#this is a very complex and nuanced topic tbh so it's hard to answer in one ask like this

[fuck-comphet]

Hi! I have a legit question: Do you think someone's sexual orientation can change during their lifetime?? (And just so I'm clear, I don't mean "conversion therapy" or an “off/on switch” or anything like that.)

When I was a teenager/young adult, I thought I was bi: crushed on boys, but mostly fantasized about intimacy with girls. But years later, after a head over heels/gave me stomachaches I was so nervous/I wanted to be her everything crush on a female coworker lol, I slowly came to terms with my lesbian identity. I remember feeling lots of imposter syndrome because I didn't feel like I was gay since birth like so many stories I'd heard from other gays/lesbians. Bisexuality was even more frowned upon back then, and I remember really NOT wanting to be bi. But I waited for the "other shoe to drop" on crushing on a bunch of guys which, aside from a couple "comphet crushes" (a married guy who was "nice" to me, and a male coworker who paid attention to me that all the other women in the office thought was hot) never really happened. I sure started crushing hard on women though! Lol. And after a breakup with my only boyfriend, I remember craving a relationship with a woman at the time.

Now I'm older and legit feel like I can't stand the idea of being with a man. My long term partner is a woman, but even if we ever broke up, I see myself seeking only women or other sapphics. Sure, I find a few men (mostly on TV, from a specific demographic) attractive, but I don't really feel anything when I see them in the wild. I'm only questioning myself after now seeing all the updated discourse on lesbianism (in my day “lesbian” meant “mostly or only attracted to women”) and want to make sure I'm properly communicating and naming my identity.

I feel like I went from “secretly bi" to "publicly identifying as straight but suppressing my physical attraction to women” to “lesbian” without looking back. It could’ve been comphet, I’m not entirely sure. Do you think it’s possible for sexual orientation to shift like this though?

I think Ricky Martin said something about genuinely having loved the women he used to date, but he stands firmly in his gay identity today.... I can somewhat relate. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts!

Hi friend! Your question is something I think a lot of people wonder about and I guess it can also be quite polarizing in online queer spaces.

I want to start off by saying that "lesbian" can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people, but the main thing I think most people agree with is that it excludes attraction to men. I want to follow that up with this: online discourse is online discourse, and real life people in the community are more real than any online discourse will ever be. If you currently feel zero attraction to men, and have zero desire to ever be with a man romantically and sexually, then in my mind you are a lesbian unless you specifically tell me otherwise.

In terms of shifting sexual orientation; I think anything is possible when it comes to human emotions and experiences. That's actually one of the main features of being human; we change, and grow, and adapt. There are as many queer experiences in the queer community as there are people. Also regarding Ricky Martin saying he genuinely loved the women he dated in the past; love is not necessarily always romantic or sexual, he could have loved these women as people, he could love them platonically, that doesn't make him less gay somehow.

I will conclude with this: why does it matter how you felt in the past vs now? No one else can tell you how you feel or how to identify, that's not anyone else's business but your own. There is no LGBTQ+ police, and if someone is saying you technically can't be a lesbian because you sincerely feel like you used to be bisexual, maybe you can tell them to kindly kill the cop in their mind. We don't police eachother in the queer community; we respect and uplift eachother.

As always, the queer community loves you <3

#ask response #be warned if you are going to hate on this post I will block you #I hope this helps #this is a very complex and nuanced topic tbh so it's hard to answer in one ask like this

[cavehags]

i realize this will probably bring up old drama so you might not want to answer it. but do you ever regret, however on purpose or on accident, bringing all that unnecesary hate towards Katara? i'm really sad and dissapointed tbh. i'm a woman of color and katara was so important to me growing up. my favorite animated woman ever. and then this resurgence comes and theres so, so much unnecesary hatred for her and everyone ignoring everything that makes her a good character.

