#i mean like i can accept when people do analysis of the way sexuality is portrayed in these movies it just like | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

drdemonprince · 3 months

Note

I read your newsletter about "transmisandry" today. I'm a trans man and I generally agree with what you said. However, I was wondering how you would classify a particular experience of mine and other trans men I know irl or have seen online.

In short, I find that in some queer spaces, masculine and/or "binary" (meaning, not non-binary) trans men are treated as outsiders and enemies. I imagine some straight-passing queer cis men experience similar.

This prejudice against masculinity has nothing to do with us being trans, and is in no way oppressive, but it seems to me that some people have a hatred/disgust/discomfort/etc. with masculine men, especially if we are proud of our manhood. I sometimes feel excluded in queer or progressive spaces, and like I have to change myself to fit into others' idea of "acceptable" manhood.

I think this tends to emotionally affect trans men in particular because being a man is generally hard-won and joyful for us. Have you experienced prejudice in queer spaces, especially trans spaces, for being transmasculine? And while I don't believe there exists systemic misandry, is this not a form of misandry, just interpersonal?

Thanks, I really appreciate your work.

Hi there, thank you for great question. What you are describing is certainly a very real and troubling dynamic within both queer and feminist spaces, and it's put me off for a very long time. I have sometimes referred to this as "playful 'misandry' feminism", always with "misandry" in quotes because, as we've already established, it's not a real locus of systemic oppression. I have also sometimes in the past likened it to "Men's Tears Coffee Mug" feminism in its performative, self-congratulatory, typically white feminist stance.*

*in the Koa Beck sense of the term. Someone who is not white can be a white feminist.

I was always put off by performative man-hating jokes and the exclusion of men within feminist spaces because, well, I was one, and because it nearly always played out in transmisogynistic ways that were transparent to me, and because I was a major ride-or-die for men who were victims of sexual violence yet were frequently excluded from survivors' spaces (again, because I was one, even before I realized that I was).

There are a lot of troubling effects that happen when feminist women make a big performance out of finding all men to be disgusting and evil and frequently express disinterest in men's feelings or suffering (which used to be way more common in my estimation, around the early 2010's or so it seemed to peak). I was driven away from feminist spaces as a young closeted trans man because I could see such spaces were not for me or for any of the other men that I cared about and needed support. On the inverse side of things, I have spoken to many trans men who said that "playful "misandry"" feminism actively made it harder for them to realize that they were guys. Men were seen as the enemy and inherently evil and destructive and so they felt absolutely disgusting about the possibility of being a man, or feared transitioning would get them seen as a betrayer of the feminist movement.

As you rightly note, it is not just trans guys who get excluded by such dynamics. Cis men who are genuinely avowed feminists can be driven away by such forces, which is especially upsetting in the case of sexual assault survivors and queer men. Trans women and TMA enbies are excluded from feminist and women's spaces because they supposedly "look like" men to these types, and their own feelings of superficial safety rank above the actual data on who is the most at risk structurally (which is trans women). Butches are regarded in some spaces as too aggressive or unacceptably masculine because of it. And people's analysis of gender oppression just overall sucks when they buy into "playful misandry" style feminism because they go around saying shit like "femme people are oppressed by masc folks." what the hell does that mean. Does a cis, gender conforming feminine woman have less structural power than a butch lesbian? I don't think so.

It seems to me that the big problem here is that "playful misandry" feminism is rooted in a deep deep misunderstanding of the structural nature of oppression. Sexism isn't caused by patriarchy and capitalism, it's caused by "men" and so hating men and excluding them is what will fix things. Men as individuals are responsible for sexism and so women should be as detached from them and unsupportive of them as possible. This logic leads to a TERFy place really quickly, and yes, it also really really damages trans men.

My opinion is that it's best to critique this problem as the political failure that it is: a misunderstanding of sexism as individualistic rather than systemic. That's the core issue from which all the problems flow -- from rampant transmisogyny to the exclusion of cis male sexual assault survivors to the feelings of alienation of trans men. Yes sometimes naming the performative nature of "man hating" jokes and the like is helpful because people recognize instantly what that dynamic is when they hear it. But the "misandry" itself is not the core problem -- it's the shitty gender politics and white feminism.

Does that make sense? To be clear, I think it's something trans men get to talk about. I talk about it from my positionality quite a lot really. I don't think "misandry" is ultimately the helpful or clarifying way to name it, but I will sometimes throw around that term with a TON of qualifiers if I'm discussing the specific interpersonal dynamic of women saying that men are evil rapists innately or whatever. But really discussing the broader gender politics failure that leads to those little shitty comments and looks is almost always more helpful. If trans guys and cis guys are feeling excluded from a space due to these dynamics it's almost always the case that trans women, TMA enbies, butch women, and lots of women of color are too.

113 notes · View notes

olenvasynyt · 10 days

Text

I don’t listen to Taylor Swift but here’s my analysis of Guilty As Sin? being Elucien coded

I am not saying SJM posting this song on her story is a sign that Elucien is endgame or that Elain’s book is next, this is just my interpretation of a song and it is not based in fact! I also don’t know TS lore or her dating history, I only know about the football guy, and Matty Healy because I’m ex-The 1975 fan

Drownin' in the Blue Nile He sent me "Downtown Lights" I hadn't heard it in a while

Downtown Lights by The Blue Nile is one of Matty Healy’s favorite songs and a verse from that song is this:

“Sometimes I walk away When all I really wanna do Is love and hold you right There is just one thing I can say Nobody loves you this way It’s alright”

If I were to relate this to ACOTAR, this is reminiscent of the stairs moment when Lucien is leaving to find Vassa and an army and we can see this longing and affection for Elain but he walks away. Sometimes I walk away when all I really wanna do it love and hold you right. I think we are going to see her POV of that moment and I feel like it is going to be very prevalent in Elain’s book because Elain takes a half-step. What does that half step mean?

My boredom's bone-deep This cage was once just fine Am I allowed to cry? I dream of crackin' locks

This could be about how Elain is being kept in a box in the Night Court, about how she might have been trying to love it before but she wants to get out, it’s not the right place for her. She does not fit in the Night Court, we see this when she wears black and it sucks the life out of her.

Crashin' into him tonight, he's a paradox I'm seeing visions Am I bad or mad or wise?

Elain sees visions. And people also suspect that she could be seeing visions of Lucien.

What if he's written "Mine” on my upper thigh only in my mind?

Mine is a song by The 1975 and this song is about commitment and questioning what’s right and having this assurance that love is right.

Looking back on 2009 When people said that it was raining all the time I see sunshine 'cause I know that you are mine

“No, we saw rain, you guys weren’t right for each other, but he still sees sunshine, because I know that you are mine.” This also reminds me of when Lucien says in his head “I am yours and you are mine”.

I'm slippin', fallin' back into the hedge maze Oh, what a way to die

This could be about Elain struggling to navigate her thoughts and the visions she is probably still having but pushing down. She might be better at controlling them but her control is slipping.

I keep recalling things we never did Messy top lip kiss, how I long for our trips Without ever touchin' his skin How can I be guilty as sin? I keep these longings locked in lowercase inside a vault

Again, as I and many people talked about before, Elain could be having feelings of attraction and affection towards Lucien, her mate, but she is shoving it down.

We've already done it in my head, if it's make-believe Why does it feel like a vow we'll both uphold somehow?

People often headcanon that Elain is having sexual feelings and maybe even sexual visions of Lucien.

And the vow is the vow of accepting the mating bond and she feels guilty of that.

My bed sheets are ablaze I've screamed his name Buildin' up like waves crashin' over my grave Without ever touchin' his skin How can I be guilty as sin?

Again, we get this idea that Elain could be having attraction towards Lucien. And we got fire imagery too!

What if I roll the stone away? They're gonna crucify me anyway What if the way you hold me is actually what's holy? If long-suffering propriety is what they want from me They don't know how you've haunted me so stunningly I choose you and me religiously

It’s people saying “you guys are wrong for each other. You are wrong, you guys don’t fit together”. We see this with Feyre questioning why her and Lucien are mates, Nesta yelling at Lucien, saying “we’ll decide what she needs”. A lot of people don’t think Elucien are right for each other but Elain could be thinking “we are right” but she is too influenced by other people’s opinions that she doubts herself. “But what if she chooses him? What if she rolls the stone away, officially bringing to life the feelings she could have for Lucien?

They don’t know how you have been haunting me so stunningly I choose you and me religiously

Lucien has been haunting her, and Elain decides to choose him.

