#a really effeminate man specifically! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tollingreminiscentbells · 4 months

Text

In the defense of bottom!Voldemort|Tom

I'm in a mood, so I've decided to break down my thoughts on this topic and I'm putting it in the tags for anyone who is interested. With a suitably melodramatic title.

The rules here are simple: if you know you won't like this, don't read it. If you read it anyway and don't like it, that is the definition of a you problem. Okay? Okay.

So let's talk about why I think it is incorrect and, frankly, offensive to claim that Voldemort|Tom bottoming is inherently out of character.

In order to have this conversation, we're actually having a bigger conversation about sex. Because that's really what this is about.

Something that has popped up in a handful of comments on my own fic is surprise that Voldemort wants to suck Harry's cock. Now, I'm going to be charitable and assume that the people who say things like this don't realize what they're implying. But the reality is that they are operating from the assumption that a man sucking another man's dick is, at least to some extent, weak and degrading. A subservient act.

This is both homophobic and factually untrue. A significant percentage of people who like dick also like giving blowjobs. It's an enjoyable, pleasurable thing to do. And even if the physical act of sucking cock doesn't turn someone on, there are so many other reasons to want to do it. Getting off on being the source of your partner's pleasure, for one example.

But let's move on to the elephant in the room: anal sex. Specifically, the act of being penetrated. The interesting thing about bottoming is that, contrary to what some people seem to believe, it's the more powerful position. Penetration is only happening because the person bottoming is granting permission. Even if that person has ceded total control of the encounter, the fact remains that they made that decision in the first place and could un-make it at any time.

If that agency does not exist, the sex is not truly consensual. Full stop.

Moreover, a strong, dominant personality =/= topping. There is no innate correlation. This is where misogyny really comes to the table. Bottoming seen as a feminine act, and femininity conflated with weakness and submission. Do I think (most) Tomarrymort readers are consciously thinking this way? No. But that doesn't mean the underlying bias isn't present.

There are so many ways penetrative sex can play out. Yes, you get the "classic" version of the person topping being dominant and the person bottoming being submissive. But you can also get topping from the bottom, where the dominant partner in every way is the person being fucked. Or maybe no one is taking a dominant role. Et cetera. This is a broad overview, not an exhaustive list.

Do you see what none of these things have? An assumption that topping=stereotypical masculinity and bottoming=stereotypical femininity. Even with a couple that likes playing with that flavor of gender roles, it's a choice they're making. And before someone willfully misunderstands me, there is nothing wrong with that choice. But don't mistake it for something it's not.

So now that we've clarified that being penetrated is not weak, degrading, or even inherently submissive, let's bring this back to Tomarrymort.

First of all, have you read the books? Voldemort is campy as shit. High drama and a surprisingly great sense of humor (his jokes are fucked up, but also pretty funny). He's not this hyper-masculine figure. On the flip side, Harry is not an effeminate man. He's a jock who will fight you.

So from whence comes this zealous dedication some people have to a fixed dynamic that puts Voldemort|Tom in the masculine role and Harry in the feminine role? Yes, we've established that sex positions are neither of those things, but we all know that's the assumption simmering toxically in the background.

I can't say for sure, but my instincts tell me that it comes from a shallow read of both characters. Voldemort is a powerful man who commands a terrorist organization. Harry is the good-hearted hero, defined by his capacity to love. And this can get twisted into Voldemort|Tom taking and Harry giving in a very reductive way. Even when the relationship is meant to be consensual.

Obviously, I don't think this is universal. I've read a lot of incredible takes on sex in this fandom, with different top/bottom/switching dynamics. And this is fanfiction, which means you can play with characterization to your heart's content. What I'm talking about is people insisting that Voldemort|Tom must top and Harry must bottom and anything else is wrong.

Why are you so adamant about that? Have you ever given it a moment's thought? If you prefer it, you prefer it, that's all fine. But when it morphs into claiming that bottom!Voldemort|Tom is out of character and bad, things have crossed over into the arena of the absurd. Like what you like, but be aware of what you're really saying when you talk about sex.

Not conflating bottoming with weakness and topping with strength would be a good starting point. Understand that there are myriad reasons a person might want to bottom. It can be a source of relief, allowing someone else to take control so you don't have to. It can be an act of manipulation. It can be a form of domination. And sometimes it's just because bottoming is what feels good and they have more fun that way. Or it's just the kind of pleasure they're in the mood for on a random Tuesday night.

No one is telling you to read things you don't enjoy. And no one is saying that fixed top/bottom dynamics don't exist in the real world. But it's ridiculous to apply a fixed dynamic to such a degree that you get upset when other people write something else and consider a fic "ruined" by it. You really should put some thought into your biases. It's good for you. But even if you don't, when you claim a sexual dynamic is inherently out of character, you're actually just wrong. So stop doing that. It will be a net gain for all of us, including you.

