#I'm not an expert on the subject at all | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nieves-de-sugui · 10 months

Text

The Yaoi Ronso and Akiko Mizoguchi

here the original post this one stems from. I advice reading that one first if you haven't. Please note I am no expert on this, and this is a post to give an overview of the different topics treated. There might be some inaccuracies.

The Yaoi Debates - 1992

In 1992, a “confrontation between women yaoi fans and gay men about the relation between the representation of homosexual love and society’s prejudice against gay men in real life” that happened in the japanese feminist magazine Bessatsu CHOISIR.

The Yaoi Ronso (or Yaoi Debates) were a series of letters published in the magazine between Masaki Sato (a gay activist), who criticized the genre, and the female readers, who defended it. Masaki Sato criticized yaoi for showing examples of homosexual life that could negatively impact young gay men who read them. Meanwhile female readers argued back that shonen ai/yaoi was not meant to depict reality, or real men. This exchange of letters ended with Masaki Sato and some of the female readers agreeing in some points, and Sato suggesting that instead of escaping from reality these stories should make reality easier to live in.

Up to that point, in most of the 20 years of academic studies regarding the subject, it has been argued that the men depicted in these stories chould be thought as a third gender free of societal expectations, object of love in a pure form. A means for female sexual liberation and exploration, made possible thanks to its detachement to reality. Lots of theories at the time said that women used these “boys” to avoid having to become “women”, and the expectations that came with the title. Maintaing the “boyhood” from childhood that is lost as they become women.

After the Debates, female academics started evaluating the power of the symbol of male homosexual love fantasies. And so started a discussion about the difference between reality and fantasy, getting to question topics such as depictions of rape being easily allowed. All of this as part of gender studies and manga studies.

One of the more discussed things in academic studies regarding shoujo and BL is its heterosexual female public. The shonen-ai/yaoi/BL has served as a medium for homosexuals to find each other but also for heterosexual women to flee society’s heteronormative and gender pressures, heavily associated with fantasy. One example of this is the magazine Barazoku (meaning Rose tribe, bara is a term highly associated with gay content). Which featured a column where letters of female readers would be published. At first these letters expressed the desires of these women to marry gay men, or become gay men themselves to enjoy a freedom they believed gay men enjoyed (they would usually be referred to as okoge or fag hags). Despite its problematic nature, the chief editor of the magazine went against advice and requests to stop publishing such letters. From there on started to appear letters from lesbian women (which ended up being the only kind of letters that woul d be featured) who, interested in depictions of homosexual love would realize their own desire for the same sex. This column was then changed to the name Yurizoku (the Lily Tribe, yuri is a term highly associated with lesbian content).

The 1990s were also when there was a “gay boom” in japan (lgbt movie festivals and other things started happening). Many of the manga magazines that published BL would feature articles that introduced the japanese gay lifestyle to its women readers. Like, gay bars, Shinjuku Ni-Choume (the gay district of Tokyo), or art popular among gays or even foreign gay communities. Gay men and women has been learned from each other in this way for a number of years now.

Academics noticed the impact of the Yaoi Ronso on BL as they started to observe gay characters who reached a happy ending emerging. The Yaoi Ronso had a definite impact on the evolution of the gerne as it started to take into account that (having meant to or not) they had a power of influence that affected real people.

sources Kayo Takeuchi James Welker Wim Lunsing

However, Wim Lunsing brings an important point to the table:

“Gay manga are not essentially different from BLB manga.”

It is true that BL is the most popular form in which we find gay stories in Japan. However, gay comics had existed for almost the same amount of time as yaoi.

Short introduction to Male Love (ML)

ML, Gei Komi and Bara are the terms with which gay content made by and for gay men are refered to. Gengoroh Tagame is one of the most prominent figures of it. Before he started publishing his very sexual BDSM comics, the beauty ideal that was pursued was the bishonen aesthetic. However, Tagame’s characters where big, muscle-y, fat, hairy men, with a clear influence by Tom of Finland, and its popularity changed the tastes of japanese gay men.

Gengoroh Tagame also started writing slice of life manga in an effort to educate japanese society about gay life and LGBT issues. He is the author of the manga My Brother’s Husband (which was later turned into a 4 episode series).

Another notable manga is Until I Met my Husband, based on an autobiographic essay by Ryousuke Nanansaki.