#elucien #pro elucien #acotar #elain archeron #lucien vanserra

70 notes · View notes

fierrochase-falafel · 9 months

Text

"All the names are changed to protect the innocent"- an analysis of Marvin's use of names

So y'know how in In Trousers, Marvin is the only named character who actually has screentime and all the women in his life are nameless (ignoring his teacher, Miss Goldberg). It's pretty clear this is, to an extent, a sign of Marvin not seeing the women in his life as people in their own right as he appreciates the affection of no woman actively giving him any, and that he only focuses his attention on unattainable women (such as Miss Goldberg) as a form of compulsory heterosexuality and men (Whizzer).

I do, though, think it's interesting to note that in Love is Blind (in March of the Falsettos), Marvin says "Love reads like a bad biography, all the names are changed to protect the innocent". Marvin's experience of love so far has been women whose names he has left unsaid. Given Whizzer refuses to acknowledge he loves Marvin, and Marvin says he loves Whizzer "sorta, kinda", their relationship isn't taken fully into account as love Marvin has experienced. Marvin does admit he loves Whizzer to Mendel later in the "sorta kinda" conversation, but says he would only concede it if Whizzer loved him back, meaning that he refuses to fully accept that love unless Whizzer said he loved him first: Marvin's inner dialogue does not really see Whizzer as part of his vision of 'love' (albeit ironically the only true romantic love he has experienced). Hence, Marvin's experience of love, at this point, really has had his previous lovers' names changed, perhaps to protect them from people recognising them as having engaged with him at all.

Who this decision is protecting, though, depends on who is innocent. Maybe Marvin had some amount of sympathy for both his high school sweetheart and his wife as being innocent victims of loving him when he didn't love them in return. However, in March of the Falsettos, Marvin does say his wife's name for the first time (I think!) in 'Marvin hits Trina', and he says it not 1, not 2 but 8 TIMES. In quick succession. This song takes place immediately after he gets an invitation to Trina and Mendel's wedding. Trina having her own life makes her no longer 'innocent' as he sees her as having betrayed him, so he addresses her by name repeatedly in anger at this.

I think it's also worth noting that from a point of view of innocence, the first whole name revealed in the musical is that of Whizzer Brown. Whizzer is someone Marvin is very well aware of being sexually experienced, which contradicts the idea of innocence as someone naive to concepts such as sex. He sees Whizzer as someone who is not innocent, and so his name is left in fully throughout. The multiple meanings of 'innocent' to both imply sexual inexperience and having done nothing wrong, can also group together having a lot of sexual experience with being guilty of it. The negative connotations of these together subtly shows Marvin's internalised homophobia and conflicted views on Whizzer and his unapologetic flamboyance. One could also say Whizzer is basically a walking pride flag in how he seems unashamed of his personality and life, and his name is also very obviously on display as such as he has nothing to hide or stash away. Arguably that is innocence, but I don't think Marvin sees it that way. Anyways, this is getting a bit convoluted.

Through this one line, even though it seems strange-sounding and just a pretty odd throwaway at first (atleast it did to me on the first few listens), you get a distinct idea of Marvin's view of what is innocent and what is guilty, and who he deems to be innocent in a world where he sees himself as the highest power. Trina and Whizzer, as individuals who disagree with Marvin's views of what is right on a particular front, are guilty. While trying to hide their names initially when mentioning "his wife", "his child" and "his friend" in Tight Knit Family, his opinion of their lives comes out on top in this love-biography he has in his head. He writes the bad biography (even he admits it's bad, funnily enough), and to him they aren't innocent. Obviously he goes through major character development at the end of March of the Falsettos, and this seems to make his use of names less distinct. He says Whizzer's name more softly, with emphasis on love, and I don't think he says Trina's very much at all, maybe letting go with his anger and view of her as 'guilty'. This is last part is largely conjecture though! I'd love to hear more people's takes on this.

Edit: I just realised! In terms of innocence, Miss Goldberg's name being revealed is probably also representative of her adulthood when Marvin's in school, making her seem more 'mature' to him and thus not innocent (given how childhood often connotes innocence.

#names #falsettos #falsettoland #march of the falsettos #in trousers #marvin falsettos #trina falsettos #whizzer falsettos #whizzer brown #falsettos meta #miss goldberg #in trousers meta #analysis time by me so I can track them in my tags #posts originating from my brain

215 notes · View notes

artist-issues · 2 months

Note

Hi. I hope you're doing well. I wanted to let you know that your story analysis and whatnot goes hard. I've been enjoying going through your posts, especially in regards to receiving your insight on Disney related things. I also like that your Christian lens brings a very specific view to the table. I find it valuable, even as I recognize where I disagree with you.

Reading some of your thoughts though, I came across one post where you said something that greatly intrigued me. You said that, "homosexuality is a sin that is only destructive when it isn't submitted to Christ."

What would it mean to you to submit it to Christ in this context? Especially regarding how that would work with homosexuals such as myself. My own religious background hasn't given me the lens to fully understand the language that you used, and I'd appreciate further insight for better understanding.

In either case, I would like to thank you for your time in reading this, and hope you have a good one.

Wow, this is an incredible ask. Thank you for sending it, and being so kind and respectful. I will be honest: I don't remember which of my posts that's from, so I might get the context of what I meant there wrong. But I know that the Bible is consistent, so I'm not worried about trying to make what I believe on the topic clear!

I don't know your "religious background" and in our current culture it's not always effective to assume that what I mean when I use a word is the same as what you understand when I use that word. But the Lord'll make up for that,

So here goes!

People have been born with desires that are twisted (think like a spine that has vertebrae out of place, not "twisted" as in "I'm insulting you.") since mankind fell. Some of those desires are for power, some are for gratification of a sexual impulse, some are for selfish comforts, etc.

I think what I meant this: Homosexuality is not special or especially impossible to pop back into place; it is one in a list of twisted desires. And when you decide "no, I'm not in charge of my life—the God who made me is in charge of it, and if He says something in me is out of place, He's right, AND what's more, He can put it back together. I identify as His much-loved creation: I do not identify with the parts of me that are out of place/I do not identify as my homosexual desires." That would be submission.

I didn't make that up, and neither did any religion. God did. It's in the Bible:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revolvers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (See, it's in a list of twisted desires/actions/sins that people identify with.)

But then the next part is:

"And such were some of you: but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of God." I added emphasis for clarity's sake, but see? Such were some of you--Christians. People who are called righteous by God, were once "homosexuals—people who identify with their unrighteous desires." But then they submitted those desires to be washed, and took on the name of Christ, instead of the name of "homosexual," or the name of anything else, for that matter.

If you're interested in reading more of my philosophy, or what I meant after hearing that:

God did make you for love. Love isn't wrong. Like how a toymaker made a little tin soldier to bring joy to children. It's natural and right for you to desire sexual intimacy and unconditional-selfless-acceptance from another person. You're supposed to desire that—the same way a sentient tin soldier might be "supposed to desire" being played with.

But, when mankind fell, they fell because they decided they wanted to be God. They wanted to pick what was right, and wrong, and good, and bad, for themselves. But that whole goal was a lie: it was never even an option. But we reached for what wasn't there anyway. And as a result, all of humanity's desires got corrupted.

So now that desire for love that the human being was made to have, and made to feel fulfilled by the God that loves them perfectly, is twisted up. It's corrupted. Suddenly you don't want love the way you were designed to have it; you want something that doesn't exist (because God gets to decide what "love", is, too, He invented it,) and doesn't fit.

See, that original desire is still there, and that's why it feels so confusing to be told "what you love is wrong" because you feel like it's such an integral part of you—and it is. But it's just twisted up. You weren't meant to love the same gender, or someone abusive, or any of the counterfeits. That "love" part of you was meant to love God, (and if another God-loving person of the opposite gender can enhance your love for God, to include them in that in this beautiful harmony.) But that part of you's twisted up. So it's still trying to beat, but it's to all the wrong rhythms.

It would be like the little sentient tin soldier suddenly deciding he should be a real soldier and fight the Revolutionary war. He thinks "I feel brave, I was built with a sword, I should do this." But he wasn't made to use it like that, so no wonder his toy sword immediately gets smashed in a real fight.

But then it gets worse. He doesn't go back to the toymaker and say "you were right, I was never made for this, and now I'm battered and broken and I can't do what I was actually made for—no child will find enjoyment in a shattered toy." He doesn't do that. Instead, he just keeps hopping into battle, poking feet with his bent-up toy sword and getting ground into the mud.

If the toy soldier would just go back to its maker and say "you were right, and I don't deserve it, but only you can help me" the Toymaker would straighten the sword. Shine him up. Give him a new coat of paint—and even better, he would give the toy soldier an add-on to his original purpose—he'd give him hands big enough to hold the tools that fix other toys. Now the toy soldier has new life in the purpose that he was made to be satisfied by, AND he can help other toys who lost their way, too.