#harrymort #tomarrymort #it's time for a sex talk #i prefer to write switching but there is no hierarchy here

272 notes · View notes

carlyraejepsans · 2 months

Note

age gaps ARE hot and everytime an girl older than me on here is nice i get really flustered a post a day keeps the haters away keep posting ❗❗ 👍👍👍👍

you'd think people from the minority with a specific slang word for "young, skinny, clean-shaven effeminate man" would be a little less clueless about this stuff, but you know... gay terminology only exists for online jokes right? LOL

anyway 🤝 all of you. I've been the personification of "stacy's mom" from age 16 onwards. not my fault all my friends' moms are baddies ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

#''saying you like milfs isn't the same as saying you like age gaps'' I'm 20 bbygirl. it's kind of implied.#answered asks

84 notes · View notes

idolomantises · 8 months

Note

Hi! I love your art as a transmasc person, and adore how you do your designs!

Do you have a specific idea in mind when you are making a trans characters? Thank you for answering if you do! :)

thank you! and this is a good question. I remember an ongoing mindset I had was "you should make it non-conventional, not harmful"

I think a common trend for trans representation is to make the character super passing to a point where you couldn't tell they're trans at first glance. and thats totally fine! but I feel like wanting to constantly stick by this artistic approach is really not much different than female character designs that feel like they have to be curvy and feminine or else they're not seen as women.

Sorrel for example, was just going to be a cis man, but I decided to make him trans, because you don't see a lot of trans male characters in media that are designed as feminine or act effeminately, even though they do exist! I think a common fear is that they don't want to come across like they're saying something about a certain group, but i think denying that sort of rep is a bit of a shame, so I wanted to change that.

sometimes i use sexual dimorphism, whether it be bugs or my demons. just because its just kind of fun to explore design wise. It's also fun to watch people figure out if a character is trans without flat out saying.

It also helps that my "cis" characters are very non-conventional as well. because well, a lot of cis people tend to look outside expected gender norms!

#ask quill

201 notes · View notes

drdemonprince · 4 days

Note

Any chance you'd expand on the hank hill trans guy post? (Sorry, best indicator I could come up with.) The concept interests me as I decidedly know my maleness, yet don't feel impeded by for the most part, any male gendered norms/boxes. I am fairly masculine, though I rarely use those kinds terms to describe myself. I have found I often do stray outside of what society pushed for me when I transitioned, yet I again do not feel it has taken from my right to maleness whatsoever. I am just me, who happens to be male. I have had friends try and suggest I am NB adjacent but I do not feel this way whatsoever. I feel more people are outliers to gender expectation than we care to admit and it's disappointing the way cis-people deny that. Hope this wasn't too long winded, I value your writing and perspective, and wanted to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Yeah, well so many things all get conflated by gender labels, and it's all so personal, you know? Masculinity does not have to mean maleness, and a person's gender identity might be a reflection of some innate quality they experience themselves as having, or a general summary of their tendencies, or their desired presentation, or their sense of affinity with other people, or an interpersonal tool, or something they just go along with because it was given to them by society, or any other number of things.

I think my recent substack piece on detransition goes into this pretty well, and I have an upcoming piece of what @pastimperfection calls "bilateral dysphoria" that comes out next week that delves into it too.

I think I mostly saw taking on a male identity as a means to an end more than any kind of innate reflection of who I was, though I did feel an affinity with effeminate men for a lot of reasons. I think I also discounted how much I have in common with my fellow nonbinary people of all stripes, because that identity became so strongly associated with being an annoying type of queer person that everybody else just wrote off as ultimately being their assigned gender at birth anyway no matter how much they protested. it doesn't help that 'nonbinary' is a catchall term for literally thousands if not millions of very distinct experiences and desires.

transitioning gave me control over how i was perceived, finally, but hormones are a throttle that only go in one very specific direction, and you don't really have all that much control over which changes kick in at which times and what people will make of you once you do start registering to them as some identity other than what you were first saddled with. it's an incredible gift to be able to toggle that throttle. but it's limited, not because medical transition isn't incredible and needed for so many, but because there is no escaping the goddamned binary cissexist logic that influences everything about how people treat you, how you navigate institutions, who finds you desirable and what they want out of you, and so much else.

if you're able to cast a lot of the external societal bullshit aside and feel strong in your maleness, maybe you're stronger than me or maybe our orientation to these things is just different, i don't know. i was never all that sensitive to feedback that i was doing the whole being-a-woman-thing all that wrong. i reveled in violating those rules to an extent. succeeding at being a woman despite my best attempts was what felt super dysphoric. and now i guess im succeeding at being a man, insofar as im always read as one, and it feels just as uncomfortable and objectifying and false. i thought that with manhood i could probably just grit my teeth and deal with it, but i'm finding that i can't.

ive always been very open that for me, gender is a thing I Do, and i guess to those who know me well it wouldnt be surprising to hear that i have gotten tired of Doing Being a Man and dont feel like playing that particular gendered game anymore. I tend to get bored of things! and find the flaws in things. and find my comfort in being fault-finding and contrarian and not being a joiner. and thats okay. i learned a lot along the way. not having to try any more is a huge relief. i can just do whatever. and know actively that people will more often than not be wrong in what they make of me.

maybe it was natural feeling for you to decidely 'know' your maleness without a care for masculine standards because that is the right identity for you! and maybe i only feel secure in the "not knowing" realm and in letting go of what people think of me or finding any kind of tidy categorization for it because that's the right spot for me. for now. until i find a new interesting way to be unhappy and striving for more and different again. :) that's just part of being alive, for me.