(2/3) 2- and you know, i expected this from the male side of the fandom. they were misogynistic to her and the others even back then so i would expect it to be even worse with how internet culture is more mysogistic now that ever. and i wasnt wrong. male atla fans had some truly horrible takes and views that just came across as racism and misogyny. but, i expected these circles to be better. to be a safe space for us woc who love this character. but i found the same weird hatred for her.

(3/3) 3-i just, i cant believe i feel less welcome now that i did even back then. and back then i didnt even paricipate really. but at least i could enjoy fandom content without stumbling into misogyny and racism every other post. also sorry for sending this to your personal blog b i just wanted to let you know you controbuted to that too even if it wasnt your intention. at least you realized that and arent contributing to it anymore right? cause honestly the hate has only gotten worse not less.

hey anon. thanks for asking this question, because i hadn’t addressed this topic previously and this gave me an opportunity to do so. 

no, i don’t regret publicly interpreting a character whom i love through a nuanced and human lens. and i don’t regret combating the one-dimensional interpretation of this character, which posits that she’s merely an vaguely defined object of attraction for some boy or another, and a singularly gentle, mature, maternal figure whose sole purpose in life is to nurture others. those interpretations suck. they rob her of the humanity and complexity that make her character unique and they stem from misogynistic tropes that reduce women to the services they can provide to men. the thing in the world that matters most to me is fighting misogyny, and this trend to diminish a proud and powerful and angry teenage girl by exaggerating only her most socially acceptable traits is misogyny. 

unlike you, i did not grow up watching avatar: the last airbender. the shows i watched growing up did not have a lot of girls who felt real to me. the girls i saw on tv growing up were simple. they were the main characters’ crushes. they were simple, desirable, usually sweet and loving, and not much else. if they had a flaw, it was that they were, at best, “awkward.” whatever that means. or if they were the protagonists, which was rare, they were nice enough and tried to do the right thing, but they never had strong feelings like resentment and anger. they weren’t allowed to be unfeminine which meant they weren’t allowed to be bitter, angry or in any way flawed. they didn’t look like the version of girlhood i knew to be true for me personally, which included a lot of anger and frustration and powerlessness. 

that crappy representation left me with internalized misogyny that chased me for longer than i’d like to admit. i did not learn to think of girls as humans who could be as interesting and flawed and messy as the boys were. i did not value myself as a girl, and later a woman, because i thought the best thing a girl could be was... bland. boring. pretty, but empty. passionless.

it would have meant the world to me to see a character like katara. 

because katara is angry. she has every right to be: she’s had so much stolen from her, including her mother, her people, and her childhood. katara has a short fuse. she yells. she snaps. she fucks up. sometimes she makes mean jokes! i never saw a single one of those dreamily perfect cartoon love interests make mean jokes when i was a kid. she is extremely idealistic--it’s her defining character trait--but we see the bad side of that as well as the good. we see that her need to help others  leads her to act rashly, to get herself into danger, to put others in danger too. 

and she has her very own arc. it’s not about her love for another person, either (what a snooze of a storyline); it’s about growing up and learning to break down some of that stubborn black-and-white thinking that we all indulge in as children. it’s a true coming-of-age arc and it belongs to a fourteen-year-old girl. 

when i, to use a phrase i find crass, “entered the fandom,” i quickly realized that other fans’ perceptions of katara did not line up with the things i valued most about her. other fans seemed to valorize her most socially acceptable feminine qualities: her generosity, her kindness, her dedication to helping others. and of course i love those parts of her--i love everything about her--but what is really remarkable about avatar: the last airbender is that katara’s many important virtues are also counterbalanced by equally significant flaws. a good character has flaws. katara is a good character, and a deviation from the characters who made up my formative media landscape, because she has flaws. her temper, her idealism, her stubbornness--these are flaws. flaws make her seem real and human and challenge the mainstream sentiment that girls are not real or human.

