#all my wlw art do not objectify women i think | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eemamminy-art · 2 years

Text

I keep coming back to the same question in my head time and time again, which is the question of why genderbends are allegedly so harmful? It's a recurring thing I hear, people block me over it, but I can never wrap my head around it.

People point to it being objectifying or perpetuating gender roles, and I think those are fair criticisms of some works, but it feels disingenuous to say that about all genderbends. People genderbend a character to be trans (for ex. Transfem Estinien is one I see very often), or in my case I write and draw butch genderbends which float somewhere between gnc, nonbinary, and transmasc and are a way for me to express my own experiences and feelings about my identity. But those are seen as just as bad as the bimbofied genderbends of years past?

Something about it feels like policing of LGBT creators' expression and it really gets under my skin sometimes. People have wished harm and death on me for it, because of this notion that all genderbends are harmful without giving any reason why.

I think if someone is uncomfortable with media, we should be allowed to say so. I'm uncomfortable with drug use portrayed in media but I don't think people should stop writing, drawing, or filming that just because I'm uncomfortable. It should be okay to say "it's not for me".

One thing that sticks in my head about genderbends is people who say "you should just draw real women characters" as if any of them are real? As if you'd know the difference reading my fics or looking at my art if you've never played heavensward? No character is "real" anyway. If you take the time to look at or to read what I'm making, you'll see I'm writing about women's experiences, lesbian experiences, and gnc experiences. To say "oh you can't call it wlw or lesbian because they're men in the game" feels arbitrary. I'm making them wholly my own.

All that said, if it's uncomfortable to engage with please don't make yourself do so. All I ask is to just accept that there's nuance to it and don't condemn people for it, and to not wish harm on LGBT people expressing themselves through a medium that you don't personally like.

#text

90 notes · View notes

thedivinecalamity · 5 months

Text

I just want to ramble a bit on my thoughts on James Somerton before I watch Hbomberguys video on it so I can look back at this post (and feel totally validated on getting weird vibes from him) and see If my feelings were onto something. (Also I'm not pretending like I knew all along just how bad he is and trying to feel superior, sometimes I get bad vibes from channels and am right, and sometimes I'm totally blind-sided like with Gus Johnson who's videos I used to like)

One of the things that made me stop watching him was when he talked about anime/manga. The guy very clearly had a very western biased perspective on it (or at least whoever he was plagiarizing from) and never seemed to look for perspectives from the people of that actual culture, and also just seemed racist towards it in general.

Along with saying that most women who write/enjoy gay anime/fanfic are straight and fetishizing the relationships and gay men need to 'reclaim' the medium (after all, women aren't allowed to have anything, it all needs to belong to men). A lot of those women turn out to be queer, or later identify with a different gender/no gender.

Like I won't deny that fujoshis exist and that a lot of them are annoying and it is a problem, but I feel this issue goes so much deeper that people just don't seem to think about.

I'll try to articulate this point well even if no one is reading this cause I feel like screaming into a void.

Everyone jokes about whether some piece of medium would pass the betchdel test, cause women in a lot of media barely interact with men in a non-hetero way, let alone talk to other women. Which is why I think a lot of people, especially women, gravitate towards the relationships between the men. Often cause we have nothing to work with for the women. Like in the media I consume, which is a lot of manga I will admit cause I tend to prefer non-fiction for straight up literature, I will see a lot of interesting male dynamics, but often have to go out of my way to find any female dynamics at all. I genuinely like wlw relationships more than mlm but it can be hard to find especially if you're not going out of your way for it.

I think women also write a lot of gay porn because of how they are viewed/portrayed by society. Women are often so sexualized/objectified that I think a lot of them don't want to repeat that because they're tired of their bodies being seen that way. So I think they often flip it and try to sexualize men more in a bit of a middle finger way (like the rise in art of men in bunnysuits poledancing, which decades ago would probably seem ludicrous to hear a man in that situation, or taking comic book art and swapping the genders).

I will probably need to do more research on this next point, but I hear this may be a theory on why a lot of women have rape fantasies. I'm not speaking about rape victims having those fantasies cause I am just not knowledgeable enough about that and don't want to be hurtful with uninformed opinions. It's been stigmatized that women should not enjoy sex, and made the idea that females masturbating is shameful. So these fantasies can be seen as a way to enjoy the pleasure without having the guilt that you actually want sex. Ofc I know rape victims are stigmatized just as much if not more, so maybe this point is bunk. I hope nothing I said in this paragraph is hurtful, feel free to correct me otherwise.

Also just the fact that fandom spaces have often had a lot more women than men, and are often mocked for their interests. I won't deny that men haven't also been bullied decades ago for having 'nerdy' interests like Star Wars, but those people often tended to push women out of trying to join their groups. So women go on the internet and start forming these communities, and James now says that men need to 'reclaim' these spaces from women, that often were created because men pushed them out in the first place.

(I won't deny however that fandoms do have a misogyny problem. So many people do not seem to care about female characters. I won't deny that female characters can often be more poorly written, but I've seen people on here create entire personalities for male characters with none/not even having any speaking lines with none of that energy dedicated towards female characters. Skill issue.)

#thanks for coming to my ted talk #tdc rambles #long post #rape mention #sa mention #< hope those are good enough??

2 notes · View notes

alltheselights · 2 years

Note

Honestly can't believe anyone can watch that music video and think it's intended to show Harry as "one of the girls"

Yeah, same. I mean, first things first, I think a lot of people just ignored the overall concept of the video, which is not that Harry was actually dating or in love with or sleeping with any of the women or the men. I guess it’s my opinion, but to me it seemed obvious that what they were going for was that he kept showing up randomly in different beds, which means he ended up in a variety of settings with a variety of people - at a sleepover, on a train, at an art exhibit, in the sky like that old movie Little Nemo, and so on.

