if you don’t do it, then the interest usually fades and the brain will quickly move on. On the other hand, if you have a crush/partner/spouse/any kind of romantic connection and you want to kiss them, the brain will most likely fixate on the thought of kissing them until you actually go and do something. It will not fully move on until it gets the dopamine hit.

I guess since I’m aromantic, this means that for me, I don’t experience that addictive feeling of wanting to do something with someone so badly that it's all I think about. But I write a muse who is biromantic and does experience romantic attraction, which sort of requires me to know how it works, so I can actually write about it.

I see sexual attraction in a similar way. I’m asexual and in my case, I'm one of the ones who doesn't experience sexual attraction in any way and is not comfortable with being personally involved in sex. But my muse is bisexual and does experience sexual attraction.

So I decided to start writing smutty things last year and I had a couple reasons for it. The first is that I had never actually written smut before so it was something new to try, and practice would mean I would get better at it.

The second was that I have watched, for years, many of my mutuals routinely participate in sexy sunday and similar things. It probably sounds kind of like peer pressure, but it wasn’t like anyone was really encouraging me to do anything or not do anything. It was more like after years and years of existing in my own bubble of never engaging in it, I wanted to see what I was missing. Completely my choice.

Thirdly, after tackling the subjects of “where the fuck do you put your hands?” “does this position sound physically possible? or...comfortable?” and the like, writing simple kiss scenes or non-sexual intimacy no longer feels like a monumental task that I mentally freeze up on the second I realize I have to write.

For a while it also got very hard for me to figure out when someone wanted to ship with me versus when they didn’t. I was afraid to ask. I started overthinking everything to the effect of “what if they think I’m being presumptuous and pressuring them into writing a romantic relationship they don’t want?” or “what if they are afraid to tell me they actually Are interested in a ship in case i think they’re trying to pressure me into it instead?”

There was also quite a bit of “oh god what if they see that i wrote my muse on a date with someone in a certain location and when i put our muses in that same location for a different thread they think it’s a date too when it’s not?” or even “what if a mun of a duplicate muse sees me writing a ship with a different partner writing the same muse and they start thinking i’m only writing with them to add them to a weird little collection or something?” and all the social anxiety I fall victim to when my mental health gets tanked by stress and depression.

All of this to say, now that I’ve climbed back out of the pit of despair I fell into… I don’t think anything is as simple as “people only write shipping to fulfill the desire for a relationship/people only write smut to fulfill their own sexual desires.” I think you have to take it on a case by case basis and not make broad assumptions. Otherwise all you're gonna do is alienate people over things that really don't matter.

Plus, maybe it's just that “[muse name] is feeling so spicy right now!” is a lot quicker and easier to say than “the part of my subconscious imagination that [muse name] occupies is telling me that if this muse were a real person, they would be feeling sexually aroused right about now and I'm willing to write about it!” so like. Y’know.

[elbiotipo]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

Honestly? I have no idea. The answer to your questions could take whole books. Indeed they must have.

I actually don't understand what makes sexuality or gender, on its current definitions, work. I doubt we will ever get a single answer. For sure there is an inborn component to it, I have gay friends who have told me they had same-sex crushes from kindergarter. I also don't think one can't discount cultural or enviromental developments. I'm not sure, for example, how strong my own same-sex attraction is, but I know I wouldn't have even considered it if I didn't know about the possibility (many people on my own friend circle don't even understand how something such as bisexuality exists). I don't believe sexuality or gender can be defined in "boxes" or even clear cut identities. I have a lesbian friend who tells me she has lots of men who are 'an exception' to her, I've met people who cross-dress without thinking of themselves as transgender, or a trans man who considers his life as a woman as just another phase and dislikes the "deadname" concept.

From a purely biological evolutionary perspective, I think that sexuality, as in, sex for pleasure, is a bonding activity. It's a parallel of what surged in lion prides or cat colonies "why fight when we can love instead", except humans were descended from social beings, so sexuality was inherent to us. As for gender, despite obvious anatomical differences, humans are rather similar between biological sexes, we really don't have that much differences beyond those found culturally. We are more like wolves than lions in that aspect.

As humans are cultural beings and we take what we find in nature and process it into abstract terms, we have created a large "structure", is that the right word? around gender and sexuality, among different cultures and times. I don't believe there is a single correct way to interpret such things, only that it seems inherent to us, obviously, as biological beings to seek sex for procreation and also for pleasure and social bonding, and from there all the complexity arises.

I don't want to say most humans are "pan/bi" because that makes no sense, but I will say that people seem to be inborn with certain preferences to a biological sex or another, but that those traits are more flexible than we think, and that they can be changed to a certain extent by cultural and enviromental factors.