it simply did not occur to me that celebrating these aspects of katara that make her a realistic and well-written teenage girl would spark ire from other adult fans. it absolutely did not occur to me that i would then be blamed for somehow causing misogynistic interpretations of this character, particularly given that misogynistic interpretations of this character are the very thing i sought to correct when i began to blog about this television show.

i’m told there are “fans” on instagram and tiktok who think katara is whiny, annoying, and overly preoccupied with her trauma. i do not use instagram or tiktok, so i wouldn’t know, but i’ll take your word for it. respectfully, however, they didn’t get that from me. misogynistic takes on katara have existed since before i came along. i have never, ever called katara whiny. and seeing as i have been treating my own PTSD in therapy for nine years, you can safely conclude that i don’t think anyone, katara included, is overly preoccupied with their trauma. that’s not a thing. do i think she’s annoying? of course not! as a character, she’s a delight. does she sometimes find real joy in aggravating her brother and her friends? yes, because she’s 14. i, an adult, am not annoyed by her. sokka and toph often are, because that is katara’s goal and katara always succeeds in her goals. she’s not “annoying.” 

if there are “fans” who are indeed following lesbians4sokka and somehow misreading every single post and interpreting them to mean that we hate katara and they should too, i don’t really know what you want me to do about that. l4s has over ten thousand followers and we have already posted so many essays disavowing katara hate. our feminist and antiracist objectives in running the blog are literally pinned with the headline “please read.”

furthermore, you cannot reasonably expect my co-blogger and me to control the way our words will be received. we should not have to, and are not going to, add a disclaimer to every post saying that when we critique or make jokes about a teenage girl we are doing so through a feminist lens. our url is lesbians4sokka, and we are clearly women. if that alone doesn’t make it obvious, then refer back to that pinned post. 

it is indescribably frustrating, and really goddamn depressing as well, that people are so comfortable with the misogynistic binary of Perfect Good Women and Flawed Wicked Bitches that they perceive any discussion of a woman’s flaws to be necessarily relegating her to the latter camp. if that is how you (a generic you) perceive women, then i’m sorry, but you’ve internalized sexism that i cannot cure you of. and it’s unjust to expect my friend and me to write for the lowest common denominator of readers who have not yet had their own feminist awakenings. we do not write picture books for babies. we write for ourselves, and with the expectation that our readers can think critically. reading media through a feminist lens is my primary interest; i have no intention of excising that angle from my writing.

as i go through my life, i am going to embrace the flaws of girls and women because not enough people do. as long as the dominant narratives surrounding women are “good and perfect” and “unlovable wh*re,” you’ll find me highlighting flawed, realistic, righteously angry women in the margins. and for what it’s worth, it’s not just katara. i champion depictions of angry girls in all sorts of media. that’s sort of my whole thing. my favorite movies are part of the angry girl cinematic universe: thoroughbreds, jennifer’s body, hard candy, jojo rabbit, et cetera. on tv, in addition to katara, you’ll find me celebrating tuca and bertie, poppy from mythic quest, tulip and lake from infinity train, korra, and more. i adore all these women and see myself in them. i hope you find this suitably persuasive to establish that i have sufficient Feminist Cred, according to your standards, to observe and write about these very flawed and human fictional women. 

what i’m saying is this: i decline to take responsibility for the misogynistic discourse orbiting a children’s cartoon. as someone who writes about that series from a perspective that seeks to add humanity and nuance to the reductive, one-dimensional, overwhelmingly sexist writing that already exists, i am pretty taken aback that i am the one being blamed for the very problem i sought to address. except not that taken aback because i am a woman online, haha! and this is always how it goes for us. 

finally, i think it sucks that you’ve chosen to blame me for a problem that begins and ends with the patriarchy. i can’t control the way this response will be perceived, just like how i can’t control the way anything will be perceived because i am just one human woman, but i do hope you choose to be reflective, and consider why you’ve chosen this avenue to assign blame. 