That's what Christian's call "The Gospel." That's Jesus' sacrifice on the cross: the toy soldier got what he wanted and deserved to be left in the mud, but instead the Toymaker took what he deserved, and gave him new life.

But it took that submission, first. The toy soldier might still look fondly at real soldiers and might even have the feeling, as the Toymaker is still cleaning him up, that he might want to go back and be a real soldier again. But that's the thing: the Toymaker's changing his desires back to the way they were before he ever reached for the thing he wasn't made for, too.

Anyway, I don't know if that janky little analogy helped. I know our two worldviews are really embattled right now—they have to be, because they are opposites—but you asked so kindly, and I appreciate it. "Such were some of you"—such was I. I was you. Now I'm in Christ. You can be, too; you were made to be. But all that to say, I'm not judging you—because such was I, and such would I be if not for Him.

#Christianity #my one comfort both in life and death #Christ #Jesus Christ #homosexuality #Christians #asked #answered

31 notes · View notes

mxjackparker · 30 days

Text

Working Guys: A Transmasculine Sex Worker Anthology

Launching May 1st 2024! There are trans men and transmasculine non-binary people involved in sex work and we deserve to be heard. This anthology aims to share what it's like to be a transmasculine person who sells sexual services, something we rarely get to hear about. Sign up to be notified when the Kickstarter launches, here:

Read the full pitch below:

While we are slowly seeing more accounts about the experiences of sex workers being shared, there are large gaps in the representation. As a transmasculine sex worker myself, I have tried to seek out stories about people like me and had immense difficulty in doing so. I come across people like myself all the time, but they rarely have a platform to discuss the nuances of sex work as a trans man or transmasc non-binary person.

The intention is for this anthology to serve as a snapshot of a broad range of transmasculine experiences selling sex and porn and other sexual services. It will include the stories of roughly a dozen transmasculine sex workers, with quotes from more, interspersed with an analysis of the common patterns we see. My hope is that projects like this will make other trans sex workers feel less alone, and inform the wider public about our lives.

As someone who has sold sex before, during, and after my transition, in addition to other forms of sex work, it is extremely apparent to me that my work has been changed by my transness. I have had to deal with clients who fetishize trans men, clients misunderstanding what it means for me to be trans no matter how clear I am, transphobic violence, the loss of my ability to sell sex in certain venues (like brothels only accepting women), and a plethora of other difficulties. Only through being open about my own status as a sex worker have I discovered many other transmasculine people in the industry, who are often overlooked, and I am so tired of hearing people say it is very rare for trans men and transmasculine non-binary people to sell sex!

The anthology will include content about:

How coming out as transmasculine whilst doing sex work impacts income and the number of clients.

What it feels like to hide being trans and to sell sex under the guise of being a cis woman.

The gendered way that people tend to discuss sex work and how resources or services for sex workers fail to consider trans men and non-binary people.

Whether the sexuality of clients makes a difference in their behaviour.

Using sex work to pay for transition-related surgeries.

Solidarity between transmasc and transfem sex workers.

I've written about trans guys and non-binary people doing sex work before, like in my Transmasculine Guide to Sex Work or The Hidden Trans Men in Sex Work, including my own experiences - I'd like to be able to pay a range of other transmasc sex workers to share their stories too, especially because there's so little out there which discusses our lives!

I also ran a previous Kickstarter, to publish an English translation of a book from 1884 about prostitution, which became far more than fully funded. All those backers got their books and it was a great success, so I'm confident I can manage this project.

Please reblog this post and sign up to be notified, so you can get yourself a copy once the Kickstarter is live!

#trans #transmasculine #trans man #trans men #nonbinary #enby #sex work is work #anti swerf #sex worker #sexwork #feminist #feminism #lgbtq+#transgender #lgbt

22 notes · View notes

shinyzango · 20 days

Note

Greetings!

Hope you have a wonderful day. Need to admit, for a long time my thoughts have been occupied by some questions, if you don’t mind:

How do Hans and Clara feel about their own bodies? For Hans I mean the human form, for the Nutcracker everything is clear thanks to your comics.

And I don't even mean this in a sexual context.

But when they are alone with themselves, when they take off their clothes to change for bedtime, how do they see themselves? Do they think things like, “Well, I guess I'm pretty good-looking, I'm comfortable with the way I look,” or “I'm self-conscious about my body for one reason or another, I don't think I'm attractive.”

Or maybe those are thoughts like “Yes, I’m not completely perfect, there is something about me that doesn’t suit me (scars, moles, etc.), but I think that I look quite beautiful to others.” Not in the narcissism or self-praise way, but calm recognition and acceptance.

And the following question is: once they have already discovered their feelings for each other, do those thoughts change? Does each tremblingly assume that the other will want to share physical warmth with him/her, or is he/she sad, not finding himself/herself good enough for the beloved to look at?

(I apologize in advance if these are too sensitive questions. Frankly, I’ve been thinking hard for some time now about drawing a short comic about such mental tossing, SFW, of course. But I’m very afraid of making a mistake with the character analysis.)

Oh no problem at all! These are particular questions that you don't get to think of often for characters (me at least) but I'll see what I can cook up.

For the first question... hm, I would say Clara is quite comfortable with her own appearance, which she is also thankful for since she's the daughter of a highly stimated family so she doesn't have to go too out of her way to be a pretty presence in meetings and the such, but she does tend to feel a little "too simple" when she's near other girls and women who look a lot more regal and beautiful than her. Nothing bad mind you, it's just a thought that crosses her mind. As for Hans... in pre-curse he's incredibly nervous about his own appearance. He does look fine, but since he's been raised in the Royal Castle, he has always thought of himself as unworthy, a simpleton. Always surrounded by royalty and highly stimated people made him feel out of place with his appearance, if that makes sense. In post-curse he has scars on his body, and at first he thought they ruined his image even more, other than reminding him of the terrifying Mouse King he had to fight. And still felt out of place in Clara's world, fearing people could tell he's not from their world and questioning him about it. Eventually these opinions get better as time goes on thanks to Clara's company and support and spending time with people who he feels closer to his own status.

As for the second question, well Clara doesn't really have thought about that, but Hans would definitely feel not worthy of her attention, especially when he's a nutcracker (for obvious reasons) and fears that Clara will be disappointed when she will see what he actually looks like.

I hope these answers satisfy your curiosity! I don't get to think about this kind of topics so they may sound off or incomplete, apologies ksjdng

#TheLastNutcracker #TLNask

16 notes · View notes

wistfulcynic · 26 days

Text

gonna go off a bit on the subject of the "he's me fr" school of character analysis. Because while it's absolutely fine and good even to relate to fictional characters and see aspects of yourself in them, it's also important to recognise the difference between your interpretation based on your experiences and what is actually shown on the page or screen.

humans are primed to recognise patterns. We are strongly inclined to contextualise things to suit our existing worldviews. We don't like contradiction and we don't like things we don't understand. It's so natural for us then to reframe anything we find confusing or contradictory that we often don't even notice we are doing it.

this is bad! This is dangerous! This is how you get bigotry and hatred!

a lot of people reframe things they don't understand (other races, cultures, religions, genders) into Other and Other is frequently Bad or even Evil. It's relatively easy to spot when other people do this and to understand that it is wrong. But surely, you may then say to yourself, if i am reframing things into what is familiar to me that's good, right? i'm Relating and that's a positive thing!

and i guess, yes and no. Yes because finding connection can be validating and because there's a reason that representation in media is so important--that reason being largely because it gives a wider range of people the opportunity to see others like them on screens and in pages. But also that act of relating to something you know is in fact an act of bias. You are biased in favour of recognising that thing because it is You. It's important to you as part of your identity but you should be aware that this can lead you to overcompensate and to misinterpret things because you are seeking that connection so intensely. And honestly i think this is also fine so long as you are able to recognise the difference.

there's a difference between saying "i identify in X way and demonstrate Y characteristic. This fictional character demonstrates Y characteristic therefore i am going to interpret them as identifying in X way" and saying "this character MUST OBVIOUSLY identify in X way because I DO and I SAID SO and this is now a VALID TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION."

maybe it is. Maybe it also isn't. Maybe Y characteristic is something that supports many different interpretations and "because they're totally me and i said so" is neither a strong argument nor a healthy way to process the world.

let me give a real world example. i am acespec, something i didn't understand until relatively recently and definitely couldn't have defined when i was in college because that was like 1997 and the language i needed really didn't exist then. Or at least it didn't exist in my corner of the american midwest. Anyway. i had a friend in college who was gay. He had come out at 18, which in the late 90s rural midwest was a big fucking deal. He was very proud of his identity, to the point of being aggressive about it and one of his big things was trying to encourage other people to explore their own sexual identities.