But more importantly, I think anybody acting like the music video is appreciating WLW or is just Harry with pals is out of touch with what he's actually showing and is yet another example of the fandom giving Harry a pass to sexualize and (I hate to even use this word because of its overuse in this fandom, but I must) fetishize women for his art with it always being excused as "oh, he's just appreciating the community!" or "oh, he's just one of the girls!" when that's clearly not what's happening.

Women in bathing suits faking orgasms in a music video next to a fully dressed Harry who’s sensually stoking or splitting open a watermelon to a song that his own close friends refer to affectionately as the "pussy-eating anthem" is not appreciating WLW or being "one of the girls." Mostly undressed women in bed stroking each other and stroking Harry’s face while he is fully clothed in pajamas is not appreciating WLW or being "one of the girls."

It is not that different from what rappers and other male artists do all the time. I can honestly picture someone like Jack Harlow making a video like this and I know for a fact that not a single person would be saying he’s just acting like one of the girlies or chilling with WLW. This corner of the fandom ONLY excuses it or comes up with alternative explanations because they believe Harry doesn't like women and therefore it must not be objectifying and must have a different intention. Meanwhile, everyone else views it as an orgy.

And since we’ve now gotten three music videos like this (I let Lights Up slide since the men and Harry are also mostly undressed there and it’s not just objectifying the women, but it still has a similar vibe), there is no reason to think that we won’t get more in the future. And why wouldn’t they do more like this? A lot of Harry’s fandom enjoys it because they want to be one of those women, and the other part of Harry’s fandom comes up with excuses to explain it away. Very few call it out for what it is.

#asks

29 notes · View notes

thatdiabolicalfeminist · 2 years

Note

I agree with alot of things on your blog, but when ever you bring up the male gaze i am always confused. For context, im nonbinary and bisexual, but have been having major questions about my gender and sexuality lately. Regardless, even before i started questioning myself, the whole thing about the male gaze always made me feel guilty and disgusting for my attraction to women.

If someone is not a woman, or not only a woman, can they still participate in the male gaze. Or is it something specific to people who are men and men only. If someone that is sapphic likes media about wlw, knowing that the media was not made for them but for men that fetishize people like them, is that sapphic person participating in a variant of the male gaze? Is it possible for someone that is not a woman to like or appreciate women without partaking in the male gaze? If so, in what ways are they partaking in it, and how can they prevent themselves from doing so.

I want to make it clear that i am in no way disagreeing with the concept of the male gaze, but more so confused on who and when the concept is applied to.

So "the male gaze" is a film/art analysis concept, basically the idea that the expected default audience of a work is straight men and that any portrayal of women in that work is sexualized/objectifying for the enjoyment of that expected audience, for the "gaze" of those heterosexual men.

Some feminists (including me in the past, I don't anymore for clarity's sake) have extended the usage of this phrase to talk about the way men in real life expect that women in real life should only exist in men's awareness for the sake of those men's (often erotic and/or visual) enjoyment. It's mostly used to denote a specific flavour of objectification.

All of this is to say, objectification is the problem under discussion, both in film and in real life. Physical attraction isn't the same thing - when you find someone physically appealing you don't have to also treat them like that appeal is the whole point of their existence.

Do you see or treat women as objects to possess or to use, or whose purpose is your personal enjoyment? Do you prefer to ignore the fact that women are human beings just like you, with their own complex motivations, needs, dislikes, and experiences? When you look at women, are you seeing people or objects?

"The male gaze" isn't about being a man and looking at someone, it's a specific form of objectification in media made under patriarchy.

It's about hierarchial social forces, not every individual man. Even if you were a heterosexual man, you wouldn't be doomed to reenact this objectification upon the women you encounter. It wouldn't be unreasonable to accuse female filmmakers of catering to the male gaze sometimes either - but you just consuming media that objectifies its female characters doesn't automatically mean you are objectifying those women.

Think of this objectification not as an inherent quality based on gender, but as a specific form of patriarchial dehumanization that people of any gender can choose not to perpetuate.

Whatever your gender is, even if you eventually land on "man", being misogynistic isn't fate, it's not hard wired, it's just expected behaviour you can choose not to go along with. You will always have a choice about objectifying women, your gender won't change that. Even women have to decide not to see or treat other women as objects.

And your feelings about women aren't tainted with objectification automatically just because you find them physically appealing. Attraction isn't objectification, and the idea that objectification is an inherent part of being attracted to women is just another way patriarchy justifies misogyny.

If you want to make sure you don't get sucked into a mindset of objectification when you consume media that may objectify women, it may be helpful to consciously analyze the media's choices as you consume it. How are the female characters treated differently to male ones? Who gets more interiority? Who gets more agency, whose choices influence the story more? How are the camera angles or physical descriptions different? Do the female characters seem to exist only or primarily for the sake of an expected male gaze?

(A bonus round to this analysis could engage with how the expected audience affects how a piece of media treats lbt+ women/women of colour/disabled women/fat women/sex workers etc., the way the casting choices do or don't submit to misognynistic and otherwise oppressive beauty standards, and so on and so forth.)

#thatdiabolicalfeminist #asks

57 notes · View notes

auburnflight · 3 years

Text

Jeanne, Vanitas and Agency

From the little I’ve dipped my toes into it, the VnC fandom seems pretty heated regarding Jeanne as a character. In drastic situations, I’ve seen accusations of misogyny based solely on someone’s comments on their feelings about Jeanne... a single character. And while yes, critiques can certainly be rooted in misogyny (must women be strong all the time? must they be submissive?), I think it’s important to consider not just the character herself, but how the story treats her and why we’re making the critiques we are.