Akiko Mizoguchi, the Rape Fantasy Expert - An Extra

Akiko Mizoguchi is a notable researcher of BL studies. She is the expert in regards to the analysis of depictions of rape, however she writes mostly in japanese, and my comprehesion of it is very limited for academic readings.

She has wrote an extensive book: Theorizing BL As a Transformative Genre: Male-Male Fictions by and for Women - which is currently being translated to english.

Summary:

Identifying Mari Mori's 1961 short novel as the origin of the genre and the 1970's-1980's "Beautiful Boy" manga within the girls' (shojo) manga as the precursor, Dr. Akiko Mizoguchi discusses how the commercial BL genre has transformed into an unprecedented genre with feminist and queer activist potential. Recent commercial BL genre has produced stories that portray strong female characters and gay-identified characters who come out and engage in other realistic negotations. Mizoguchi argues that while BL represents beautiful male characters at the center, for veteran women fans and authors, it functions as a female sexualized discursive space in which they exchange pleasure to the extent that these women can be called "virtual gay men" and "virtual lesbians."

source

Mizoguchi is a lesbian woman trying to bring a new type of analysis of BL taking lesbianism into account.

Other academic authors with a lot on yaoi manga/BL are Mark McLelland and Thomas Baudinette.

Conclusion (of sorts)

Even though The Yaoi Debates ended, it is still being had up to these days. Both in academics and within the BL fandom. If we change the exhange of letters in magazines for the internet, we find ourselves in a similar situation. I hope that through this post the Debates have become clearer and easier to understand for those who didn’t know about it.

I close with this quote from one of the text I read for this post:

“The implication that gay sex is objectified for the purpose of the sexual liberation of women surely is a queer use of male homosexuality par excellence.”

Together with a longer version of the previous quote:

“It rather seems that gay men like Satō have difficulty with the idea that women may look at them as sex objects. Gay manga are not essentially different from BLB manga.”

Make with it what you will, but it is indeed food for thought.

Closing Remarks

For those curious ones, wanting to look into how the gay community of Japan was in the 70′s, check out Funeral Parade of Roses. And if anyone is interested in male prostitution in Japan, check out Boys for Sale (if you can, if not here’s an interview).

If you’ve made it to this point, I hope you found this post interesting or helpful in whichever way it may be needed. I have mainly summarized what little I know on the topic but if anybody is curious about the big details in an academic way, here is the best article on it I have been able to find: The Yaoi Ronso (by Wim Lunsing).

Edit: this post has been updated to correct some mistakes. If you happen to see any more please do point them out

#the yaoi debates #yaoi ronso #bl fandom #bl history #bara history #I am not at all an expert on the subject but I do think it is an interesting topic #I'm looking forward to what everyone will think of this #I hope it makes for fun conversation

69 notes · View notes

wyrddogs · 1 month

Text

Going to bitch about Functional Breeding again.

I re-joined so I could participate in thoughtful discussions about IVDD, how to manage it in a breeding program, how to eradicate it in a breed.

People who had never heard the words "intervertebral disc disease" prior to Dr Bannasch's podcast two weeks ago are now total experts. We have calls to let breeds in which CDDY is set go extinct. Breeding dogs that have at least one copy of CDDY is totally unethical (because breeds with CDDY set should cease to exist). There is no such thing as carefully breeding it out; they just need to stop existing.

It is unethical to sell dogs with CDDY to sport homes. All dogs with CDDY are in pain. Yes, even if they show no signs of it and are choosing to be active into old age. Breed enthusiasts with conflicting experience are in denial/ignorant/unethical/don't care about their dogs/etc. Agility is the most hardcore and dangerous of dog sports, and anyone who even thinks about doing agility with a CDDY dog is an animal abuser. CDDY dogs that don't show signs of pain were simply bred to have too much drive to show pain (which is unethical).

I'd forgotten that this is the group that calls for the complete eradication of all brachy breeds, no exceptions. I'm also remembering that within the first six months of the group being created, someone had called for dwarf breeds to go extinct, so I guess that was foreshadowing.