55 notes · View notes

howtofightwrite · 9 months

Text

Clothes Followup

Hi there. Professional sportswear outfitter and part-time athelete here just chiming in on how these choices are perfectly believable, in my humble opinion: #1 SHOES "sneakers" is a loose definition. but, if the character is wearing casual/lifestyle "sneakers" like jordan lows, vans, etc., these type of shoes are FLAT (not narrow running shoes). Flat soled sneakers are often preferred training shoes for mixed arts or lifting at the gym. You could wear boots, but you're sacrificing agility. As a female, I can say that a female character likely would not inflict such a handicap as BOOTS on herself. Feet are very resilient and resistant to pain and injury. Being able to move on your feet matters a lot more than protecting them does. PASS #2 PANTS. you are not punching someone's pants while boxing. and have you watched fight club? they mostly wear jeans. they're durable, wick moisture (although it feels unpleasant), and if they're fitted properly, they're not going to get in the way of your agility. Jeans are light armor if you're speaking in tabletop rpg terms. PASS #3 SHIRT. a good tshirt of a decent quality will wick moisture, will not be bulky or baggy, and will move with its wearer. tshirts are not expensive and are the best option outside a sleeveless top or topless for martial arts. Especially if you have boobs. Boxing in only a racerback sports bra is also viable, but a tshirt will provide light protection to the skin, which is a good idea in amateur boxing. If they're WEARING GLOVES, nobody is grappling anyone's shirt so there is no risk of clothes-grabbing violations happening there. If this ring is literally underground, it's probably cold. Clothes can be shed between matches, but it's often more important to be clothed appropriately so as to prevent both overheating and chills. Becoming chilled between fights is a greater danger to performance than getting sweaty is. PASS I also have questions as to the type of boxing gloves being used. Are they full padded gloves? Light knuckle pads? Do the boxers wear headgear? Mouthguards? What areas are allowed to be hit or is it a free-for-all? Maybe you think these details are mistakes, but I disagree. Half my job is punching boxes all day. Hot, sweaty, fully clothed, wearing comfortable shoes. Lots of moving around. If I am going to punch boxes (or faces) for hours, that's exactly how I'd dress. The rest of my job? Literally outfitting people with boxing equipment. Literally selling people clothing for athletics. I am also a footwear specialist. Thank you for taking the time to read this. :) -lilkittay

So, apologies in advance, lilkittay, but you're about to get dragged. This might come as a shock, but I actually have a copy of the novel Fight Club. I just found it wedged between a copy of Hell's Angels by Hunter S. Thompson, and the Demolished Man by Alfred Bester. I'm not going to try to figure out what lead to that sorting peculiarity. The book is exceptionally good, and if you've never read it, it's an easy (if somewhat unpalatable) recommendation. Stick it up there with books like Native Son, or Ivan Denisovich, in that it covers some really ugly subject matter, but discusses a problem exceptionally well. And, in the 27 years since the novel was originally published, it has proved itself fairly prescient. It's not about the violence, it is an excellent discussion on the underlying psychology of toxic masculinity.

Now, the last time I mentioned Fight Club, someone immediately piped up with, “you've lost all credibility.” That's their problem, but I didn't actually define it, and it is a term that gets thrown around without being defined. Toxic masculinity refers specifically to an individual who cannot engage with their own emotions, particularly painful ones, in a healthy way, because they view those behaviors as effeminate. As a result, they respond aggressively and, or, violently. That's the toxic part. You get dumped. Your pet dies. You get passed over for a promotion at work. And, instead of dealing with that in a healthy way. In any healthy way. You go out into the world and try to make someone else suffer. That is toxic.

Unfortunately, Fight Club is not the grown up version of Calvin and Hobbes, though that is an amusing fan theory, and something that holds together better in the film thanks to Brad Pitt's costuming decisions.

I'm saying all of this to point out, the characters in Fight Club have no idea how to fight.

More than that, jeans are not light armor. Motorcycle leathers? Sure, those would be light armor. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're described as light armor in D20 modern. But, the only place I'd expect to see denim categorized as light armor is a game that used, “light armor,” for mage gear, “medium armor,” as rogue's leather and chain, and, “heavy armor,” as warrior gear. Which is to say, yeah, that's not how that works at all.

The problem with jeans as armor is, they're really bad at it. Someone with a crowbar? Yeah, jeans aren't going to do anything about that. Someone with an axe? I've heard about the aftermath, it was not pretty. Against a sword? Nope. Against a knife? Personal experience says the knife will win without issue. In an underground fighting arena against someone driving a shin kick into your knee? Yeah, your jeans may look fine after the fact, but you're probably not using that leg again anytime soon.

But, that RPG comment made something click together a little, so back to footwear for a second.