Given that points of view in the fandom are so polarized, I’m going back to canon--to the text itself--to orient this essay. In particular, I’m going to focus on the point of agency--the freedom to make one’s own decisions about one’s self and one’s course of action. This goes beyond just Jeanne’s background as a borreau, trained to fight and follow orders. Agency is also consequential in her relationships with other characters and with the story as a whole.

(Content warning for discussion of abuse dynamics, and brief mentions of sexual assault.)

It’s natural to start off with Jeanne’s first appearance in the story: alongside Luca, she’s introduced as a new agent of conflict with Noe and Vanitas’s budding alliance. In fact, she is the one who initiates the physical altercation with Noe and Vanitas, while Luca is still trying to talk them into giving him the Book of Vanitas:

Aesthetically and conceptually, she’s introduced as an active element of the story. At this point, the “forced kiss” scene during the initial fight seems more like a fluke, a comment on Vanitas’s personality (and willingness to do despicable things to get what he wants) rather than Jeanne’s.

That brings me to why I found it so jarring when colored art of her that was subsequently revealed: that agency fell away to portray a visually more passive air.

In the existing full-color art we have of Jeanne, she’s more static in her environment, looking towards the viewer but with a face that looks rather blank, even meek. Specifically I want to point out this wallpaper, which I obtained from the official site fairly early on in Vanitas’s serialization (December 2016), in contrast to another piece of official art that was released of Noe and Vanitas with Memoire 11, around the same time:

In both cases, the characters are posed intentionally, rather than actively doing something. And, they’re aware of the viewer’s gaze to some extent. However, Jeanne has her back turned to the viewer, and her expression is more idealized and ambiguous. Meanwhile, Noe and Vanitas are rather assertive: their expressions are more intentionally focused, and they seem to know their situation in the artwork. Jeanne is simply passive, very nearly objectified.

...Yeah, maybe this is just my art background speaking. But I also notice something similar happening in other official colored pieces of Jeanne, such as the cover of volume 4.

By this point in the story, lack of agency has become an even more significant element in Jeanne’s character arc: we learn that she’s been cursed. Not only is she unable to speak of the curse, it’s also in direct opposition to one of her primary character motivations, to protect Luca and those she cares about. Due to her uncontrollable urge to kill and drink blood, Jeanne fears that she’ll unintentionally hurt the very people she’s trying to protect.

Jeanne’s involvement with Vanitas also unfortunately comes with a sacrifice of her own agency. Seeing that she’s been cursed, Vanitas demands that she drinks blood from no one but him in exchange for keeping her secret. He further establishes her sense of reliance on him by promising that if he ever does see her lose control, he’ll kill her (so that she doesn’t harm Luca). Whether he’s simply a smitten 18-year-old who doesn’t yet know how to conduct healthy relationships, or whether he’s crafty and intentionally drawing Jeanne in further--or even whether it’s a mix of both--this idea of Vanitas’s control over her is reflected in the cover art for volume 4.

At this point, considering the literal events of the story, Jeanne’s passiveness is not only visual, but symbolic. In this illustration, Vanitas’s hand is grabbing Jeanne by her bow, and functionally by her neck: she’s being dragged along against her will, with little means of escape. And she looks at the viewer with a surprisingly similar expression to the previous illustration: one that communicates little say in the situation.

This matches up with their literal relationship in the story itself. Knowing she’s cursed, Vanitas is establishing her exclusive reliance on him, in exchange for keeping important secrets from others with whom she’s close (i.e. threatening to drive a wedge into their relationship). He’s already pushed himself upon her physically with clearly no warning or enjoyment from her. Yes, he’s been kind. And when Dominique trails Vanitas and Jeanne on their date, she notes that Jeanne is “terribly weak against any sort of kindness.” But in spite of some more “cute” and candid moments, the overall dynamic between Jeanne and Vanitas is far from genuine kindness. Returning to how Vanitas garnered an edge over her in their initial fight--with taunting, carefully chosen words--I would phrase it more as that Jeanne, a borreau trained to kill and inexperienced with matters of feelings, is particularly susceptible to emotional manipulation. (There’s more than a little irony in this internal comment from Jeanne, at the beginning of her date with Vanitas:)

Jeanne’s relationship with Vanitas becoming important isn’t, in isolation, inherently an issue. In most cases, it’s fun to see how a character who usually appears unshakeable is rounded out when we see them at their more vulnerable times. What makes me feel squicked out and worried on Jeanne’s behalf is how it’s executed, considering how it works in opposition to how she was introduced as a character, and how Jeanne and Vanitas’s relationship harkens back to known dynamics of abuse.

In other words, my discomfort is not at Jeanne herself for falling for Vanitas and his tactics. It’s at how she’s introduced with a promise of agency in her own story, and that agency is subsequently taken away in how she’s portrayed in official art, and in plot points as the story progresses. It’s at how their relationship begins to fall into a harmful template perpetuated by rape culture, where a man forces himself upon a woman at first, but she is shown to eventually enjoy those advances even when unwanted. I had high hopes for Jeanne as a character developed with her own agency, motives (and yes, for cool fight scenes that WLW like me can admire), and so far, Vanitas’s effect on her has threatened to overshadow these. This is where I think sections of the fandom throwing accusations back and forth of each other being misogynistic, on the grounds of criticizing Jeanne and her relationship with Vanitas, fail to see the wider issue.

Of course, eliciting this sort of discomfort may even be the whole point. Jun Mochizuki is known for putting her characters through tragic and painful situations, and her previous work Pandora Hearts is rife with unstable, imbalanced, and otherwise less-than-perfect relationships. But even without this background knowledge, a decisive scene that convinces me of the intentionality of this purpose is one I’ve written about before: Jeanne’s internal fantasy as she’s left unattended by Luca and loses herself in a storybook.