which is fine, right? Good, even. People should be able to do that and his intention was to be a safe space for his friends. His intentions were good! What wasn't good was the way he absolutely targeted me as someone who didn't date and didn't "chase men" <-this was literally the way he phrased it to me. He said "you don't chase men and you don't want to date them therefore you are a lesbian just admit it."

he absolutely would not accept that i wasn't gay too. He used to get mad at me for arguing with him about it. The way his world was framed you were either gay or straight (reminding folks this was the 90s) and so if you weren't demonstrating Accepted Straight Behaviour, ie dating and lots of sex, that must mean you were closeted gay and should just come out already, otherwise what are you some sort of homophobe?

he wasn't able to recognise that his interpretation of the characteristics i showed were not the only possible interpretation. Even if i weren't acespec i could just not have met anyone i was interested in! (this was also true). There were at least half a dozen other explanations for it but he insisted his was the only way because it was His identity and His experience and he was i think genuinely trying to relate to me on that level. Instead he ended up alienating me because i knew the choice wasn't as simple as "gay or closeted and probably homophobic" but there was absolutely no convincing him of that.

obviously there is a difference between what he did and fictional character analysis. Obviously fictional characters are not going to be hurt by people interpreting them as whatever the way i was hurt by my friend's behaviour. But i put it to you that the same inability to differentiate between what is real and what is your own interpretation based on your personal biases is a negative thing and something people need to be aware of. If you are capable of imposing traits on fictional people based on your own identity and recognising that doesn't necessarily mean they have those traits then great, more power to you, go forth and fanfic. But if you interpret a character in X way and genuinely, deeply believe that your interpretation is the only right and valid one based on nothing more than your own experiences then i strongly urge you to examine your biases and learn to do textual character analysis. For yourself, for your own metacognition skills, but also for the people around you. Believing you are right and there is no other way to think is the quickest path to intolerance and hatred that there is.

#yes this is about crazy ass takes on the gay pirates #but i will not tag it as such because i don't want the drama #getting it off my chest on a blog no one reads anyway #behave in the notes or you are blocked

16 notes · View notes

novabl · 5 months

Note

Hello! I want to thank you for all your answers to questions regarding Saezuru, your analysis is always very well-thought and accurate. 🙂

May I ask you if you think Saezuru will have a happy ending? I've seen a lot of fans are starting to doubt it, and I confess I'm a little worried about Yashiro's blindness when it comes to his right eye; I am afraid Doumeki might get seriously hurt (or even worse) trying to save Yashiro from a shooting or an attack that Yashiro might not immediately notice due to his partial blindness or something... Yoneda-sensei has put a lot of effort in stressing out that Yashiro's blindness creates issues I'm his everyday life, and she has also shown us Doumeki has strong suspicions Yashiro is not all right, all this must have some relevance in the end... But, at the same time, I can't believe there won't be an ending that, even if not 100% happy, will have a positive feeling to it.

Saezuru is a story about an abused and traumatized person (actually, two traumatized persons, considering Doumeki has his own demons to face too), and it represents his journey to learn to love himself and understand what he wants and what he deserves (i.e. to be loved), to end it with a tragic ending, while it's still Yoneda-sensei right to decide, would probably frustrate what felt had been the purpose of this work all along.

I apologise for the super-long message, but I am really curious to know your opinion on this.

Thank you and have a good day! 😉

Thank you for your kind words! If it seems like more people are feeling like there is going to be a negative ending, that is maybe because of how people are predicting what will happen next. I personally think that Doumeki will distance himself and I have seen other people share the same thoughts. I could be wrong because I am just guessing but it is bringing up how people are interpreting saezuru. Since the arc after the timeskip has started, there has been a strong feeling that Doumeki will be the one to take the lead and give Yashiro an environment to feel safe and be vulnerable. There were people who thought that Doumeki kissing Yashiro and them having sex would lead to some emotional progress. Unfortunately, once the sex was over, Doumeki put his mask back on and Yashiro was sad and later on even made plans to meet up with Inami. I personally never understood the idea of Doumeki confessing first as Doumeki tried his best to do that for Yashiro before and still got tossed aside. While we can understand Yashiro’s motivations and thinking, we should still understand that hurting someone the way Yashiro hurt Doumeki will mean putting in work to show that you’ve changed and that you can be a good partner to them as well. I noticed that there has been a few people that think Yashiro would be unwilling to pursue Doumeki. That once Doumeki distances himself, Yashiro wil just accept it because that is what he did with Kage and how he seems to react whenever he thinks Doumeki is rejecting him. I think that can be a bit insulting to Yashiro and how far he has come. While he has moments of jealously going after other men, he also doesn’t just quietly accept whatever Doumeki throws at him. He gets angry when Doumeki acts like there is nothing between them, he pulls Doumeki in when Doumeki tries to distance himself, he wants to open up about his impotency and Inami and he questioned Doumeki even though Doumeki’s answers could have devastated Yashiro. He also resists when Doumeki acts in ways he doesn’t like sexually which is huge for Yashiro considering he has adopted a passive attitude towards sexual assault. Yashiro is capable of change and I think he would want to be there for Doumeki as Doumeki was there for him. All that said, I think there will be a positive ending. A bare minimum for a positive ending for Yashiro will be Yashiro and Doumeki together. Though I have expressed doubt about Yashiro’s feelings for Doumeki, his characterization doesn’t support a good ending without Doumeki. He needs to have the person he loves reciprocate his love and with him or else he will fall back into his old self harm ways. I really think once Yashiro acknowledges that he wants Doumeki to be in a monogamous relationship with him, he will fight for it as much as he needs to. Of course we just need to wait and see. My answer got long but I really doubt we’ll get a tragic ending considering we got a taste of Yashiro and Doumeki domesticity with the extra and I doubt Yashiro will have all this development only to have the person that he was willing to do it for ripped away from him.

#saezuru tori wa habatakanai #saezuru

28 notes · View notes

coraniaid · 6 months

Text

I do often find Xander incredibly frustrating – especially in the high school seasons which I’m rewatching now – but I don’t particularly think the issue is that Xander is a “Whedon self insert” (whatever that means). In fact, Xander is often at his worst in episodes written by people other than Joss Whedon, whether that’s Teacher’s Pet or The Pack or Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered or Dead Man’s Party. If the self-insert theory were true, wouldn’t that be the exact opposite? Or is the problem that Xander is a Marti Noxon self-insert too?

No, I think the problem is a lot simpler than that: I just don’t think the writers are very good at writing sympathetic teenage boys (which is why Oz is painfully underwritten and why Xander is … well). And in particular I think that the writers really struggle to work out who Xander is (beyond being the token boy with no magical powers or super-strength) after Season 1. Other than his unrequited attraction to Buffy, what does he want? What motivates him? I genuinely don’t think the writers have a consistent answer to this question yet, and although The Zeppo (which I’ve not quite gotten to on my current rewatch) will start to address this, I think they won’t really have one until Season 4 at the earliest. Yes, there are fragments here and there that you can build on if you want – the hints that imply his parents are abusive, a suggestion that he looks up to Giles almost as much as Giles look down on him, the occasional moment you can claim as evidence that Xander might be attracted to men – but if you do start building on those fragments you’re ultimately engaged in fanfiction as much as you are analysis of the actually-existing material. The writers themselves hadn’t put in the work to make those pieces coalesce into something cohesive at this point in the show’s history (and some of those hints will never be developed further).

And the other problem, which isn't quite unique to Xander but probably affects him more than anybody else, is that the show is still mostly very episodic in these three seasons. So – even when we’re clearly not supposed to approve of Xander’s actions – the show never really allows them to have any long-term negative consequences for him. (Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered might have Giles rage at Xander for trying to cast a love spell on Cordelia for a few minutes, but it still ends with Buffy cheerfully thanking him for not sexually assaulting her – despite his admission that “for a minute it was touch and go” – and with the popular girl he was actively trying to take “revenge” on at the start of the episode deciding she’s so touched by the romanticism of this act that she’d rather be with him than worry about the good opinion of any of her friends. And the events of the episode are never mentioned again.) So it’s very easy to get the impression that the writers don’t particularly think Xander’s doing anything wrong after all, even when I don’t think that’s the case.

Ultimately, I think you just have to accept that Buffy and Xander are close friends and that this friendship means a lot to both of them for the show to work, in much the same way you have to accept a lot of the show’s rather silly worldbuilding. Which … is fine, really. If I can accept a magical human-detecting chip in somebody’s head or Sunnydale’s ever-changing geography or the nonchalant way everyone in school reacts to their fellow students being violently killed on a weekly basis or any of the nonsense the show says about the Watcher’s Council I can, I suppose, accept a teenage girl with poor social skills and a reputation that makes her something of a social pariah becoming friends with a teenage boy who is mostly well-meaning but often kind of sucks. This aspect of the high school seasons is perhaps a bit like the Season 6 issue of Willow and Tara living rent free at Buffy’s house while telling her she has money problems and has to get a job: in order to appreciate the show the way you’re meant to, you just have to handwave away a lot of what the writers actually show happening.