Why would someone wear boots? Now, personally, I wear motorcycle boots in my day to day life. Not because I'm a rider, but because I find them more comfortable and convenient than normal dress shoes, and so long as I keep them buffed out, they pass for men's dress shoes at a glance. The interesting thing about this is that my heel has a wide, flat, block of wood under it at all times. If it was a matter of life and death, I could probably grind off a significant chunk of my heel bringing a bike to a stop without suffering any injury. Now, I bring this up, because driving 200-300lbs of force behind a sharply edged wooden mallet into your unarmored instep will not improve your agility.

In the real world, armor doesn't work like D&D. There's no equivalent exchange between mobility and being able to soak a hit. (And if you think there's an irony in substituting a term from one RPG for another... well, yeah. You're not wrong.) If you think someone's going to stomp on your foot, bring steel toed boots. What you lose in agility today, you make up for in your ability to walk without a cane tomorrow.

The paradox of humans is that we are both stupidly resilient, and horrifically fragile, at the same time. Now, at this point, I do want to say something genuinely nice to you, even if it sounds a tiny bit condescending. You've never looked at another person as 150-250lbs of ambulatory meat and considered the best way to take them apart with your hands. And you know what? That is a good thing. Embrace that, and don't let go, because never finding yourself in that kind of a place is a credit to you, and the world you've been able to live in.

All of that said, fighting another human being is not a workout. It's engineering. You're looking at an organic machine with roughly the same parts and pieces you have, and your goal is to make that machine stop thrashing around, screaming, and leaking on everything, before it does the same to you. It's not better. It's not worse. It's different, and it comes with different considerations. You don't dress to look good or stay comfortable, you dress to avoid life altering injuries if at all possible.

Competitive fighting does land at a meeting point of these two considerations however. The fighter wants to come out intact, the sponsors want good show, one that will draw an audience. This leads to things like fighting in a sports bra. Yes, it may be the most, “agile,” option, but if you're going to be in a fist fight, a heavy leather jacket, preferably one with fiberglass plates may not breathe, but it will take far more abuse than your body can. (Actually, I think sometimes the inserts are made out of memory foam these days, which should also take a hit pretty effectively, especially against an unarmed foe.)

This isn't a major issue, but it is something to consider, when thinking about the temperature of the arena, it's important to remember that human body heat in a crowded space is somewhat cumulative. So, a room that starts out at around 60 degrees, could easily warm up to a comfortable temperature once the spectators are present. There's actually consistent math for calculating what you should set the thermostat for in an amphitheater when it's unoccupied so that the temperature is comfortable when the seats are filled, but I can't remember the numbers, and can't find it on short notice.

You do bring up a good point, the original Anon did not specify what kind of gloves were used. I assumed those were nominally regulation boxing gloves, but those could be something like the UFC gloves from a couple decades back, that left the fingers exposed while armoring the knuckles. The armor on those gloves allowed the wearer to inflict all kinds of horrific injuries on one's foes. In an event Michi is quite happy to recount, her younger brother almost lost an eye to a skull fracture from one of those during a poorly supervised sparring bout. It's fairly credible to suggest that an illegal fight club might use those simply to excite the crowds with actual bloodshed.

Now, as someone who has worked in shipping, I know full well that sometimes boxes do hit back. However, they are the exception rather than the rule. There's nothing wrong with practicing on punching bags, but boxes aren't trying to break you. At worst, they may just want to take a nap on the floor without regard to whether you're in the way or not. Live opponents? They're looking at you as however many pounds of meat machinery, and trying to end you. Looking good doesn't make their job harder, but armoring up does.

Anyway, like I said to the original Anon, nothing in their explanation was outright wrong. A lot of it was non-optimal, but not to such a degree as to shatter belief. The mistake you're making, and I really do say this with respect, is that you're looking at it like any other physical activity. As I said, combat is not a work out. Combat as a hazardous environment beyond the reach of OSHA. You wear protective gear (if you can) because that protection may be the difference between walking out alive and (basically) unharmed, or never walking again. You wouldn't (or at least, really shouldn't) take a bike out on the freeway at 60mph in jeans and a tees, you really don't want to get in a fight wearing them either.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

#writing reference #writing advice #writing tips #starke answers #how to fight write #martial arts

296 notes · View notes

johannestevans · 9 months

Text

Is the Homophobia Worth a New Hobby?

Rolling the dice on homophobia in nerd spaces.

Photo by lil artsy via Pexels.

Originally published in Prism & Pen. Also available on Patreon.

---

I went to a board-game evening last night with my boyfriend Lewis, who’s nonbinary and uses he/they pronouns. Frequently, people assume they’re cisgender, especially because he’s fat and has a gorgeous, thick beard.

I’m a gay trans man, I only use he/him pronouns, and I’m at a point in my transition now where I almost never get clocked as transgender even by other trans people — a lot of the time other trans people don’t even realise I’m trans too unless I say it explicitly or take my shirt off and they can see my tits.