#facebook #it's really pissing me off #I think I'm reaching the limits of what use I can get out of this subject in this group #all the armchair experts coming out of the woodwork to argue with breed enthusiasts who have their boots on the ground #I've been reading every IVDD paper I can get my hands on for the last four years and am still a noob #but brenda listened to dr bannasch's podcast last week so she knows more than me #random things that irk me

17 notes · View notes

columboscreens · 9 months

Text

#columbo #season 10 #its all in the game #bitch please #columbo giving her the You May Be Cute and Sexy But I'm Still Arresting You For Murder look #i know people decry this episode but i love it. if peter knew anything it was flirting with girls #he wrote this episode as a subject matter expert

46 notes · View notes

multicolour-ink · 7 months

Note

So in the Deity AU so far we have :

On the divine side :

Mario => god of the sun, fire, warmth, chivalry, and might; associated with lions, cats and raccoons

Luigi => god of the moon, lightning, thunderstorms, courage, and fidelity; associated with dogs and foxes

Mia => goddess of family, food, baking, and devotion

Spike => god of the forge and construction, "rivalling" with Mario on the dominion of fire

Bowser => dark god, responsible for Luigi's disappearance

On the mortal side we have Peach, Daisy and Pio.

Who else would you consider a god or a mortal in this AU ? I love expanding this idea 8D

Deity AU

Thank you! I love expanding this idea too ^^

Hmmm so admittedly I've been focusing so much on the "story" and the relationship between the main characters, that I haven't given the prospect of any other characters much thought ^^; But I'll see what I can do.

Fyi Peach does technically have god blood in her, but it's only a little and not enough to qualify her as a full god (but does explain the powers she has that she often displays in the Mario verse). Mortals:

The Mario Family

Since Pio is mortal, this would mean that the rest of his family is too. So that includes Grandpa Mario, Arthur, Tony, and Marilyn. I also like to think that Marie is mortal too. Mario and Luigi are the only demi-gods in the family.

Toad (and the toad species in general)

I like to picture the toads as being nymphs or forest spirits in this AU (given they are fungi creatures). They are peaceful beings, but do not fare very well at fighting.

Professor E.Gadd

In this version I picture him a philosopher (much like the ancient Greek philosophers). He has gandered a reputation as being "mad" seeing as he has a fascination with the celestial domain, and only wishes to study the mysteries and wonder behind it.

Gods:

The Kongs

I had a think about it and I honestly feel like these characters would fit residing over constellations (much like real life animal constellations like Ursa Major, Cygnus, Delphinus etc). There was even a constellation called Musca Borealis (which I feel DK could reside over.

According to what I found: Musca Borealis (Latin for northern fly) was a constellation, now discarded, located between the constellations of Aries and Perseus. It was originally called Apes (plural of Apis, Latin for bee) by Petrus Plancius when he created it in 1612 (source)

Cranky could reside over the Cepheus constellation - which is also known as "Cepheus the King".

Rosalina

Very big stretch on this one as in the Mario verse Rosalina already resides over space. I don't see her as being a ruthless god in this AU or anything, but I imagine she would have more authority over the celestial domain.

- - -

That's pretty much all I can think of for now ^^ Feel free to suggest anything else if you like.

#literally did fast google research on this as I was writing out my answer #i'm no expert at all on this subject #though I would like to be #it's all really fascinating #also the cepheus research was literally found the same time as musca borealis - google just suggested the right thing to me I guess #super mario #deity au #mario family #donkey kong #cranky kong #toads #toad #rosalina #istadris #multicolour ink answers

25 notes · View notes

aeide-thea · 10 months

Text

truly just SUCH a typical tumblr experience but like.

Familiar Tumblr Name makes a post that's like: 'you know how fast fashion perpetuates itself by selling us clothing that gets dingy and grody really fast, so we have to replace it yearly?'

me: uh, no, actually—historically i've found that the few fast fashion pieces i acquired long outstayed their welcome, and were perfectly wearable long after i was heartily sick of them! but go on, i guess

FTN: 'let me tell you about this traditional domestic wisdom (implied: that's been lost because of, uh, capitalism) that will fix this problem (that you, too, definitely have) for you!'

me, googling: okay so this residue that FTN said was somehow a Fast Fashion thing is apparently generally caused by like. fabric softener and/or hard water. using discount detergents that skimp on active ingredients. using too much detergent so it doesn't wash out. letting your bedding go too long between washes. letting your washer go too long between cleans. etc. anyway. lots of specific factors here, many of which may in fact not apply to you in particular!

but like. why get specific when instead we could assert You Know This Problem, Right? This Lost Traditional Wisdom Will Definitely Help You Personally!!