#btvs #buffy rewatch 2023

38 notes · View notes

valkyrieblogs · 15 days

Text

doing a concurrent reread in both english and japanese! i wanted to do some more character analysis this time around since i've read everything that's out, and i also wanted to look a little closer at the japanese (since i originally just read this in english). posting about chapters 1-5 here. (also interpretations of characters definitely aren't fixed yet, so i'm still figuring them out.)

"even so, out of my own will... i loved someone i should not have."

in japanese the verb that satoko uses for "loved" is 愛してしまいました. しまう as auxiliary to indicate that her having loved someone is something regretful, which at least to me i read as being in deference to the reader of her letter. i'm also curious about the usage of past tense here rather than using something like ている to indicate that she still loves this person. i've seen some theories floating around about her letter at the beginning here, but my personal theory that i subscribe to is that she's writing this on her deathbed, and the past tense is due to her likely death upon the letter being received. the only other scenario i can picture is one where shinpei was killed and she really did get his heart in the end.

lsjkdglkjlj the way that we see her already relating to things w shorter lifespans!!

also thinking about the way that shinpei is so casually chatty... why offer food to the person you're about to kill? it's like the planned act of killing satoko is separated from interacting with satoko at this moment. to me it really shows this... detachment? he's being kind by offering food, but he'll still kill her when the time comes. he's seemingly curious about why she's getting killed, but i don't think he has any attachment to her answer either way. it comes across as casually social while being incredibly detached from the person he's actually interacting with. it's probably an extension of his lack of empathy at this point. it just makes me wonder what motivates his interactions with others at this point.

god, satoko... the way that even being faced w sexual assault, her first thought is still on how it impacts her marriage prospects... it's awful the way that it's become her priority over all else in life.

thinking about what it does to a person to be raised on that island and how it impacts socialization. also the way that he sees his value as primarily being what he is able to do... how he is a tool and a weapon. i was talking a little about this on the hny discord where i think about shinpei and his lack of understanding of love as a concept, and how on the island love = sex = commodity = transaction, and how that has to influence his (lack of) understanding of it. his mother being a prostitute (and being killed when he was so young), too...

lsjkdgljsklgj i love that it's not enough to suggest marriage of convenience for access to what she has through her family, but she decides that she has to convince shinpei she's in love with him. which makes sense! if she's trying to cultivate a reason for him not to kill her! he's established that he'll be bought out with money, but he doesn't believe her declaration lksjgdlj so the assets somehow lose out to the promise of the marriage itself, which means there is something about a relationship he might actually want? at this time...

actually okay yeah the fact that money = priority up until she proposes and then he seems genuinely more interested in the concept of getting married to her and her interest in him than anything else. he ignores her comments about nobility in favour of asking what exactly she likes about him.

yeah god he seems like. genuinely into it when she's answering him desperately about things she likes about him.

i know satoko gets hurt by him later on when she realizes that he would be happy with anyone that accepts him for who he is (and i do think part of the reason he's interested here is because she's making these declarations after knowing what he does and seeing him maim people) but i do genuinely think that's part of his thought process right now. someone who accepts him... to me it's entirely about that and not about attraction. (until it is something he is attracted to, anyway, but i feel like that hasn't clicked for him at this point.)

YEAH okay so the fact that he even clearly loses interest once he clarifies that it's a loveless marriage that she's proposing...

i do also think it's really interesting that after that, she asks him if there's anything else that's useful to him, but he's not interested in things that are useful to him! which....... man. to me it says a lot about the way that satoko thinks about her own value in that her connections are the only thing OF value (not satoko herself). i wonder how aware shinpei is of himself being a tool, too.

thinking about this line (when she's objecting to kissing shinpei initially) now in light of chapter 35... she really does keep having these boundaries of what she considers acceptable pushed. obviously kissing =/= sex here, and she just doesn't want to kiss him in this scene... but.

goddd thinking about the negotiation that's going on here. "it's fine if you don't want to." "and if i refuse?" "then i'll just kill you when i'm supposed to." all the really dubious consent that ends up happening particularly early on, especially because of the circumstances that satoko's trapped in... the situation with her autonomy is really fascinating to me. in so many ways she's had little-to-no control over her own life, starting already with her disability. then dedicating her life to repaying her father (and viewing it as her personal desire) rather than considering if she may have wants outside of that, because she can't act greedy. the way that she downplays her illness for others (and to give herself a little more freedom than she has), too. and then she gets into this situation. it's interesting in that there are strong limitations on any choices she makes right now, and while entering into this arrangement with shinpei could be seen as coercion when she's threatened with death otherwise, he also doesn't... force her? he isn't going out of his way to save her if she doesn't agree, but it is ultimately up to her, and these are all choices that satoko is making. even if her scope for making decisions right now is, again, incredibly limited under these circumstances.

it also reveals a lot about shinpei's wants that other than money, this is the only term he'll accept for saving her instead of completing his job. (and he quickly prizes the concept of marrying her and her feelings towards him over anything else that comes with that marriage, so money is definitely not the ultimate priority for him, anyway.)

god and the way he gets cruel to her when he thinks it's a lie. but how that just ends up bolstering her resolve when he mocks her, saying that she has no worries about the future...

the way we see light in his eyes for the first time when she wipes his mouth and he realizes she is not refusing him after all. aaaaaAAA

AND the way it's revealed he really was testing her!! that he's surprised she would still kiss him after he killed all those people!!

he's playful and childish, but he's also savvy, too... especially in these early chapters.

GOD the way he seems to like the mirroring of how both of them have uncertain lifespans and he isn't... too concerned w the idea that she'll die soon (bc she doesn't seem ill right now). the way that he even plays with it, thanking her illness, asking if she'll go to hell with him... commenting on her proximity to death and how that must be why she can be okay with him.

lkjsdglksjglkj god him mocking her when she starts saying "oh my dad might not agree to this". the way that he's just...... playing a game with her right now. toying with her. like this just seems fun to him.

"the kiss and the bath were the same. even though he knows i can't refuse, he keeps making me decide."

yeah like this!!! it's so interesting. it really does feel like a game when he's watching her responses here, knowing that she can't afford to say no, but forcing her make the choice nonetheless. "like he's confirming my affection for him." yeah. it's a test. a test and a game. he genuinely wants her to say yes, to play along, to keep confirming those affections—but it's a test every time to prove her affections to him. but it is what he wants from her, ultimately. that's his motivation. he has to keep Testing.

"please save me. you're the only one i can rely on."

thinking a lot about how this early phase of the relationship is entirely transactional and relies on what shinpei can do for satoko. and that it is entirely appealing to his strength and ability to protect her.

hmm and flipping it so now that she's decided his comment about how his life isn't enjoyable IS actually about him and not her. does he actually not enjoy his life? it's difficult to tell just because of how manipulative he's being in these early chapters, but. outwardly his life doesn't exactly seem great. part of what i'm missing about shinpei right now is an understanding of his inner life, and that's why i feel like i'm mostly grappling for an understanding of him rather than satoko. (although i feel like i'll definitely do another read-through where i do focus almost exclusively on satoko, because i adore her.)

god her comment about the heart is so interesting at this point and the gall of saying it to him.

and then ANOTHER test when he leaves w the prostitutes, making that comment about how it seems like he has to die after he gets out of here. so finally she gets her response to the comment about the heart... in the english translation she starts to say, "i never said you'd die!" but in the japanese she's just asking him to wait. so i feel like his reaction makes more sense in light of what was written originally—it's why he isn't placated.

it's also interesting that when he tests her and leaves her here, she does anything BUT continue to try and appeal to shinpei, instead trying to get attention from literally anyone else. which probably makes him feel useless, also! that she has the will to keep trying and planning and figuring things out without him! the way this backfires on him, particularly when she gets all this attention from people with her dance, and they start crowding her... so he has to drop it and relent. but like. i think he's genuinely captivated by the look she gives him in this scene and it makes him stop testing her (at this moment).

the way that it just feels like this look of, "i'll get by without you if i have to." but he doesn't want that.

"why did you go with them?" "i just wanted to stand and chat a bit." "lies. weren't you just enjoying my reaction?" in jpn -> comments on how he's enjoying her reaction AGAIN, acknowledging the previous tests out loud "you're right." so it's interesting he agrees to it.

her declaration of, "i'm fine if you're not the one who saves me"!!!! god i love the way she feels so independent here.