I occasionally joke that the time I really knew I was passing as a man was when other comics in stand-up comedy spaces started making homophobic jokes about me instead of misogynistic ones, joking that they didn’t want to bend over in front of me, or similar.

But just because they don’t know I’m transgender doesn’t mean they don’t know I’m gay.

I’ve written before about my nuanced experiences of gender-based interaction as a gay man who’s perceived unequivocally as gay and effeminate in every situation I’m in, even at a distance, and how this translates to cis women feeling more comfortable with and safer with me than they might if they perceived me as heterosexual.

Gay men often seek out employment in areas that are perceived as being “for women” or stereotypical women’s jobs — nursing is a stereotypical career for queer men, and much of the time, queer men will fall into step with women in retail, hospitality, and other customer service positions, especially if they’re very obviously queer from a distance.

Why?

Because homophobia is hostile to us in every environment.

People will often wonder why queer men will take up stereotypical “women’s jobs” when being men in those positions make them stand out more because there aren’t other men around. Won’t they be opening themselves up to more homophobia by being such a visible queer man among a staff of mostly other women?

And what those people are missing is how like… queer men among women in service positions will absolutely be treated with homophobia, but because they’re alongside women who are going to be treated misogynistically by many customers at a bare minimum, they will be amongst friends.

Even in more traditionally “masculine” careers and environments, queer men might gravitate towards socialising with the women in the space rather than other men who are cishet or just less visibly queer, because it’s safer as a queer man to be amongst those women than to be amongst the men — who might be violent, who might be hostile or rude, or might just treat him as invisible.

People often treat male nurses and midwives, male nannies and primary school teachers, male receptionists and personal assistants as jokes. They might think of them as stereotypically gay and effete, limp-wristed, “sassy.” I know a lot of those gays. They’re my friends and lovers and ex-coworkers.

I’ve worked alongside them. They’re absolutely real.

But what people mix up is the cause and effect of why those men are in those positions. They don’t become sassy and obviously gay because they took a receptionist job. They went for those jobs — and might excel in those jobs because — being hired elsewhere might be harder, and specifically, surviving elsewhere might be harder.

Because it’s not just about getting hired, it’s about getting to do your day-to-day duties, about going for promotions, about how comfortable customers or patients or parents or students are dealing with you.

And while, sure, they might treat you with homophobia in mind, or say homophobic shit to you — because the positions are stereotypical women’s jobs and you as an effete gay man are treated by much of society as woman-lite or basically a woman (“Except you’re technically a man… I guess.”) the idea that you belong in that position is natural.

These are the caring professions, the service professions.

People like women to be in those positions because they’re “more caring” or because they’re “good communicators” — and because they’re expected to constantly smile and be friendly and bubbly and pretty, and to do what they’re told and to say “the customer is always right” and make you feel good even as you treat them disrespectfully.

People are often more comfortable treating a woman like that than they are a straight man, because to do that to a straight man would be emasculating. It would be an insult to his manhood to treat him like that.

What are you insulting with a gay man, when we don’t have the same manhood to insult in the first place? What are you emasculating, when he emasculates himself with his very existence?

Some queer men I know go up the expected men’s path of advancement in their careers, while others are much more in the expected women’s ones. These men get treated in the same way their female colleagues are and impacted by a similar glass ceiling.

It’s not to say gay men can’t benefit from and leverage misogyny against female coworkers in the workplace, any more than women can’t benefit from and leverage homophobia against their queer male coworkers, depending on the dynamics of a particular workplace and the intersections of marginalisation at play — particularly given that I’m only discussing here the intersections of misogyny and homophobia. I’m not even getting into racism and particularly anti-Blackness, ableism, ageism, fatphobia, or any other form of bigotry that influences the power dynamics and marginalised experiences present in any given workplace.

The thing about workplaces is that we often enter them because we have to. We have to navigate different forms of bigotry or marginalisation, slot ourselves into wherever we can safely fit, or at least fit as safely as possible, because ultimately, we need to earn a wage.

We can’t just pick and choose and wait until we can find employment with people who don’t or wouldn’t leverage institutional power over us, or find a mythical workplace that’s untouched by bigotry or capitalism and the desire by bosses, not to mention society, to exploit their workers.

We do our best to fit ourselves into whatever career track or employment position will allow us best to survive and support ourselves, because we need to earn money to live — to pay rent, to feed and clothe ourselves, to support ourselves.

What about hobbies?

What about things that we’re doing ostensibly for fun? Is it worth it then? Any woman can tell you that navigating nerd spaces can be excruciating.

Frequently, women and people perceived as women are presumed to be ignorant of anything around them in such spaces. They’re guessed to be the wives or girlfriends of men in attendance. Simple concepts might continuously be explained to them when they’re veterans of whatever the hobby is.

They’re treated as romantic or sexual prospects of any man who lays eyes on them, with a refusal to allow them to just play and exist in the space without being sexually objectified.

In the event they do show their knowledge or expertise, insecure men might respond by quizzing them and putting them to test after test, or by furiously disagreeing with any mild critique or opinion they share.