Here, Jeanne fantasizes about being the agent in her own story, a position that, the art reminds us, is often occupied by a male character such as a prince. Ultimately, this progression looks innocent and could serve to remind us of Jeanne’s more vulnerable, innocuous side. But including it here in the story could also serve as foreshadowing, a contrast to what Jeanne’s situation is like for her in reality. (If you want to read more on this panel specifically, my analysis is in the source link of this post!)

Essentially, critiquing Jeanne as a character requires more nuance than simply judging her individual characteristics. It’s necessary to also take into account the way that the story treats her and her relationships with others and other forces in the story. Not just is she allowed to be soft and emotional, but what consequences does this have for her, and how do the story elements lead the reader to feel about her being soft?

Personally, I think she’s very likeable as a character--her situation just seems unfair, and I feel like she deserves so much better than Vanitas and his schemes. I mean, she could easily destroy him with her gauntlet, and he knows it! But, then, it’s Jun Mochizuki. We should probably expect to be feeling pain and pity for her characters. Still, the relationship between Jeanne and Vanitas has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way, and I think this pretty much sums up why.

#vnc #vanitas no carte #the case study of vanitas #vanitas no shuki #aki likes analyzing things

100 notes · View notes

lord-squiggletits · 2 years

Text

Gonna be honest with this hellsite, seeing posts with sexy art of women drawn by men and people in the captions going “my feminist and lesbian brain are fighting” make me extremely uncomfortable.

Because like... there’s a difference between talking about how men in power have sexually abused women or how some sexual depictions of women promote harmful social norms or beauty standards or whatever.

Versus literally just some dude drawing just some women.

This idea that men’s sexual attraction to women is inherently oppressive, barbaric, unclean, or violent is fucking awful and gender essentialist as fuck.

Especially because this insistence that WLW love of women is inherently “different” and pure and non-objectifying is literally radfem/TERF rhetoric. And it’s also misandrist lmao but you people can’t handle the idea that your hatred of men is actually damaging so I won’t make a point out of that.

And as a bisexual woman who struggled with internalized biphobia for years, it made me repress my bisexuality even more because I would see sexy art of women, be attracted to it, but then see feminists (or “feminists”) calling it male gazey and objectifying, talking about how art by women is so much sexier and more respectful or whatever. So I was basically even further alienated from my own sexuality because I wasn’t in love with the types of women/artwork of women that WLW are “supposed” to like and I wasn’t experiencing attraction to women that was uwu so pure and free of filthy sexualization/objectification.

Everywhere I went was the idea that women’s sexuality was like, sunshine and daisies and wanting to hold hands and kiss, when what I felt was literally just normal sexual attraction “god that woman is hot I would fuck her” ogling of bodies and just being horny. But no, it’s only men that are carnal and lustful towards women and that makes them sexist pigs. Women simping and getting horny over the exact same images of women that men do? They don’t exist sweaty :)))) You should know that Women Are Inherently Different (And Better) Than Men and Women Don’t Think The Same As Men and WLW Love Is Inherently Pure and Not At All Dirty and Men Are The Dirty And Lustful ones (so if you’re dirty and lustful you’re Like A Man which either means Something Is Wrong With You or You Just Don’t Exist Sorry).

Internet ideas of female sexuality are literally just Puritanism 2: Electric Boogaloo: But Woke This Time

#discourse #i'm posting on the sideblog because more people know me here and this is also a personal thing that's bothered me a lot #i probably have more to say on this topic that's more elaborate and more eloquently described but i don't have time

2 notes · View notes

sometimesrosy · 4 years

Note

Hi, Rosy! I read an interesting article about queer narratives and accepting/valuing analysis of those narratives and the relationships they feature... even when they don't contain a Big Reveal or Big Confession, since that can happen for so many reasons. The point of the article was that the lack of an explicitly-stated "this is romantic" shouldn't diminish the realness of the romance, if the evidence is there. I thought you'd like it and I will link in a second ask bc I have more words (1/2)

(2/2) I hesitated to link this to Bellarke at first, because my instinct was to feel bad using queer rhetoric to shore up a straight romance AND THEN MY BRAIN WENT OH. B/C isn't a straight romance. It is queer. It has a queer narrative because of the way it's told, & Clarke is canonically bi, & bc both Clarke and Bellamy inhabit the opposite gender roles from what many would expect. It won't let me link but name is: Be Gay Do Crimes: The mystery story model of implicit queer storytelling

+++

That is fascinating. It’s probably a controversial opinion, because a lot of people don’t see bellarke as queer and don’t see m/f relationships where one or both people are bi/pan as queer, but as hetero. But Clarke is definitely bi so one of the members of that ship, at least, is not straight.

I’m not so sure their stories not conforming to gender roles is the same as being queer or non binary or what have you. I think it might more be a question of society, rather than identity? But I am not sure. This is a story where gender roles are more flexible...or rather it is a non-misogynist society that doesn’t have toxic masculinity anymore. But I am not sure how that is defined.

I’m not sure, as humans, a story that can be used to help define queer people couldn’t also define non queer people, since all people are human, and if it’s a truth about relationships, or love or even the revelation of such love, then it wouldn’t matter the gender or sexuality of the participants, right? The rules of love aren’t different for queer people than they are for straight people. The rules of SOCIETY are, but human to human? I don’t think so.

So if you tell a STORY of a love, and show the evidence of that love, for whatever reason, whether politics, or social bias or you don’t get to the end of the story, or taboo or external pressure or what have you, then that love should be seen as real, right? whether there is canon statement of romance or not. We can find the evidence throughout the story.

To be honest. That’s what I’ve been saying about bellarke for at least two years now. It’s what I’ve been saying about love stories. If you are showing the journey of two people’s feelings for each other, love feelings, romantic feelings, intimate interactions, and you can see that on screen, then that is a canon romance.