THE WAY HE ACKNOWLEDGES HIS FAULT FOR TESTING HER/PLAYING WITH HER!!!! like. i really do feel like the dance scene is where he pivots a bit. for her proving she can get by without him, and also (i think) for it making him actually attracted to her. i think he prob also appreciates her cunning about it? that she can play at this game, too.

like!!! satoko isn't just passively going along with things.

god the way that in jpn he doesn't say "forgive me" but "I WANT YOU TO FORGIVE ME" it feels so direct and impolite.

okay yeah i'm not just making this up because even satoko notices the change in demeanor where he isn't just blatantly messing with her anymore. he's decided he is actually attracted to her and doesn't want her going off with other men or relying on anyone but him.

i'm using "attracted" but i'm really only thinking about it in a physiological sense; i still don't think he has the capacity to understand his relationship with her beyond that at this point.

i also wonder if this scene just activated his jealousy a bit for the first time, too.

reading the (outdoor) firefly scene and thinking a lot about how they've both had constraints on their lives in different ways. shinpei unable to leave the island; satoko barely being able to leave the estate in general, and only when accompanied. i love how being here is, in some ways, a chance for her to experience so many things she was never able to before as nobility? (particularly disabled nobility.)

chewing on glass. the english line is "my body is yours to treat as roughly as you please" BUT THE JAPANESE LINE "consider my body as your tool. so it doesn't matter if you use it roughly." there was a game i was into years ago where the english kept removing the (very intentional) repetition of 道具/tool and i see that's happened here too lksjgdlj (i understand why! i know it's because in english it's more unnatural to repeat things all the time!) anyway i really like that he really does refer to his body as a tool. it's good. love that thematically.

godddd the part where she apologizes to him and it shows the way he was going to try and help her in the bath and also wanting to join her in her futon. he really does get obsessed with her after that dance scene, huh.

aaaAAAAAA i love shinpei talking about her being in constant danger would make him indispensable to her. like!!!!! the way he needs to be needed. he knows how to be a weapon and nothing else and he wants to be used (by her).

HE'S SUCH!!!! a sulky brat here. i love him. that way that he pulls this every time satoko starts being avoidant in any way about actually marrying him. i love her 100% not indulging him in this moment, though. it's so good. like!!! i just appreciate so much the way that she's still so strong-headed in her interactions with him. particularly despite how dangerous he can be, and the way that she knows she has to rely on him. she still feels, in many ways, so true to herself?? it's a really interesting dynamic, particularly with the way he's so manipulative, too. i love that she doesn't just submit to it. (and even when she does, she knows what she's doing.) it just!! makes her feel like she has more agency even if that's not necessarily true. and makes their dynamic really good to me.

okay trying to split this up by volume as i reread so these posts don't get too long. anyway. um. IF PEOPLE WANNA DISCUSS STUFF, PLEASE, i am so open to chatting about things

#firefly wedding #hotaru no yomeiri #valkyrie reads firefly wedding

11 notes · View notes

hartenlust · 2 months

Text

reading gods worst article on tma (Narrating the (Queer) Gothic in the Podcast The Magnus Archives, Maria Juko) and its so bad that its funny. btw this got published in a book (Rethinking Gothic Transgressions of Gender and Sexuality, edited by sarah faber and kerstin-anja münderlein, 2024) and I can only assume the editors didn't listen to tma themselves because good lord what are these takes. come with me as I read this mess

strong start when it claims the entities seek to torture and destroy humanity. patently untrue. we know they have some sentience, but the focus on humanity does a disservice to gerry explicitly saying "you think people are so special its only our fear that counts?". also "destroy". how are you going to get fear if the entirety of humanity is destroyed. we know what the entities wanted (or at least what the web wanted) it is explicitly stated in mag 200. it says so right there so explicitly that I find it impressive if Juko missed it.

calls the beholding the antagonist? if you want to call Any fear the antagonist id go for the web, but even then, antagonist is not the role id ascribe to a lovecraftian entity

"with the podcast’s final season set in a world dominated by the Eye that Jon et al. ultimately overcome to save the world" / "The world comes to depend on [jonmartins] relationship, with the two of them becoming queer heroes." save the world??? heroes?

4. stupidly funny implications. interesting citation for georgie but that's not important right now. the point is the fight against evil and the reading alleging tma says being queer will get you Heroic Powers. Juko's forgetting about the queer characters that get Evil Powers (all of them. all of the powers are evil. that's the point.) did the archivist utilize ace and bi power when he became the lynchpin of the apocalypse and tortured strangers

5. "As a case in point, inclusivity starts at the level of casting: female police officer Basira Hussain is voiced by Frank Voss, who uses they/them pronouns." very true but idk. frank voss and jonny sims are just pals, ill allow Some implications from this but the author is using it to imply more intentional focus on inclusivity then I think jonny was doing

6. "First, the podcast’s main character, the asexual biromantic Jon, is bestowed with supernatural powers, challenging not just heterosexual but all sexual norms of society." BESTOWED? stop using the word bestowed here oh my God. he is not a superhero!! did Juko listen to the entirety of tma without any moral grayness happening here??? also ?? jons bestowed supernatural powers are in no way related to his asexuality & biromanticism??

7. christ. this isnt a bad tma take but it is reminding me why I wanted to quit my literature analysis bachelor

8. did jon utilize ace and bi power when he betrayed martin. did martin utilize gay power when he stabbed jon. jesus christ what do you mean humanity's salvation. the apocalypse isnt fixed at the end by the power of love.

9. i guess? if you felt like it? tma really isn't a queer narrative in my option but I guess?? you could read it like that. if you wanted to. I'm unsure if you should though because these people are deeply unwell

10. "And particularly in the first seasons, Jon and his colleagues often fail to control the evil entities, losing for example colleague Tim at the end of the second season, which leads to a rift between some of the Institute’s members" yeah because truly they were thriving before that. they were the bestest of friends before tim died. they all held hands and danced in circles

11. unsure how much longer i can take this. this isn't the X-Men

12. "[Jon] could be defined as an asexual biromantic who uses his love for Martin as a form of power to save the world." no he couldn't. next

13. "With this in mind, Jon’s exploration of the Archives becomes a metaphor for accepting his (a)sexuality." HUH. NO IT ISNT? jons asexuality isn't relevant narratively At All. go home.

14. for the love of god can anyone hear me. its so dark in here. were the beholding and jonah magnus asexuality allies when they helped jon become an avatar. the sentence after this calls jon the hero of the narrative again btw. patently untrue

15. "Only by accepting his power can Jon save the world." jon didn't save the world.

Juko discusses melanie & georgie but her takes on them are pretty normal and decent in my opinion. if anyone wants a pdf of this horror let me know & ill send it. I'm so annoyed I'm considering writing an email about this. btw it called jonmartin "enemies to lovers" trope and also said their relationship "starts heteronormative and changes to a more equal footing, whilst retaining heteronormative elements". about the gay couple.

to conclude: I don't know which podcast juko listened to about a heroic narrative about queer love that saves the world, but its not the magnus archives. did you know that the eye is an asexuality ally?

#op #tma #the magnus archives #long post #this was so bad.#tma spoilers

12 notes · View notes

kalgalen · 1 year

Text

Open letter to my mother

(or, a rebuttal to the 1k email my mom sent me about my upcoming transition. Tw: transphobia, self-harm)

First, and I say this will all the love in the word (and an healthy dose of disbelief): what the fuck is wrong with cis people?

I'm gonna skip right over the fact that you had the gall to call this a "text analysis" when you actually dedicated only one paragraph to actually describing the text I got published and used the rest to utterly dismiss my community and I. That disappointment, though, is nothing compared to the anger and grief that the rest of your email has awaken in me.

You talk about respect, but you refuse to respect my decision to make my own body more comfortable to me. Worse than that, you disrespect my friends by deciding you get to be the judge determining who conforms to your outdated ideas on gender enough to be allowed to transition. How dare you?

Speaking of daring, how dare you imply that we, the LGBTQIA community, need to be more tolerant and inclusive of people who don't understand us? Do you realize that in many cases it means they want our death? You're a white woman. You've never had to deal with a huge portion of the population wanting you to stop existing, or at least to stop "putting your identity in everyone's faces" - aka, essentially, to (hope you guessed it) stop existing. I'm not asking for understanding from every single old crusty conservative guy, just that they leave us the fuck alone.

You make wild assumptions about me in your email. Do you really think my therapist helped me accept myself? I only came out to her last year when I decided to medically transition, because I was finally confident in my ability to make that choice. We had never talked about gender before. Why would you want to take that away from me? Why would that "self-respect" you're talking about entail me going back on my steps? Why can't it be about me embracing my identity, making my body mine in a way that doesn't involve self-harming?

On that subject, you've never shown concern when I was cutting into my arms on the daily. You acknowledged it, sure, but what did you do except demand that I stop? You have no right to criticize my choice of changing my body. You lost it long ago.