And again, I’m only talking about misogyny here — if that woman is Black, or queer, or trans, or all three?

White cishet dudes will froth at the mouth to demand why she thinks she’s allowed to be there, why she thinks she can be comfortable or can enjoy the same things they do, or speak on them with any entitlement or expertise.

Many white cishet dudes in nerd spaces effectively believe that nerd spaces — sci-fi and fantasy literature and entertainment, board games, video games, computing and tech spaces, coding, comic books, etc — were invented by and for men like them. They respond to any kind of diversity of identity or experience in the space as if it’s an invading threat.

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko via Pexels.

Particularly because many of them have experiences of being emasculated or bullied for not measuring up to mainstream standards of straight masculinity — because they’re disabled or chronically ill, because they’re autistic, or simply because they “look” and came off as nerdy or geeky since they were young, and were never able to navigate “popular” spaces — they take on a very competitive mindset with the other men within the space. A lot of these spaces can be horrifically toxic, with these men putting each other down, wallowing in their loneliness whilst gloating over men who are more lonely or more pathetic or uglier or nerdier than they are.

They don’t want solidarity with each other in most instances — until a woman walks into the room.

They use and have internalised deeply misogynistic ideologies, often thinking of women as prizes to be won, or beautiful trophies, or in general as people who experience emotions — especially loneliness or isolation — in “shallower” or less real ways than they do themselves as men.

Subsequently, they respond to the presence of women in their spaces as a potential threat and/or as potential reward for one of them.

Nerdy guys of this calibre are often very attached to their identity as a societal outsider, and by their own definition of societal outsider (based in faulty assumption and self-obsession) women can’t experience this sort of social isolation. Women are therefore treated as invaders in the space.

Visibly or obviously queer men are not treated in precisely the same way, but in many social environments, because of the ways in which effeminate queer men are socially sorted into a woman category by homophobes, we’re often treated in ways that effectively mirror expressions of misogyny.

I have a stand-up bit about how many cishet people effectively project their expected male-female dynamic of a heterosexual relationship onto a gay couple, where you can see them doing the maths in their head:

Oh, that one rides a motorbike and has short hair, so she must be the husband, and the other one wears dresses and paints her nails, so she must be the wife. But wait, the wife has a high-powered law career and the one with short hair is a stay-at-home mother! Maybe the lawyer is the husband and the mom is the wife! But wait! The lawyer was the one who carried the baby, and the stay-at-home mom is trans! But wait!

And so on.

Straight people are so obsessed with their gender binary that they’ll tell you something like “Dogs are boys and cats are girls,” to the extent that if you’re like, “What? Why?” they’ll say something like, “You know, because dogs are goofy but cats are sexy,” and they’ll treat that shit as completely normal rather than moderately deranged. They’ll act like you’re the odd one for saying how ridiculous that is, because it’s so ingrained in their world view.

So of course, meeting a couple formed of two men or two women (or two people they assume are two men or two women), they’ll naturally project the same gender binary onto them.

I like board games, right?

That’s not true.

I love board games. I’ve been obsessed with them since I was a child. I own dozens of them, and I’m only starting to get more into the hobby as an adult in the past few years, attending board-game nights here and there. I used to have a lot more social anxiety, and I tend to get quite overwhelmed in unfamiliar environments with large groups of people where I’m also learning new skills, so it’s taken me awhile to feel more confident about going to boardgames events — but I’ve pretty much always attended queer ones.

There are multiple queer board and tabletop game nights in the Bristol and Bath area. There’s one or two in Cardiff; there’s a regular running one in Galway; of course, there’s several across the Leeds and Bradford area.

Last night we went to a local board-game night — just a general meet-up. I liked the look of it because it seemed to have an older age cohort than many of the queer ones I’ve gone to, and a good mix of people.

Lewis and I walk in: they’re drinking a pint of cider, I’m drinking a double of Bailey’s on the rocks. They’re wearing an open striped shirt over a t-shirt and a pair of shorts; I’m wearing some blue trousers with a ruffled blouse and an open waistcoat. They have a thick gingery-brown beard; I have thick sideburns and a moustache.

Of course, I also wear eyeliner. He’s fat, I’m thin, and while we both have similar mannerisms — we hold our hands delicately, we both tend to sway our hips somewhat when we walk with a slight sashay, we both gesticulate and express ourselves with our hands — because of the way that people tend to desexualise fat people and particularly those they perceive as fat men, cishet men often treat Lewis slightly differently than they do fellow cishet men, even just assuming they’re a cis gay man.

We often notice and talk about the fact that when Lewis walks in somewhere on their own, people read him as gay, and that’s coloured and influenced by their fatphobia, where they just assume that fat men don’t fuck, but because of a combination of his fatness and his queerness leading people to assume a level of emasculation, they guess that a lot of people assume they’re a bottom.

Until I’m standing next to them and it’s clear we’re a couple — the assumption is that because I’m thinner and because I’m more pretty than Lewis’ handsome, I’m the bottom, and if we’re split into a cishet’s vision of a man and woman, that makes me the woman.