I'm sure there are authors that have explored these topics better than me.

[my-coven-is-claudia]

i’ve briefly talked about gene,, sasha and zenix’s ties to mid to late 2000s emo culture and its importance to their possible queerness but i haven’t fully elaborated on it so here it is!

you’ve probably heard the sometimes joke sometimes unironic statement that emos are a persecuted minority. this derived from a series of different events that happened during the 2000s where the new rising emo subculture was being attacked and critiqued for being just a bunch of posers,, lacking a proper ideology and for “cultivating bisexuality”. this idea that emos were queer and especially famous emo bands and singers is where i think this statement comes from. an extreme example of the homophobic attacks emos experienced was the mexican emo wars. this was when 800 or so young ppl (mainly punks and metal heads) poured into the city of queretaro in mexico and attacked anyone who was visibly emo. a lot of these attackers described emos as gay or queer or,, most notably,, bisexual.

so emo and bisexuality kind of go hand in hand. for example,, during the 2000s popular emo pop stars like brendan urie and gerard way were believed to be bisexual by their fans. people spent hours speculating on these singers and band members sexualities and analysed their songs inside and out to find even a speck of queer undertones. this was the first time bisexuality had entered the mainstream since the likes of david bowie had propelled the word into the lexicon of the everyday person. bisexuality as a concept seems to come in and out of the mainstream conscious every once and while,, usually being considered as “chic” or “trendy”. in the 2000s bisexuality was considered especially alluring with the creation of the dating reality tv show “a shot at love” where contestants (both men and women) fought to steal the heart of bisexual myspace icon tila tequila.

ok ok i’ve gotten a bit off track here but you can tell that queerness was having a bit of spotlight moment during the late 2000s and that phenomenon was also occurring in emo spaces.

with all this said,, where do the shadow knights fit into this? well it’s pretty obvious. they are very clearly meant to apart of that generation of teenagers who grew up in the late 2000s,, deep in emo subculture and consuming probably any media to do with it. soooo,, it would make sense that they were queer. although it’s debatable whether jess did this all as some elaborate queer coding i find it hard to believe that the thought didn’t ATLEAST cross her mind. with how intrinsic late 2000s emo subculture is to their characters i feel like it must’ve been based off some first hand stuff.

whether this was purposeful or not emos tie to queerness is definitely something to take into account. many emos who grew up in the late 2000s realised their queerness later in life and there’s an argument to be made that emo spaces were their first ever safe space to truly express themselves. not only their interests but also their identity. gene,, zenix and sasha as characters all felt ostracised at one point in their lives. different. however,, they found one another and a community that allowed them to crack out of their shells.

and i think that’s pretty gay.

[sizzlingpatrolfox]

What to do u think abt how there seems to be a lot of content that armys think points to jimin being bi or gay

Like if u see most of the recent tweets of Bisexual armys acc on Twitter they are mostly abt jimin kind of hinting at being bi

Like his photofoli cover color choice, the flag he drew for dispatch event, a pride flag on his cookie monster character...

So do u think hes doing it intentionally and trying to be more open

Or it's just a stylistic choice ...I hope it's not the latter tho

I don't even know where to begin.

Ah yes. One of the few times army is right.

There's no way everything it's a stylistic choice, no.

I don't really think too much of clothes the stylists choose for BTS members, and there are lots of times when they were dressed in clothes that had a pride flag, or some sort of LGBTQ symbolism or meaning, but those weren't BTS own choices. So it doesn't mean much to me. In the examples you mention, his cookie character is dressed in the clothes Jimin wore for dynamite, and the jeans he wore back then had a rainbow like patch, but it wasn't really a pride flag, just colors in line.

And I think the world is pretty divided into two groups of people; one group that thinks these random stylistic choices mean something, and the others like me that think "is that stuff personal to the person or is it just random?", and for that later group, I guess the photofolio is enough. It's enough for me, at least for now.

I've always thought Jimin was queer. I kept going back and forth between gay or bisexual because I couldn't quite put my finger on what exactly he might identify as, which is honestly a first for me because I'm used to being able to pinpoint if a man likes women or not. I like women. It's easy for me to know when somebody else likes them too. And as I've said before, guys are painfully obvious when it comes to girls. But Jimin was never obvious about his attraction to women for me, so I was okay with just thinking he's someone that "loves people". When I was younger, there were a few times of me coming out and I used to say "I love people", because it was true, it's true. If there's someone I could describe just using the word "love", it's Jimin.

I won't link the post because I talk about JK there too and it's not the topic right now, so I'll just post the parts about Jimin.