You don’t require that explicitly stated “this is romance” to make it so. There are many kinds of romance stories that don’t have the explicit statement in the beginning and there are some that don’t have it until the end.

I think this theory is especially true for queer stories because of the long standing taboo. These stories have been SILENCED, the people who tell them have been persecuted. So in order to tell their truths, they could hide them in the text, in the subtext, in symbolism, in contrast, in poetry, in art. And people who were looking for that could find it.

In this way, the queer subtext, never overtly stated as romance, but able to be read as subtext, is an act of resistance.

It’s empowering and revolutionary.

A standard literary technique or way to tell a love story is being utilized to subvert cultural expectations.

But the standard literary technique is still a way to tell a love story. And it doesn’t have to be queer or otherwise subversive to do so.

I don’t think the queer narrative of The 100 is subtext. It’s right on the top. They aren’t implying it. They’re telling the story and many of the people in the story are queer. They don’t STATE them as lesbians or bi or pan or whatever, and that’s a choice, right? Based probably in the genre and worldbuilding and how they created a world where homophobia no longer exists so isn’t need to be stated. And sometimes they end up with stories that don’t work for a large portion of the queer community. I can’t tell you if it’s a GOOD queer narrative, but they are creating a queer story, not the only queer story, not a definitive one, not a happy one, but it’s kind of “well, we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”

In this case, I think that queer rhetoric is transferable to Bellarke, and it would have been even if the show did not explore same sex relationships. If you use that queer rhetoric on Bellarke, it is so BLATANTLY a romance there would never be any doubt. And I’ve actually wondered about that with this fandom. Because it seems like they’re taking the way the homophobic audience has invalidated queer stories and using the same tactics to invalidate Bellarke.

I think sometimes, sadly, people who have been oppressed, can take lessons from the oppressors and then turn around and use the tactics of oppression on other people. Not just in this case, but in many. Those who are bullied sometimes become bullies themselves. (it is part of the cycle of violence and abuse.) So when CL fans wanted to invalidate the ship that threatened theirs, they did what the homophobes did to them. Called them delusional. Called them sick. Harassed them. Erased everything they saw as love and refused its existence. Because the thing is, if Clarke and Bellamy had been a same sex couple (both male or both female... you wouldn’t even need to change the names, or roles or personalities or behaviors, just the actor [i do believe this is the thought that had me realizing that they were taking on roles that had opposite gender expectations]) then the same people who say there is no proof of canon Bellarke, would be calling them canon, and married.

If they were mlm or wlw, then people would SEE that the way they look at each other, touch each other and talk to each other is not platonic. And this might be because of internalized homophobia, where seeing intimacy between same sex people is unexpected and seeing it between opposite sex people is expected, but it’s still true. The same behavior with a same sex couple would be shockingly and blatantly romantic, while with a man and woman, it is seen as PART of how they are supposed to interact, with an undercurrent of sexuality because, well, our society says that women are mean to be an object for men’s sexual objectification. Mlm would stand out because men are not “supposed” to be the object. and wlw would stand out because women are not “supposed” to objectify. And it doesn’t matter how much our conscious brains don’t agree with this, what we’re used to seeing in media is the woman as the object and the men as the objectifier. Another way we can see this is how every time Clarke has sex with someone who is not the correct endgame (CL or BC depending upon the speaker) she is called a slut by a lot of people. While Bellamy was allowed all sorts of slutty slutty behavior and not given a bit of trouble over it.

I feel like I’m going to get in trouble for this post. But I am interested in what you are saying and I have ALWAYS been interested in narratives of oppression and empowerment, in regards to gender, race, sexuality, culture, class or whatever. And to tell the truth, it’s all a part of our society. Our gender roles, our expectations of men and women, our concept of sexuality and identity. Who is allowed to love and be loved. Who is in power. Who is silenced.

Okay so it’s an interesting topic. And I’m gonna share it.

#the 100 #queer narrative #love story #show don't tell #kiss/confess/sex #subversive #gender #misogyny #literary analysis

33 notes · View notes

penzyroamin · 4 years

Note

Hi I know it’s been a bit but I’m the confused bi anon. I really really appreciated your response and it wasn’t too long. You made me feel a lot better. I was wondering if you could maybe suggest some books, tv, movies with bi female characters. Thanks soo much for the entire last response . You are absolutely incredible and so sweet. This means more to me than you could ever know❤️

of course!! i’m glad that my first response helped <3

disclaimer of course: i’m not bi! so i’m not an Authoritative Source on bi rep and what people want to see more of. i do actively seek out stuff about lgbtq+ characters, specifically girls and women, so i have some recs! however, i’ll also be adding some things that some bi folks i know have recommended because while lesbians and bi women have a lot in common, these are at the end of the day representing them, not me :)

extra-super favorites will be bolded! i’m putting this under a read more because... i read a lot of books. and recommended a lot of them.

books:

her royal highness by rachel hawkins-- this book is a pretty easy read-- don’t expect any massive revelations about life from it, and you’ll have a good time!!! essentially, a bi texan girl named millie, after having her heart broken by her friend-turned-sort-of-gf, goes to boarding school in scotland and ends up rooming with the princess, flora. if this sounds outrageous and sappy, that’s because it is! and i love it! sexuality isn’t a BIG part of this book, but it’s discussed, and it’s just a generally fun enemies-to-lovers story about a bi aspiring geologist and a no-fucks-to-give lesbian princess and them falling in love!