We put our drinks down as I take out the two games we brought with us and a man comes over — tall, white, cis and straight, in his 50s. He’s friendly!

To Lewis.

I was the one that RSVPed to the event, my name was on the attending list, and they were just marked on the list as a +1. I was the one that looked for the event and brought it to them for us to go.

He asks both of us our names, but when asking us about games, he directs most of his questions to Lewis; his body is angled toward Lewis’ conversation; he looks at Lewis about 70 or 80% more than he looks at me, even though I’m leading much more of the conversation.

It’s not that Lewis doesn’t like board games, of course he does! He attends regular queer board-game nights, they enjoy different kinds of board games, but they remarked that what stood out to them about the conversations of the night is that men kept asking them about the different games, and he didn’t know any of the terminology — deckbuilders or worker-placement games, co-operative versus area control games — and wasn’t as familiar with the stalwarts in each genre.

Whereas, I was and was just ignored. Lewis likes board games the way a normal person likes board games — he likes to play different ones, he enjoys them as a method of socialising with others and meeting and engaging with new people.

Photo by Pixabay via Pexels.

I’m a bit of a freak about board games. I own dozens of them, I browse forum entries and read reviews of board games, I’d play board games solo — they’re an area of special interest for me.

The man who walked over asked if anyone was interested in a particular game, and I put up my hand and said I was super interested in playing In The Year of the Dragon (which I very much enjoyed and was absolutely into). Even playing the game, he described a lot of it initially to Lewis and the other guy playing with us and made far less eye contact with me, talked less directly to me, but also in general acted as if I was less interested and invested in the game than anyone else at the table, despite the fact that I was the first volunteer for it.

It’s the sort of thing that’s so blatant when you experience it, and yet if I’d called it out at the time, I would have been treated as being very unreasonable, if not insane. A lot of the time, when cishet men treat women and effeminate men like this (as abled people with disabled people; as white people with POC and esp Black and dark-skinned people; the list goes on and on) they’re often not entirely conscious that they’re doing it.

There have been numerous studies into gendered interactions in different environments, how much men interrupt women versus the reverse, how a minority of women are perceived as making a more significant amount of the group because of how they’re treated as tokens. If you just speak with people anecdotally, some will absolutely relate similar experiences.

Some people will become angry and upset when you point this out, and say that it’s actually the fault of the people being ignored or spoken over, because they’re not being big or loud enough, or angry enough that it’s happening to them.

Except, if you get angry about it, you go from being the woman or gay man being treated as a non-entity to being the woman or gay man treated as an irrational hysteric, imagining mistreatment where none is happening.

As the game went on, and each of us made mistakes or showed that we were learning the game, the attitude toward me at the table did change a bit, especially because Lewis and I answered a lot of questions together, and we do, as a lot of couples do, add to each other’s answers or remind each other of things mid-discussion.

And then, another man came over to the table, because he was obviously a regular at these events, and had never seen Lewis before. He asked Lewis if they were enjoying this game, what sort of games they liked.

He didn’t even look at me, let alone direct any of his questions toward me, even though Lewis looked to me multiple times when they couldn’t remember particular games they’d liked, or wasn’t certain what kind or genre of games they fit into. I actually answered the question of what games I favoured even though he hadn’t asked, and he sort of nodded awkwardly as he left.

I shouldn’t be entirely offended — the thing about nerd spaces (as with many other cishet-male dominated spaces) is that conversation like this isn’t necessarily approached with a view to making new friends or social connections.

A lot of these guys just want to measure each other up so that they know where they stand in the pecking order, which other men are potential threats to their masculinity or to their standing in the pack — will they be better than him at his favourite games? Will they embarrass him by making him look bad, either by being better at certain strategies, or by knowing more than he does about his favourite subjects and specialist fields? Will they out-man him, in short?

I felt horrible after last night even though I genuinely enjoyed the actual game, because the thing is, like…

When someone turns around and calls you a faggot, or even when they make catty little comments about your sexuality, at least you know they know you’re there.

When you’re treated as functionally invisible, an extension of someone else’s humanity, and given the “girlfriend treatment” — whether because you’re actually a woman, because you’re perceived as a woman, or because you’re treated as woman-adjacent because of some element of your personhood that means you’re also deserving of misogyny— it’s maddening, and it’s sickening.

There’s no easy way to actually fight against it, most of all because it’s so thoughtless, and so easily denied as accidental or inconsequential.

One thing I’m very lucky for is that Lewis does know what that experience is like and clocked it and noticed it and why it was happening from the get-go, whereas I know a lot of women dating men particularly have difficulty not just relating that experience but describing it to an uncaring or oblivious partner. I think there’s something really unpleasant particularly about being in their position, because I’ve felt something similar, where you go to an event with someone similarly or differently marginalised to you, and you’re more keyed into what’s happening, but also like…

There’s a sense that you’re being afforded humanity effectively because your partner or the friends you’ve come with is being afforded less. You’re expected to be complicit or fully engage in their manufactured invisibility so that you can enjoy some conditional privilege.