You encouraged me to get a breast reduction last year when I started the process of wanting to transition. You still thought I was cis then, but since it was a surgery for cis people, it was fine and dandy. Now that I want to cut it all off so I don't have to deal with binders anymore (which are indeed quite dangerous for the person wearing them, not to mention uncomfortable) you believe you can go against that. You have to see how irrational that is.

You talk about detransitioners but I'm willing to bet you haven't done more research past "some people regret transitioning." Do you know most people stop transitioning because of transphobia? You, cis people, are killing us one way or another.

Why do you fucking think you can explain gender to me. "We all have a part of masculinity and femininity inside of us" yeah no kidding?? You're telling that to a nonbinary person, that's the whole concept (although not only - but I won't get into it since it'll just confuse you more.) You dare "explaining" to me what androgynity is and why it would "fit me more". You think your couple of hours of half-assed research are enough to compare with my lived experience? With my discussions with like-minded people? With decades of self-determination by a community that is older than you? Also fuck you for implying I've only decided to call myself nonbinary because it's "fun". You don't know anything.

You ask me if sexuality is involved in choosing a gender - and it might be for some but newsflash, trans gay people exist. Additionally, I am asexual - not that you bothered to do research about that. "Before loving a sex we love a way to be, a philosophy, a way to think" fuck off I've known that since I was old enough to fall in love.

Anyways. You'll never read this, because you would only think I'm throwing a tantrum - because you're so sure you're right, and not ready to listen. Whatever, I don't give a shit. I will try and answer your concerns later when I'm not so pissed off, but for the moment I cannot help you.

Lovingly, your child.

#perso #transgender #ok to rb #actually - encouraged to be rb #don't let me be alone in my rage

113 notes · View notes

stillabeliever · 2 years

Text

I’ve seen some people saying that Mike is a bad friend / hypocrite for joining the Hellfire Club in s4 after refusing to play D&D with Will in s3, but I actually think that Mike's decision to return to D&D is a really good thing and crucial character development for him. I wanted to do an analysis about why this is so important—what D&D represents for Mike, why he came back to it, and how all this could point towards a byler endgame.

First of all, let’s look at why Mike wanted to stop playing D&D in the first place in s3. He made it clear to Will during their fight that he associated the game with childhood, and he was INCREDIBLY eager to grow up, so he saw D&D as something he needed to abandon in order to become more mature. However, it goes deeper than that—Mike also viewed getting girlfriends as essential to growing up, something inevitable in his and all of his friends lives. So to him, D&D (which represented childhood) was something that inherently conflicted with “getting girlfriends.” This brings us to the question, why was Mike so eager to abandon D&D for girlfriends / to “grow up” in the first place? It makes sense when we view it through the lens of his sexuality—Mike always saw his queerness as something he could “grow out of,” expecting that if he got a girlfriend and progressed his relationship the same way that he observed straight people doing, he would somehow become straight himself. This is proven in the fight in s3, when Will says that he expected to play D&D in Mike's basement and never get girlfriends for the rest of their lives—this has multiple meanings, one being that Will does not view growing up as a total necessity like Mike does (which somewhat proves how unnatural Mike's all-consuming desire to abandon childhood is), but we also know that Will has been confirmed to be gay and in love with Mike at this point, so in this moment, “playing D&D” also represents his desire to live with his sexuality without the expectation that he needs to start dating girls, like was the case when he was younger. This is during the same fight as “it’s not my fault you don’t like girls,” so we’re supposed to associate the subject of the fight (desire to play D&D / not grow up) with Will's sexuality—it’s not a stretch to view this as applying to Mike as well. Whereas Will is almost definitely aware of his sexuality at this point, and as a result wishes he didn’t have to “grow up” / be expected to date girls, Mike is still in denial of his sexuality and believes that he can change that aspect of himself by “growing up.” All of this is symbolized by D&D in their conflict—Will embraces the game as a source of comfort because it represents acceptance of his sexuality, while Mike pushes D&D away because he’s trying to erase his queerness.

So at this point in season 3, it’s been clearly established that D&D acts as a symbol for childhood and sexual orientation, both for the viewer to notice and in Mike's own outlook towards the game. Since all of these things are closely associated to Mike's relationship with Will, D&D is also both a symbol of their relationship and something that strongly evokes memories of Will for Mike.

Now let’s look into why Mike returned to D&D after s3. At the end of the s3 (before his “what if you want to join another party?” to Will, which we’ll get to later), Mike is pushing D&D away, and with it his childhood, sexuality, and Will. I think there are three factors that caused him to do a complete 180 and return to it at the start of s4:

1. El is out of his life. It’s very interesting that now the only season where Mike resists D&D (s3) is ALSO the only season that he was dating El and she was consistently in his life. While they are still dating in s4, the relationship being long distance prevents Mike from needing to put much effort into the relationship in order to maintain it—he just needs to write letters to her, and he can be an entirely different person in his life than he presents in these letters, giving him the freedom to explore new sides of himself. He’s canonically doing this, because we see with his airport outfit that he is dressing differently / trying to become a different version of himself around El than he was back in Hawkins. It’s interesting that Mike had so much trouble maintaining his relationship with El while also continuing to play D&D in s3 (aka accepting his childhood, sexuality, and friendship with Will) even if you ignore this aspect of the symbolism of D&D—in a more literal sense, D&D has been a major aspect of both the show and Mike's personality since s1, and he has to abandon this part of himself to be with El. When she’s away, though, he’s able to embrace his full self. This could foreshadow the necessity of a mitosis breakup and symbolize how it would allow Mike to accept his sexuality and feelings for Will, or even simply to embrace his interests and complete personality rather than becoming something different for her.

2. Eddie and the Hellfire Club allow him to view D&D in a completely different way than he had previously. We’ve already established that for Mike, the game was closely associated to childhood—something he played when he was a kid but thinks he has to get rid of in order to grow older and push away his sexuality. Eddie, though, is the exact opposite of the childishness that Mike previously associated D&D with—he’s much older, more rebellious, and cool in Mike's mind, so seeing him leading the Hellfire Club allows Mike to see D&D as something more mature, to reconcile his childhood with his present and future. We also know that Mike looks up to Eddie immensely—although they don’t have many scenes together, Mike has been confirmed to literally be growing out his hair to resemble Eddie as a result of his admiration for him. All of this means something more when we consider the symbolism of D&D and the fact that Eddie is heavily queercoded himself. Seeing a community of older “role models” surrounding D&D (aka the lgbtq+ community) allows Mike to, for the first time, view it as something separate from childhood, something that he may not need to “grow out of” and could instead potentially embrace as he gets older. Just the mere willingness of Mike to revisit an aspect of his childhood through a new, more grown-up lens is huge given his absolute aversion to being “a kid” in s3, and even ignoring the symbolism, it proves that he’s now willing to confront different sides of his identity that he’d previously been pushing away.

3. Finally, and probably most straightforward, Mike misses Will. D&D is not only a symbol for their relationship, but also just something that no doubt reminds Mike of Will because of all of the memories they have of playing together as kids. Now that Will is gone at the start of s4, both literally because of the move and more figuratively because Mike had pushed him away so much, Mike is returning to things that remind him of when he and will were happy together as kids—indicating that he’s now more open to exploring his feelings for him, which I think we saw with their heart to hearts in s4. It’s also interesting when we consider how s3 ended, with D&D clearly acting as a symbol for their relationship when Mike asked “but what if you want to join a new party?” and Will replied “not possible.” But even before that, when Will decided to donate an old D&D set, he told Mike, “I’ll just use yours when I come back. I mean, if we still want to play.” Joining the Hellfire Club, I think, was Mike's response to this question from Will—he’s ensuring that there IS a party available for Will when he comes back, that he DOES still want to play. When we view this symbolically, it means that Mike is now actively seeking to repair his broken relationship with Will and return to how things had been when they were younger, before Mike's desire to grow up and erase his sexuality got between their relationship.

So, all of this means that Mike's return to D&D proves his need for some level of independence from El, his new willingness to explore his sexuality, and his feelings for Will. I believe this opens the doorway in s5 for a macbeth breakup, Mike's acceptance of his sexuality, and ultimately a byler endgame!

#byler #stranger things #mike wheeler #mike wheeler i know what you are #will byers

367 notes · View notes

rose-reads-visualnovels · 8 months

Note

how do you get so good at analysis? ;_; i'm really dumb and take things at surface value, which i've been fine with up until now but seeing you read umineko so deeply makes me kinda like.... jealous isn't the right word? that sounds too spiteful. it just makes me feel like i'm missing out on a more fun way to experience things. but it seems so daunting i don't even know how to start. to me it seems like picking out every detail and exaggerating it as far as possible but it's obviously more refined than that because you're able to keep things together thematically and make some good theories. do you have any advice for it?