One of the reasons I first started thinking Jimin was not straight was because he had really complex? emotions towards Jungkook. All the other members call each other cute, handsome, attractive, and some variations of that. They get annoyed at each other, they sometimes look at each other with fondness, sometimes they treat each other with indifference. But Jimin had ALL of that for Jungkook. He didn't just care for Jungkook as his dongsaeng, but he also wants to kiss him, he thinks JK is funny, he thinks JK is adorable, he gets annoyed at him, he uses a softer tone of voice when he talks to him, he praises him a lot but also lovingly makes fun of him when he doesn't get the timing to speak, saying that seeing Jungkook happy was the reason he could be happy on his own birthday. You will see Jimin hugging Taehyung and looking at him affectionately or even saying he's handsome but in my opinion JM has never shown to be attracted to Taehyung. Jimin does not use the same tone of voice when he talks to Jungkook as when he talks to any other member. Jimin doesn’t often stare at people, but you can literally see the depth of Jimin’s emotions for JK when he stares at him.

All of these are just examples that came to my mind right now, but it's not only about these particular instances. It's just everything about Jimin and his reactions/emotions towards Jungkook. And it’s really rare for straight men to have these depth of emotions for other straight men, so it was one of the first things that caught my attention about JM. 

I mention Jungkook because it was the most obvious thing to me when I first became a fan, and it was the first "complex" relationship I noticed within BTS. That caught my attention, the way his reactions/feelings towards Jungkook were literally the full scope of emotions a guy could muster. Then, in his birthday live this year, Jimin said that it's not a matter of liking or disliking the members and much to my surprise, he actually said "I've developed feelings for them that are really complex."

Some people use moments of Jimin watching women's performances to say "oh look he likes women" but don't consider that he's just watching a performance and performances are supposed to be exciting and evoke emotions/reactions from the people watching. Other than those performances, there's nothing about Jimin reacting to women. And then they ignore the way Jimin would react to men literally sitting and doing nothing. We've seen Jimin (and BTS) meet a lot of guys and Jimin did not have the same attitude towards James Corden or John Legend as he had towards Shawn Mendes or the black interviewer. Jimin was not barking and huffing and rolling his eyes into his head, sweaty hands after meeting Khalid but he was after meeting Usher that same night. This difference in the way he reacts to men is enough for me to know that he's not straight. Because he's obviously attracted or at least affected by some of them in ways that he's not affected by other men. The rest of BTS they all look and act the same whether they're meeting SK's president or Brad Pitt.

Just imagine the things people would've said if instead of turning around and checking out those guys in Malta, it would had been a group of girls.

So, it's not only about the photofolio, the concepts he chose to present are just one more reason for me to think that he's not straight. It's about the photofolio, but also about all of the years that I've been watching him and listening to what he says, and learning about him.

If Namjoon or Jin suddenly came up with a concept like Jimin's, I would be confused tbh and it wouldn't mean anything to me, because they've never shown signs of being anything other than heterosexual.

Sexuality can't possibly be only about a limp wrist or the time that guy wore a skirt. Sexuality is something that doesn't always have defined characteristics, because it's everywhere, because it's a way of living life and life is so big.

Inmediately, this particular verse in alien superstar comes to mind lol

We dress a certain way, we walk a certain way

We talk a certain way, we-we paint a certain way

We-we make love a certain way

I will go ahead and tell you also that lgbtq don't even think the same way straight people do. Most of us have really different thought processes and I think even a deeper sensitivity and understanding of issues that straight people don't. From birth, most of us had to think out of the box to blend in, we've had to rearrange our vocabulary to keep that part of self private from people that might not accept us, we've just grown up differently.

Once when you've really come to terms with your sexuality, it should feel coherent, it should be cohesive with everything you are and everything you do, and trying to break that apart into pieces is only literally going to break you apart. Some people are better at handling it than others. I think is not too crazy to talk about Jimin struggling with that particular cohesiveness when he was younger.

I really don't want to say too much about what he might've struggled with or not because I believe his words are more than enough, and anyone who's been through something similar, or who has a loved one that's been through it, they will get it.

Then there's this particular answer he gave on his weverse magazine 2021 that immediately caught my attention, and I wasn't the only one, because right away there were lots of people saying that they had a similar experience when coming out to their parents, that those were words their parents used.

He's definitely been on a very important journey.

That was exactly the initial description of the photofolio.