fried green tomatoes at the whistle stop cafe by fannie flagg-- hello this is actually my favorite book! unlike hrh it is... a LOT to read. it essentially follows 2 stories-- one about a housewife named evelyn and her friendship with an old woman named ninny threadgoode who she meets at the old folks home her mother-in-law stays at, and the other about the stories ninny tells her about her sister-in-law idgie and her partner, ruth. the book was published in 1987, and ruth and idgie’s story is set during the great depression, so they aren’t actively labeled as lesbian or bi, but it’s made obvious enough through coding and the fact that ruth has relationships with men prior to idgie while idgie spends her entire childhood pining after ruth. both storylines are fantastic-- they have a lot to say about the lives of southern women in the 30s and 80s, and about race relations at both periods. i’ll warn you that there are depictions of extreme racism and of abuse, but it handles both delicately. it’s a critical piece of southern literature, and a landmark for lgbtq+ storytelling. as a bonus, my copy has a bunch of great recipes in the back, so if you read it you might chance upon an edition with those in it. if you like poignant period pieces about wlw relationships, women losing their damn minds, and abusive men getting what they deserve, this is the book for you! you will sob. this is a fair warning.

you should see me in a crown by leah johnson-- i haven’t personally read this one, but i’ve heard great things about it from everyone i know who has! an anxious black bi girl in indiana has to win prom queen at her mostly-white school in order to get enough scholarship money to go to the college of her dreams, but ends up falling for mack, another girl running for queen.

@landlessbud wanted me to shout out red, white, and royal blue by casey mcquinston-- you’ve almost definitely heard about it before (first son and prince of wales, enemies-to-lovers with a side dish of political drama), and it is primarily about a mlm romance, but nora is a fabulously fun bi girl side character and there’s a lot of great stuff about figuring out your sexuality in it.

leah on the offbeat by becky albertalli-- i’ve read a lot of complex thoughts on this book, and mine are... i like it! it’s flawed, sure, and i wish it had handled a few things a little better, but you know what? it’s cute as fuck! leah is a fat bi drummer, and she’s super cool! abby is a great love interest, and she goes through a whole bi realization throughout the book. all in all, it’s just a fun wlw high school romcom with a couple solid dramatic beats and a lot of goofball shenanigans. also, if you were an american girl kid??? one scene in this book will make the entire experience worth it for you.

harley quinn: breaking glass by mariko tamaki and steve pugh-- hey, we’re in graphic novel territory now! this book is RAD. a really neat look at gentrification, community solidarity, giving people what they deserve, and fantastic lgbtq+ found families. teenage harleen quinzel is taken in by a group of drag queens, and is caught between two sort-of love interests-- mysterious vigilante the joker and classmate and community activist ivy-- and the different forms of protest and resistance they represent. the art here is STUNNING, and it’s a great read!

laura dean keeps breaking up with me, by the great mariko tamaki with art by rosemary valero-o’connell-- the vast majority of the characters are lgbt, with a lesbian main character, and the supporting cast including a bi nonbinary character, a bi girl character, and two mlm characters! this is mostly a piece about modern lgbtq+ teenagers and the way toxic relationships take over our lives. it’s one of the most cathartic things i’ve read in a LONG time, and especially if you’re at a point where your sexuality feels kind of vague, this is a great read because it embraces that vagueness by not needing to clearly label the characters and celebrates whatever point of clarity the characters are at. probably some of the most gorgeous art i’ve ever seen in a book, with a beautiful black-white-and-pink color scheme and a really neat approach to visual storytelling.

movies:

i don’t watch many movies, because i get bored really quickly hskdhskhds. but the movies i DO watch are usually gay!

wowie zowie its fried green tomatoes again!-- fannie flagg came back to adapt this into a film and HOT DAMN is it just as good. the plot is primarily the same, with some stuff obviously cut or trimmed to make it a two hour movie instead of a 450 page books fhsjdhsjhds. mary-louise parker plays ruth!!! it got a GLAAD award and an oscar nomination, and god it’s good. there are a couple scenes in here that i think are going to be in my mind until the day i die. the level of pure butch energy that idgie radiates in this film is a one-hit k.o. and it KILLS me.

birds of prey-- listen. this is not a profound movie. harley’s bisexuality isn’t emphasized, and romance is basically nonexistent in this movie. there is some... quite graphic violence. that said, this movie is so fucking fun. it’s mostly just a bunch of women fucking up everyone who crosses them while margot robbie gives a gleeful performance that you can just TELL she enjoyed the fuck out of. the last 20-30 minutes of this movie are the absolute best part, with a long sequence that kind of reinvented what an action/superhero movie could be for me. again, bisexuality isn’t a massive part of this-- it’s mentioned, and then harley just continues on in her gloriously campy outfits and breaks peoples’ knees. again, i CANNOT overemphasize just how fucking good the last 20-30 minutes are. this movie knows what it is and it embraces it. also, women beating people up in costumes that don’t horrifyingly objectify them is always a plus!

imagine me & you-- i’d be remiss if i didn’t mention this one, considering it’s probably one of the most iconic wlw romcoms. a woman named rachel, while at her own wedding, meets a florist named luce, and they fall in love. it’s a very sweet look at questioning your sexuality when you were already secure in it, and rachel’s husband wins “most genuinely understanding guy in a wlw movie” award. it has a lovely happy ending, and articles have been written about the importance of rachel being a bi character who a) gets a happy ending and b) isn’t shamed for figuring out her sexuality later on or slutshamed. this is just... a sweet movie. it’s the romcom a lot of us need in our lives. also, a LOT of floral imagery.

tv shows:

ok, i’ve got a confession. i reaaaaaaally don’t watch much tv. seriously, the only shows i’ve watched a substantial amount of recently have been parks and rec, schitt’s creek, the good place, and gilmore girls. i have a really REALLY short attention span.