#anyway! this answer is too long and it's undignified to answer ''fandom drama'' queries on le blog #but here we are in 2020

[mihrunnisasultans]

i know you're not a fan of MC Hurrem but whats your opinion of historical hurrem? i felt season 1, 2 and part of 3 really didn't do her justice

Hello Anon!

Sorry that you waited so long for my response, but I wanted to give you a comprehensive answer and thus it got really long, so most of it is under Read more. And thank you for an interesting question :)

I do prefer historical Hürrem to the MC one, but she’s still not my fave. TBH I don’t have that strong emotions towards historical figures as opposed to fictional characters because we really don’t have any real insight into their everyday life, and historical accounts are always more or less subjective. Hating someone about whom I really don’t have much 100% confirmed information? Unfair and pointless. To quote Galina Yermolenko from the introduction to Roxolana in European Literature, History and Culture:

Although Western historians have been struggling to define Roxolana’s legacy for over four centuries, it is often overlooked that she was largely a creation of the European imagination. Due to the lack of historical records and hard evidence, most of what is known about this woman rests on a handful of secondhand contemporaneous accounts and subsequent reinterpretations and speculations by numerous historians, quasi historians, dramatists, and other men of letters who have shaped the Western discourse on Roxolana.

Thus said, I do understand your reservations about MC early portrayal of her. Portrayal of Hürrem as a ruthless schemer and manipulator is certainly nothing new; MC’s depiction thankfully does not make her some evil walking caricature like the earliest Western works on her (from 16th or 17th century), but she’s a complex character that has her sympathetic moments even in the view of those who generally dislike her, in accordance with later tradition. But since you have no problem with S4 Hürrem, who is even more ruthless than the earlier one, I guess your problem is of a different nature.

Again, the portrayal of Hürrem as a wild, unruly spirit is nothing new in works devoted to her, and while I totally get the problem with “undignified” Hürrem, I kind of appreciate it now? Pretty much all of “big five″ women of Sultanate of Women in MY/K are portayed based on the “slay queen” trope, but I feel that aside from Turhan, they all have their own distinctive features, other than the generic woman who slays them all and loves power? Hürrem‘s character actually develops and she becomes the true majestic sultana later on; it’s again kind of realistic that she’s not one from the start? Her wild and flamboyant image actually serves to show how much she’s of an outsider and differs from other women. Again, she becomes more dignified and majestic as she integrates herself into the world to which she was forcefully introduced. (NGL Turhan made me appreciate earlier character creations more because she’s basically a generic slay kween with little of other characteristics…) MC Hürrem is definitely a good character creation that elicits strong emotional response from the audience, whether positive or negative. I e.g. love to hate her and enjoy rooting against her, others do the opposite, but it’s hard to stay indifferent about her. And as as I sad, she actually develops in the span of 4 seasons.

But then again, I agree it’s sometimes overdone on the show. The earlier seasons do have their tongue-in-cheek moments, and Hürrem‘s sometimes excessive flamboyance is also part of that.

I have more issues with what was not shown about her character in addition to being a ruthless schemer and clever manipulator, as well as her relationship with Süleyman.

From what we know, historical Hürrem took an active interest in state matters that sometimes also wasn’t connected with her intrigues. In the show, even in S4, her occupation with state matters does not go further than what she needs because of self-interest. Most of her non-mercenary actvities are indeed shown in S4 when her participation in foreign relations and diplomatic correspondence are mentioned, but they seem a bit shoerhorned at this point and especially the mention of her diplomatic correspondence just shortly before her death seems more “tell-not-show”?