#just like. makes me mad as rhetoric bc like. *i* can evaluate yr Dramatic Tumblr Post critically and do independent research abt it #and determine how much of it applies to me #and like. the answer is: basically none but it's a good reminder to clean the washing machine‚ thx #but like. there are loads of ppl in the notes just like. nodding along very wide-eyed #to whom this ALSO may not be applicable but who have lapped up yr sloppy demagoguery #and it's just like. [FTN] admits *in this post* that they don't actually know all the ins and outs of this #and it's just like. then probably you shouldn't be climbing onto your soapbox to explain it to people just yet!!#and telling people to get Righteously Angry that this has been Kept From Them #anyway. extremely specific subtweet and honestly the consequences of blindly taking OP's advice would probably not be too bad #but it's just like. i get really frustrated with these bloggers who want to Dispense Advice #but aren't actually experts themselves‚ don't provide any citations for their assertions‚ and claim that things are Universally Applicable #which is just. never true!! people's situations vary!!!#and like. if everyone were equipped to critically evaluate this shit it'd be fine‚ probably #but they're not! people are like 'oh wow you sound confident‚ okay‚ information integrated into my worldview now!'#and it's just like. i realize the subject matter here is relatively low-stakes but it's like. the KIND of rhetoric here is. weird.#very like. There's Been a Conspiracy and You Should Believe Me Because I Sound Confident and Friendly and Like I'm On Your Side.#Reject the Innovations of Capitalism. Retvrn to the Old Ways.#and it's just like. hm what politicians does that remind me of!#anyway. sorry for this very vehement very specific subtweet i just. idk. genuinely think this strain of tumblr demagoguery is pernicious #and like. lots of it is perpetrated by liberals!! most of it ime! but it's the same damaging dynamic even so

29 notes · View notes

queenlucythevaliant · 1 year

Note

Hello! 🧡 I'm curious how you balance viewing scripture as infallible while also not taking parts of it (Genesis in particular, to reference your recent post) literally. I've heard some people say that Genesis is meant to be a poetic version of creation and therefore not entirely truthful: sort of like a kids' story, how some details could be fudged without losing The Point. I get why God wouldn't give us all the details, and it's not like this is necessarily a core doctrine issue, but I guess what I'm asking is if scripture is infallible, why would it give an incorrect account?

Hey Anna! I'd love to talk about this! It's one of my favorite issues in the world, actually, so please be prepared for a whole lot of passion from me 😆

So the bottom line, like I said in my previous post, is that I believe that all Scripture is true and infallible, but that it ought not be read literalistically. This is not the same as saying that some Scripture is less true by virtue of using poetic language, nor that I believe that details have been fudged. For me (and others who interpret Scripture as I do), it comes down to analysis of Biblical language, style, and genre.

So okay, let me start by defining my terms:

History = A text detailing true events that actually happened. These accounts may use symbolic, metaphorical, or otherwise figurative language in the service of conveying these events. A history is also not necessarily complete in its detail or exact in its chronology unless the text itself makes those claims (ie it's possible for histories to backtrack and tell events again from another point of view; this is pretty common actually.)

Biblical figurative language can take a variety of forms depending on the genre of the text we're discussing, however in general it is used to express truths that cannot be expressed in other ways. I'm gonna quote Lewis again here, as I think his discussion of Biblical symbolism in Mere Christianity is really great and relevant. This is from book three, chapter 10 (Hope):

There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of "Heaven" ridiculous by saying they do not want "to spend eternity playing harps." The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity.

Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share His splendour and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of Heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it. People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs.

Figurative language is used throughout the entire Bible. It's in discussions of heaven, like Jack illustrates here, but it's also frequently used in the Epistles ("I have been crucified with Christ") and, in the Gospels ("You must be born again.") It's heavily employed in the prophetic books, Psalms, and the wisdom literature (not even gonna pick an example, it's everywhere). It's used frequently throughout the Pentateuch (God "bore [the Israelites] up on eagle's wings"). It is used in Biblical histories ("[Samson's] soul was vexed to death"), though not to the extent that I believe it's used in Genesis 1-11. Sometimes the text telegraphs that figurative language is about to be used, but certainly not always.

None of these things are any less true than the things described in what we might call "plain" language. Rather, imagery is a tool that helps us understand the deeper truth of a thing; it "expresses the inexpressible" without causing us to doubt that the images are about something real. Sometimes, the language even tells us something that occured spiritually/from God's perspective, but which did not literally happen in the physical world (again, "I have been crucified with Christ.") I think it's clearly a mistake to conclude that the presence of figurative language means that the story is merely figurative or that it's incorrect.