that said, eleanor from the good place is bisexual!! the good place is a really wild ride, it’s half afterlife comedy half philosophical musing, and it will almost certainly make you gasp, laugh, think, and also probably cry. also, eleanor is just buckets of fun and she, like many of us, is often blown away by tahani (jameela jamil) and her beauty.

ummm shows i haven’t watched entirely or at all but that have bi women in them and seem pretty good: black lightning, sex education, jane the virgin, arrow.

if you haven’t already watched it, do not believe what people are going to tell you about watching glee. it will drag you into a pit of despair and white men rapping, and it’s quite biphobic to top it all off.

i hope you enjoy at least some of these!! i tried to include some of my own favs and some that were pointed out to me, so i hope that at least a couple connect with you and make you feel better. again, the bolded ones are my 100% favorites. i love you and i’m glad you reached out again!!! feel free to send some more asks later on <3

#asks #anon #bi anon #ily <3 <3 i hope these help #if anyone wants to add please do!! specifically bi women of color since theres a shortage of them in fiction and media #dont talk abt b/9/9 though id like to not praise diversity in a show glorifying cops

5 notes · View notes

isitandwonder · 7 years

Text

You know, I think I’m finally over BBC Sherlock. I’m not over my disappointment, but the show in general.

There are much better queer stories out there. Stories in which I don’t have to be satisfied with a knee grope or a shy, awkward hug, or twisting lines to wring some content from them that might hint at something between John and Sherlock - always staying in the realm of the ambiguous, never taking a clear stance.

There are stories - films and TV series - that actually show what happens in queer relationships, without shying away to engage with the physical side of such relationships. This shying away still bears the attitude of shame - we can’t show this!

Why not?! I have to watch men and women snogging, groping, fucking all the time on telly and in films - even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the stories and doesn’t advance the plot. Let me just think of one of the last movies I watched - Alien Covenant: M/F explicitly making out in the shower, while the relationship between two men is just hinted at with a touch - as one of them is dying, of course (fair enough, the m/f couple in the shower dies as well). Still, I get explicit m/f sexual action shoved in my face that does nothing for the plot. Yet, queer people should be satisfied with the blink-and-you-miss-it mention they get in this movie.

In the face of that, how can people say that what Sense8, Eyewitness, Versailles, American Gods, even London Spy (I know, problematic) does/did is TOO MUCH GAY SEX? It’s not. It might only be the first step to equality. And it’s important to show the physical side of same sex love, to state that it isn’t dirty or perverted or whatever. A way of life that is in itself defined by sexuality needs visual representation of this sexuality in all it’s variety - from kinky orgies to sleepy cuddling, done by old and young folks of all ‘ethnicities’.

But isn’t that just gay porn - and me, a straight woman watching, is objectifying those gay men/characters for my own pleasure? First of all - so what? Men have objectified women and wlw for centuries. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to do the same? Why do I have to be ‘better’, morally superior, purer? I don’t. IMO two cocks are better than one. The more, the merrier.

Second, of course it’s not that easy. Women engaging with gay porn do so for a more complex variety of reasons than simply to get off by watching two dudes fucking. By watching two men, I get, at least on the surface level, a relationship that doesn’t set out by defining who is strong and who is weak (who penetrates or gets penetrated, who fertilises and who gets pregnant). I see two equals. And as women are removed from the equation, I don’t have to fear to watch fellow females being degraded, used,objectified, or assuming whatever role that isn’t me, or watching stuff I wouldn’t like done to myself. I can just watch what I like, without caring too much, without identifying too much. I can engage and keep my distance. And as there’s not that much good porn done for women, I think that’s another reason for me flocking to those series that show explicit gay content.

BBC Sherlock never did that. I hoped it would - somehow, at least. Yes, I admit, I wouldn’t have minded seeing two middle-aged, white blokes ‘fucking’ (making out/being openly in love). I’m too old for will they/won’t they and all those suppoedly ‘gay’ shenanigans that led nowhere in the end. BBC Sherlock just isn’t queer and (perhaps) never intended to be. The gay pilot was a promise never fulfilled.

I’m still a Johnlocker. I will always be. I still LOVE the art/fic this fandom produces, because it goes where I hoped the show would go as well. But I’m not clinging to a show that by now clearly told me that what I’m looking for is not what they’ll intent to deliver. And I won’t miss out on all the good content out there by obsessing over a show that’s not going where I hoped it would.

Therefore, I’ve been unfollowing many blogs. Sorry, it’s just, I need something else/new. It actually feels kinda good to let go. Watching BBC Sherlock gifs/pics etc felt like preventing a festering wound from healing lately. And it became very repetitive after a while - because there are only those few scenes johnlockers can work with, and after a few years, I’ve seen them all and have the feeling that I read every possible interpretation - twice.

I’ll still be following my mutuals. I’ll still look at the odd Ben or Martin pic. But the desperation’s gone. For BBC Sherlock, not for Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.

So, towards new shores! If you blog about art, feminism, queer tv/film, archaeology, history, books, writing (and you are an adult and preferably nsfw), I’d be delighted to follow you.

#personal #sherlock #johnlock

95 notes · View notes

sloanecore · 7 years

Text

hey whats up taz fandom can we chat

hey yall can we talk abt lesbophobia for a hot second bc it has been uhhh disturbingly prevalent lately. i just wanna preface this by saying i absolutely welcome feedback + don’t claim to speak for anyone else. if you have thoughts on this i’d love to hear them + possibly have a discussion.

so here’s the thing: there’s been an Uncomfortable amount of lesbophobia in the TAZ fandom lately in 2 distinct ways. #1 is, of course, the Lup discourse. I KNOW I KNOW you feel a creeping sense of dread at the very words but hear me out for a second.

here’s my hot take: her sexuality hasn’t been confirmed and anyone can have whatever headcanons they want without people slamming them up until her sexuality gets confirmed (if it ever does). before i delve into how lesbophobia has starred in this particular discourse, let me get something out of the way that may raise a few eyebrows at first:

blupjeans isn’t canon (yet).

do i think it will be? yeah probably. is it as of yet? big fat nope! we know barry has feelings for lup. we know lup trusts him. we do NOT know if lup has romantic feelings for him. she told taako to trust him, she put a friendly arm around him in a portrait that she didn’t pose for that was painted before she knew he had feelings for her, and she picked up his glasses. it isn’t canon yet, and insisting that it is is dumb and a waste of time because it contributes nothing to this discussion.