As for historical Hürrem’s relationship with Süleyman, it is often stressed by historians how he viewed her as his partner and advisor. I understand that they didn’t want to make Hürrem as such from the start because she needed to also learn about her surroundings (and her position and influence on Süleyman did rise after Hafsa’s demise and marriage), but even later in the show we mainly see Süleyman telling her that “it’s not your matter and go to your room” or “do not bother your pretty head with it”. He definitely treats her more as a partner in S4. Same about the constant (and tiring) repeated introductions of new “other women” for Süleyman and then making us watch unnecessarily long arcs of Hürrem hunting down such women. Judging by historical accounts, Süleyman stayed faithful to her, and in the show it seems that early!Hürrem spent her days mainly plotting other women’s demises. I understand giving us an insight into harem struggles when Hürrem did have to fight for her position in Süleyman’s  heart at first, but later? Why, TIMS?

Historical Hürrem is definitely a controversial figure that sparks a lot of different approaches and opinions. Not long ago, I was reading two books with two totally different approaches towards her at the same time, one was André Clot’s biography of Süleyman (Suleiman the Magnificent: The Man, His Life, His Epoch), the other Empress of the East by Leslie Peirce. Clot is highly critical of her and shows signs of the older approaches in historiography concerning Hürrem (Sultanate of Women = ruin of empire), but at the same time sees her side of the argument and is of the opinion that it is Süleyman who is truly to blame for most things (so he breaks here with the presentation of Süleyman as an innocent puppet). [And frankly, Clot is salty about everyone except for Mustafa]. On the other hand, Peirce, in an attempt to debuke the “seductress who brought ruin on the Empire”image, goes from one extreme into another. Example:

A more peaceable system of identifying the next sultan began to emerge from transformations in the practice of succession-by-combat that began with her. Roxelana helped to move the Ottoman empire into modern times, where treaty negotiations became as challenging and significant as victory in battle and domestic well-being occupied as much of the government’s attention as conquest. Bolstered by the reforms she introduced, the Ottoman sultanate would sustain itself for another three and a half centuries

Even ignoring the VERY questionable first statement (struggles to determine Süleyman’s successor that Hurrem did influence were terribly bloody), there were many factors at play that affected Ottoman Empire’s transformation and to reduce the whole complex process to one historical figure’s influence is absurd  and gross oversimplification, just as blaming solely one historical figure for deterioration of the Empire is. BTW, I recommend Günhan Börekçi’s thesis Factions and Favourites at the Court of Sultan Ahmed and his Immediate Predecessors and Baki Tezcan’s Searching for Osman: A Reassessment of the Deposition of the Ottoman Sultan Osman II if you want to read a comprehensive discussion on the whole complex process of Ottoman Empire’s political system becoming more sedentary ;) A bit of digression -  I’m sad to be so critical of Peirce here because I do enjoy and appreciate The Imperial Harem and she is far more objective and balanced in that book. Also, I’m disappointed that such a large portion of Empress is based on imagination rather than a thorough historical analysis of sources.

Another criticisim of Empress of the East that I have was well put into words in the NYT review of the book:

Less convincing are her strained exculpations for Roxelana, insisting that she was not behind various unsavory murders that benefited her. One is left with the impression that Roxelana consistently wielded impressive power, except when things went badly.

Again, in trying to fight with demonisation of someone, do not make that person an angel either. We may not have concrete evidence of Hürrem being involved in e.g. Ibrahim’s or Mustafa’s deaths, but in my opinion “there’s no smoke without fire”. Peirce does mention in The Imperial Harem that Hürrem and Safiye were two sultanas least liked by people and I don’t think the assumption that “people hated women in power” explains it all, since sultanas with even more power, like Turhan or Kösem, were much liked.

Hürrem Sultan was a controversial figure that deserves a nuanced, complex portrayal. While MC portrayal has its flaws with respect to the depicton of a historical figure, at least it does show her as a complex person, with both good and bad traits. And as importantly, it does work within the established narrative. Could it have been done better though? Yes.

On a side note,I’m  actually more salty about how Turhan was portrayed in comparison to her historical persona :/, but that’s a topic for a different discussion.

#muhteşem yüzyıl #magnificent century #muhtesem yuzyil #hurrem sultan #Hürremsultan #Anonymous #Joanna answers