So I read the Genesis 1-2 creation account as a largely figurative account of historical events, and I think it's written that way in order to convey God's perspective of creation. Certainly a human perspective on creation would be (a) theologically un-useful and (b) impossible for an ancient person to understand.

To expound on point (b) a little bit: even a modern person, with all the geological, paleontological, chemical, and genetic evidence that we have, simply cannot comprehend the expanse of what we call "deep time." Modern scientists must communicate these things in metaphors: they use 24-hour clocks in which each minute is thirty thousand years and football fields with geological epochs marked off at the various yard lines in order to try to express that which the human mind is fundamentally not equipped to grasp. The Bible should and must tell the story of creation from God's perspective, and to do that it must use figurative language.

Thus, "Days" are figurative days, but as such they convey greater truths about the way that creation appeared to God: it was gradual and periodic and God was patient, yet it did not seem to take eons to him. It was like a week of diligent work that produced good results.

Likewise, when the text says that God speaks light and land and life into existence, we can read that as a statement of God's incredible, beautiful power over creation. The moon likely formed in the "Big Splat," when another planet collided with proto-Earth and flung debris into space (I'm not even gonna touch the formation of the sun-- waaaaaay outside my wheelhouse). To God, these things were as simple as saying, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night" and then making them. The complex natural processes involved were simple before the Almighty God.

Likewise, the billions of years that are took for life to evolve, from self-replicating auto-catalytic molecules to microbes to multicellular life that arose from endosymbiosis and horizontal gene transfer, and then all the way down the epochs of history: the beautiful Cambrian Explosion, trilobites and the first chordates, then Tiktaalik propping itself up in shallow water and its tetrapod descendants stepping onto land for the first time; those strange, fascinating club-moss forests of the Carboniferous, dinosaurs and archaeopteryx taking to the skies, the K-T extinction event and then mammals picking up the torch and growing larger, whales returning to the seas and their vestigial legs disappearing, life, life life... All of that, to God, was two days of creation in which he spoke and natural processes produced the glorious array of life that existed when Adam and Eve came to be. He had authority over all of it. He said "Let the earth bring forth living creatures," and it did! God made them as surely as if he had sculpted them from clay with his hands, as miraculously as if He had spoken a word and they had existed in a split-second.

It's all true! All truth is God's truth! Every word of Genesis is God's truth, not despite the fact that it's written using figurative language, but because it is. We can understand truths that science alone can't account for - that in all the vastness of protein sequence space, God formed rubisco and ATP synthase: not by random chance, but through loving providence using randomness as a tool. We can see deep time as God sees it, not as a yawning abyss that we can't begin to properly conceptualize, but as a week in the mind of our great God who transcends time.

(My concluding paragraph is going to be somewhat harsh toward YE Creationists, but it cuts to the core of why I feel so strongly about how we read Genesis. I'm going to put it under the cut so that no one has to read it unless they want to; I'm not trying to attack anyone. I hope you know that I say all these things out of a place of deep, deep love.)

Returning to what Jack said: "If [people] cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them." YE Creationists would have us read Genesis without allowing for any figurative language; they would disregard the scientific method in order to do so. To my thinking, if a creation in seven 24-hour days were the intended meaning of the text- if we were, like children, meant to take everything in it entirely literally- then God would be a liar, because then he would have created a world in which the speed of light and geologic strata and the fossil record and even the evidence of our own DNA and physiology are all lying to us about how we were created. I could not love such a God.

But because I, like Jack, like millions of other Christians, can read the text of Scripture and interpret the figurative language it uses, I can instead marvel at the wonder and glory of our Creator-God, to whom epochs are like days, who can speak natural processes into existence. Scripture is history and it's poetry and it's all true. All truth is God's truth.

#i would love to write a book on these subjects someday #once i'm an experienced expert in microbial evolution i'd love to either go back to school for an mdiv or collaborate with a theologian #to produce a pair of books: one targeted at scientific minded non-Christians and another targeted at YE-creationists #idk it's a long way off #but this feels like good practice #love you dearly anna my friend #thanks for asking this #i hope my answer was okay and that i didn't come on too strong lol #if you or anyone else would like me to recommend some of my favorite books/articles/talks on these subjects lmk #i'm abysmal at keeping track of my reading/listening so it would definitely take a while to hunt things down and compile #but i could manage it #i do have more than just cs lewis quotes in my wheelhouse but i tend to figure that he's someone we can all broadly agree on #all truth is god's truth #ask me hard questions

25 notes · View notes