Anyway! on to the main point. i headcanon lup as a lesbian. hi! what’s up, how ya doin. i’m a lesbian who loves projecting. most of my TAZ friends are in the same boat. none of us have made any posts, messaged each other, or anything of the like about disliking bi/pan lup HCs because—news flash—we don’t dislike them. we think they’re awesome. lesbians and bi/pan women aren’t “natural enemies” like some of you seem to want them to be.

but you know what i have seen? a RIDICULOUS amount of posts—a lot of them from people who aren’t even gay/bi/pan women—decrying lesbian lup HCs, talking about how much they hate them, how entitled and whiney the people who have them (lesbians) are, and like, listen. I get it. every fandom needs its opportunity to Let It Out re: hatred of the Big Bad Dykes. but it’s getting ridiculous.

if your reasoning for why lesbians can’t HC lup as gay is because she’s “been involved with/is involved with a man” (which, still, unconfirmed) surprise! that’s lesbophobic. plenty of lesbians (hi! me! what up!) have had past relationships with men due to compulsory heterosexuality. this doesn’t make us “not gay” and it super sucks for non-lesbians to try to enforce the toxic gold-star mentality that we as a community have spent so long fighting to move past.

lesbians having lesbian headcanons for characters with unconfirmed sexualities/straight characters harms no one and does not nullify bi/pan headcanons that people might have for the same character. We Can Get Along it’s not as hard as y’all are making this!

also, a lot of the justifications for trashing lesbian lup headcanons i’ve seen have included something along the lines of “all the other girls in TAZ are lesbians” “there’s a ton of lesbian representation in TAZ” “this is the PERFECT opportunity to HC a character as bi.” which. okay.

1: no. 0 characters have been Confirmed as lesbians. zero, zilch, nada. as it stands, taako is the only character with a confirmed sexuality. there’s confirmed WLW for sure! but No confirmed lesbians.

2: nope again! what is this in reference to, the side couple that’s barely mentioned or the dead ones?

3: hoo boy! here’s the thing: the other women in relationships in TAZ have been in relationships with other women. lup is the first to be implied to be involved with a man. none of the canon WLW in TAZ are canonically confirmed lesbians. there is and has been nothing stopping anyone from HC’ing sloane, hurley, killian, or carey as bi or pan. if lup is “the perfect opportunity” because she’s maybe involved with a man and you’re subconsciously making that a prerequisite for Good Bi Rep, that’s a You problem that you need to unpack on your own without dragging lesbians into it!

if you can tweet all day about how lesbians allegedly think lup being with barry is “not queer enough” (no one alive has ever said that and also that’s its own special flaaaavor of lesbophobia, so thanks) but you automatically consider a woman whose only canonically shown relationship was with another woman to be a lesbian, that says more about you and you should probably examine that before you project your weird insecurities onto your imagined Enemy Dykes. i know it’s easy to impulse hate us, but here’s a thought: Fucking Chill Dude

Alright!! onto the second Big TAZ Lesbophobia: objectification!!!!!!!

let me set the stage. eh-hem.

Years ago, lesbians in fandom said “Gee, I wish people would stop ignoring us!” And the monkey paw curled one finger, and the TAZ fandom was born.

i see posts Every Goddamn Day about how the whole TAZ fanbase are toxic homophobic fetishizers of MLM and to an extent i understand where that anger comes from because MLM fetishization is a pervasive issue in fandom (though the specific Issue addressed in most of those posts makes me fall asleep instantly because it isn’t even deep enough to drown in). but the thing that really gets me is that the authors of those posts—and like, a good 80% of the fandom in general—objectifies WLW to an OUTRAGEOUS extent and it is honestly hilarious for them to be getting on a soapbox about how shipping certain characters is homophobic while perpetuating almost that exact issue with WLW as their puppets.

i don’t know when lesbians and having a new wacky ~cute~ f/f pairing (between characters who have never spoken and never will) every hour on the hour became the Hot New Trend, but as a lesbian, It Kind Of Fucking Sucks Guys!!! we aren’t dolls. we aren’t your Pure Soft UwU playthings that you can jam into any pairing you want to make wildly OOC art of them braiding each others’ hair in the moonlight or whatever. if you’re a nonlesbian/non-WLW and you have 18 ships with the same 4 girls or you reblog posts like the “luptroth is the new ship” post (altho hey at least those two have fuckin Spoken), You’re A Fucking Geek and Very Annoying and i also probably feel unsafe or at the very least uncomfortable with you!

instead of pouring your energy into f/f crackships (get off your high horse, you aren’t ‘creating representation,’ you know damn well that isn’t how that works) maybe you could create some more fucking content for the two (2!!!! one of whom is UHHH dead!) canon f/f ships that we have—*spongebob “AND LIVE” voice* AND NOT AS THE BACKGROUND PAIRING TO A M/M FIC!!!!

also, quick note before i finish, stop using the futch scale to refer to nonlesbians/if you aren’t a lesbian you freaks it’s For Lesbians. bye

#taz #the adventure zone #i wrote this all at once so it might be a little rocky to read but i tried to space it enough to make it easier

3 notes · View notes