Personally, from the very beginning I've looked at the photos as a story. A story in which freedom was the end, the last chapter, the conclusion. Jimin's ultimate form, if you will. The part of the story where all of his parts come together in harmony and he's, well, free. Free from the thoughts and loneliness he felt in that other concept, free from the "rough" parts of himself when he's wearing the suit, and from being split into all those mannequins with masks. Even the way he described it, as an "unrefined" boy talks about being free. What could be more free than a child? Than someone who's in the most beautiful moment of their lives, someone who doesn't have burdens yet.

I do wish tho that we could've known if he decided on the statues. There's a very obvious between the photos when he's posing with the "female" statue, than when he's posing with the "male" one. In the photos with the suit, he's somber, and the statue is cracked tho roughly put together, and he just stands next to it but doesn't interact with it that much, or at all. Whereas in the colored concept he has a "male" statue, and he's touching it, and staring at it, the statue is full of life and color. I jokingly told a friend "Jimin in his Troye Sivan bloom era". So I wish I could know if he decided that, or maybe he just delivered his ideas to the staff and they prepared it, which would be just as meaningful because it came from his own thoughts. Greek mythology has always been associated to both masculinity, and femininity. Greek marble statues have been considered the beauty standard for men of that time, and it's been used as "gay" imagery in pieces of media because it's about men in their ultimate physical form, you know? So I do believe that it's logical for people to think that the most, or of the most forward "messages" is about sexuality and gender. There's a lot to be talked about and thought about gender and sexuality and mythology. That would probably be a post even longer than this one, and I would have to link bibliography and look for images that would help me get my point across and sound more intellectual than I actually am lol, and I'm too lazy for that. Let's just say that ancient Greeks (and Romans, I believe?) used to think homosexuality was THE BOMBBB 😎 they thought gay sex made a man more masculine and virile.

Precisely, I joked about Troye's Bloom because in his music video, he also uses a montage that mixes images of statues like the ones in Jimin's photofolio, with clips of naked men.

Jimin could've used faceless, genderless mannequins for the suit and freedom concepts as well, but he didn't. The statues paint, to me, a more concrete image. I wish I knew for sure that he chose this, or that he delivered his ideas to staff in a way that they understood perfectly he wanted to say something that would be easier to convey with the Greek statues.

I don't think people are reading too much into it if they think it's about his sexuality. He obviously isn't in a position where he can just come out and explicitly state his identity, but the subtext is there. He's not the first one to be "subtle" about this stuff, and he won't be the last either.

For the record, he might not even want to come out, and I know it's difficult for some people to grasp it, but not coming out doesn't mean being scared or anything; some people just want to keep their love life private.

I talked the other day about the world LOVE being meaningful in cultures, or for people that just can't go out and explicitly talk about queernes, and rainbows are obviously that as well. Not to involve his family or anything, but just as an example of how these things DO mean something for anyone who gets it. I mentioned before his dad's cafe posting this on the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 메그네이트 (@magnate_official_)

Maybe rainbows any other day wouldn't have a lot of significance, but they posted this on that exact day to send a message, as subtle as it might be, and as insufficient it might be for some people, it's okay. It's what they can do.

Not to be me but if these photos had been of any other BTS member, especially a couple of them, we wouldn't hear the end of it. But with Jimin these things always went under the radar for some reason.

I think Jimin is doing what he can, too, and I think it's beautiful. His sincerity and his ways of being unapologetically himself were always beautiful.

[cosmicanger]

“I’m bisexual but hetero-romantic. Meaning I am sexually attracted to both men and women but I’m only interested in being in a relationship with a man. Like girl we could bump coochies but I’m not cuddling and watching movies with you 😅😅😅”

^^^^

“i hate how y'all have taken the split-attraction model from the aroace context to justify bioessentialism, transmisogyny, and anti-transmasculinity”

“Love the strict adherence to the application of models of sexuality just to loop around and pathologize and police sexuality.”

^^^^

“Black trans women do not wield the power to "pathologize and police sexuality", especially when the "sexuality" in question is a reduction of gender to genitalia, which quite literally oppresses us. you're a cowardly, antiBlack obnoxious POS that is obsessed with projecting views onto other people they don't hold. i didn't say gender preference is bad, my sexuality actually involves a lot of gender preference. a lot of lesbians have gender preferences that we manage to divorce from bioessentialism and transphobia. the most obvious example being butch/femme”

“Niggas acting weird in the qrts as if the split attraction model being wrongfully applied isn’t the downfall of all gay n trans folk because it leads to all of us being fetishized and objectified. If u read the thread op is being very bioessentialist and heterosexist—Which begets transmisogyny + anti trans masculinity. Op dont see queer people as valid enough to be with, reduces sex with other sapphics to their genitalia and reinforces cisheteronormative behavior surrounding sexuality. Op isnt queer or gay theyre a queerphobic fetishizer.”