Hi, anon!

Don’t worry, I don’t think you’re being jealous/spiteful with this ask. I also used to want to write analysis on things because they seem fun, and actually this is my first proper try at it! I think I’ve said it before but if I’m not careful I’ll binge everything on first watch/read and miss details. (This is why I rewatch Utena every other month). So yes, I know sometimes I’m grasping at straws but that’s because I’m actively squeezing everything I can out of a page/scene.

I think what sets this liveblog apart and the reason I can pick up threads/themes is that Umineko seems very upfront about what it wants to say.

「MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, EVERYONE WANTED A LOT OF MONEY RIGHT NOW…!」

Utena is the same in that - even though people say it’s too symbolic - I think the fact that it bares its inner mechanisms for all to see is a huge kindness. If everything means something else, or represents both itself and a larger concept, then a show where everything is allegorical is actually discarding layers of obfuscation.

I think a good place to start to Notice Themes is at the very beginning.

The Golden Witch invites you to take things easy and accept them as they come, but The Revolutionary Witch tells you that - in any story - the first introductions matter the most.

Up until now, Umineko has drilled inside our heads again and again, repetition after repetition, that the Ushiromiya’s Western schtick is a product of Kinzo’s reverse weeb affectations. He started many of the “traditions” that seem so inescapable, he invented the name for the fucking chair he sits at the breakfast table and the order of the seats according to his own patriarchal standards.

His Western obsession is tied very obviously with his “black magic” obsession and he even gets angry when you don’t call them “grimoires” because part of the charm of magic is that it’s foreign and cool. He speaks of black magic when ranting about his urges to sexually abuse a dead Beatrice, all his children speak of Western things when recalling their own childhood and abuse.

The only exception to this is Kinzo’s Japanese sword - both a true object and a phallic symbol that doesn’t deny itself its origins - that he uses to spank Jessica’s naked butt.

I feel like, in Umineko, you just need to sit and listen to the characters and wonder at their motivations. But you also need to wonder about the choice of presentation.

For example, Kanon alone in the garden after he left the conversation, being dismissed by Gohda. All he says is “…even me” or something among those lines, very mysterious! But the way this is presented, the camera not caring about the Cousins + Adults but following an actor after he’s being kicked out of the stage? Unusual! Curious! Very interesting! The way the narrative describes it, (paraphrasing here) “you needed to get closer if you wanted to hear the words whispered to his heart”? Why would it be written like that? Who is the narrator speaking to?

So I think - to make an analysis close in methodology to what I’m doing - you need to question what’s onscreen, not in a “this isn’t real” way (it may not be real but that’s not the focus!), but in a “why is this being shown the way it is” way. This is a novel after all. Choices of words, choices of POV, what is described and what’s left unsaid!

Those are the tips from the Revolutionary Witch!

— Rose, the Revolutionary Witch

#anon ask #askbox #umineko #rgu #revolutionary girl utena #on the matter of meta analysis

22 notes · View notes

condomatsu · 5 months

Text

LOTS OF HOMESTUCK FANDOM RAMBLING AND COMPLAINS

[this is my view, this is my opinion, idc if you disagree, idc if you agree, i just wanna talk about it and hopefully never touch the subject ever again] [english is not my first language, pardon my errors]

"Kanaya and Rose are lesbians!!!" that's a cool and valid headcanon, but you recognize and treat it as what it is - a headcanon - right?

You recognize that people who ships Kanaya and Karkat are not 'homophobes' nor are 'trying to erease Kanaya's sexuality', right?

I like rosemary, I really do, but I'm TIRED to see people writing "DNI IF YOU SHIP KANAYA/ROSE WITH BOYS". You're entitled to do that, sure, that's not even the biggest problem. THE problem is when 'fans' see the ship and not the characters and don't go over that. They see rosemary as "the lesbians uwu" and nothing else.

Rose and Kanaya used to be very complex and unique characters. Sure, Act6 ruined them, but Act6 ruined EVERYONE, so what's the difference? Why so many people headcanons Karkat as 'gay' but still recognize him as his own character? Why it's not the same with Rose and Kanaya?

They basically don't exist outside of their relationship anymore, they exist as a whole that consist in just "the sapphics, the lovers, the wives" and that's it.

Mind you, I would still say this even if their canon sexuallity was lesbian, but the fact they're not and people are so aggressive about it makes it so much worse.

Rose has shown interest in men, Kanaya - as EVERY troll - doesn't even know wtf 'sexuality' means. Basically, if we HAVE to give the a sexuality, Rose is more bisexual and Kanaya pansexual - maybe omni since Hussie said Kanaya's interest in women is "a fetish"; something horrorific that I seriously don't know how fans (indireclty) accepted (by making Kanaya as "the lesbian uwu").

I feel like repeating myself, but YOU CAN HEADCANON THEM AS THE FUCK YOU WANT TO! You can even feel uncomfortable if people ships them with the opposite gender! You can post/talk/reblog/etc about them only when they're paired together, I do it too! But don't go after people who sees them differently; don't go after people who doesn't buy the 'canon rosemary bullshit' (remember they interacted very less and very less romantically than other famous ships like grimdorks after all); don't geniunly think about them as "the lesbians" and nothing else. This is why wlw ships and woman characters are so less relevant and seen in fandom spaces. Yeah, they're in every Beta kids/troll draw, but them ALONE as themselves, without making their sexulity/relationships the centre of the thing? How many character analysis there are about homestuck boys - sometimes even without mentioning their relationships at all? How many there are about girls character? And I used rosemary as an example but Jade suffers a lot of this too.

Have you seen Jade outside of the "best girl" or "autistic girl" or "cute girl who can beat your ass" context? Much less, right? The last one - "cute girl who can beat your ass" - is even less present then the others somehow. Jade in general is very less present in the fandom in general.

"It always has been this way" I disagree. VRISKA is the perfect example for this. If you go further back into the fandom, you'll see tons and tons of Vriska-solo content, lots of analysis, fanarts, fanfics, etc. But since she became the "Terezi's moirail uwu" she stopped existing so much outside of her relationship with Terezi. Even Vriska's relationship with Tavros didn't do that. Gosh, not even Vriska's PAST relationship with Kanaya did that! I'm not even sure this people even KNOW Vriska and Kanaya were moirails and that Rose was supposed to 'replace Vriska' and become Kanaya's moirail herself.

But times have changed and now Vriska too is the "butch lesbian" and nothing else. Well, in her case, she still have lots of solo-moments in the fandom, but I think that's because of her HUGE part in Homestuck, were you simply cannot talk about it without mentioning her and the stuff she does. "That's valid for Rose and Kanaya too", yeah, but significantly less, you understand that? You *can* summorize Homestuck without mentioning Rose's role in the Beta SBURB session and so it's for Kanaya, but it's more difficoult to do so without mentioning Vriska's numerous interventions and fucked ups. Also, Vriska is a much more controversial character, of course people are going to discuss her more outside of her relationships.

I'm happy that this fandom considers characters as Nepeta and Feferi, even if they have such a short screentime. Still there are plenty of problems with how they're portaied in the fandom.

Nepeta's "cat-girl >w<" moments are more or less stopped; old fandom already saw this and contrasted this. The same can't be said for Feferi.

I'll say this once here and only once and (hopefully) nowhere else: Feferi is not a good person, and she's not a bitch either.

"But she stopped Eridan from committing genocide!" she still wanted to keep lowbloods as pets.

"But she used Eridan and broke up with him!" she forced herself in a relation with him to keep his morderous intentions down.

Do you see what's the problem here? It's not the ships, it's not the screentime, it's not the misscharacterization, the problem is the white-black mentality people have in fandoms; the belief that one character can exist in one context and nothing else (one ship, one way of thinking, one characteristic, ...). Characters can and should be more complex than one characteristic they have which is a little fraction of themselves. AND this is especially true for girls/women characters, who are STILL viewed less and less complexly than boys/men characters, and THAT'S what kills complete girls characters and kills variations and fertilize misscharacterizations.

—sincerelly, a solkat lover who berally can see them outside of their relationship and doesn't like other ships with them

EDIT: some people have read the incipit as lesbophic, I'm very sorry for that! here are two posts (post n1), (post n2), where I clarify it. Feel free to send an ask too if there's some doubts about my statements or if you disagree on something (and explain why of course).

#homestuck #homestuck fandom #fandoms #in general cuz it's still true for other fandoms #women characters #rosemary #Rose Lalonde #Kanaya Maryam #Jade Harley #Vriska Serket #Nepeta Leijon #Feferi Peixes #long post #ramblings #complaining

17 notes · View notes