Lewis didn’t, of course. Repeatedly, he would redirect some questions to me or turn and make a show of asking me. It was just ignored to a large extent, but it’s still shitty to be put in that position with the assumption that you wouldn’t want to do so.

We discussed it, afterwards.

If he’d gone alone, would they have shown the same amount of interest in him, or would they have treated him as they did me, without a faggier gay guy next to him to compare and contrast them with? If I’d gone alone, would they have been forced to extend more interest to me as a person, because there’s no partner to assume I’m the “girlfriend” of?

If we’d gone with a bunch of other queer people in tow, outnumbering them, how would it have been different?

How would it have been different if we’d been at a table with some of the women, or at a table where women were the majority? Middle-aged cishet women have their own homophobia, naturally, but it wouldn’t have been quite like this.

There weren’t any visibly queer men there, but what if we’d sat down with some of the lesbians?

I like board games a lot, and I really like talking and interacting with different groups of people, and especially as someone who writes in the SFF genre and regularly attends sci-fi and fantasy events and conventions, I’m familiar with this unsubtle and subtle homophobia, being snubbed or ignored by other men whether they notice they’re doing it or not, but it’s like…

How much do I actually like board games? How much am I willing to weather to establish my personality in certain spaces and to be afforded some humanity? How many times do I go back until I’m seen as a person — as a full person at that?

It’s just shitty, having to weigh up those calculations when all you want to do is sit down, roll your dice, and have a good time. At least I do have queer-run events to avail myself of, and I do know that I rarely if ever experience this attitude as a queer man at them, but they’re neither as often nor as local as other board-game groups.

Like I said, it’s one thing weighing up these things for somewhere you have to be — navigating a workplace, navigating healthcare, etc, but when it’s something you do ostensibly for fun?

It’s not quite as fun when you have to put in a twelve-step strategy just to be seen as a human being.

#musings #board games #nerd culture #essay

168 notes · View notes

gendiebrainrotreceipts · 2 months

Note

Are you talking about transgender folk? Or that lgbt stuff? I think they’re fine. They’re just young people finding ways to express themselves. My son is transgender, and he’s very nice

I have no issue with people being trans, I take issue specifically with the modern ideology surrounding gender identity . It is often inconsistent and contradictory but common themes tend to be:

*biological sex is unimportant to sexual attraction and women’s oppression (untrue + homophobic & misogynistic)

*lesbians & gay men need to unlearn their ‘prejudices’ and be open to dating trans women and trans men respectively (homophobic)

*the word woman and man is undefinable, as it’s defined by gender, which in itself is indefinable (how are we to dismantle patriarchy and misogyny if we cannot even define man and woman? By their logic, why do men and women even exist as categories? On what grounds are women oppressed if not by sex?)

*biological sex is a spectrum (untrue)

*gender identity has existed for thousands of years (no, not really. There have been a handful of what we could consider historical trans people, but the modern gender ideology would be completely foreign to them; they would’ve not necessarily understood or identified themselves in the same way as trans people who follow the ideology do today. And so what they claim are immutable universal facts like ‘trans women are women’, would’ve very likely not been something familiar to these historical trans people. Making them not so immutable or universal…They also often cite the fa’afine or muxe as examples, but these were not trans people: these were a category effeminate gay men were put into. It is quite clearly a distinct concept)

#if anyone wants to add anything feel free #radfem safe #gender critical

39 notes · View notes

tenok · 2 months

Text

Still fuming about «Crowley’s so queer it makes Aziraphale looks straight» take. I saw some people saying «queer is not a political identity» as an argument against it... and actually I disagree. Queer is an identity that’s as much about politics and community as is about gender and orientation. «Queer as in fuck you» indeed! And while I’m pretty sure that if you’ll ask Aziraphale he will say that he’s queer because mentally he still in times where it was term preferred by community as whole (or he’ll say that «gay» is his gender because he still links gender and orientation together and it’s a habit thats hard to break), I’ll argue that he’s definitely queer by definition. And I won’t say that one of them more or less queer, I want to vomit just from thinking this, but he and Crowley definitely different flavors of queer; and the point is community.

See, the Crowley we see is not the very community-oriented being. He despises angels and demons alike, he’s not close with humans, through whole series we saw him connected with Aziraphale, maybe Warlock, Shadwell to some point and only as a subordinate he’s not really interested in (Aziraphale actually remembered all the names of soldiers Shadwell pulled from his ass, on the other hand [book, also in script if I remember correctly]). But for Aziraphale community is the whole deal. He links himself to communities: community of book collectors, for example ([in book at least]), community of angels (even in season two he regretfully said that he misses reporting back to his lot), as soon as he put his roots there he become part of British and specifically London community (immediately clocked as British by everyone, for better or��for worse). And he’s clearly consider himself and considered by others as part of queer community. For example:

He’s clocked as specifically effeminate gay man (which is part of queer umbrella oh my god stop misuse of political slogans gay are not some kind of others that are lesser for being gay!!!) by everyone, to the point of getting called homophobic slurs (twice in book, once in series) and being targeted by literal Nazis. He’s not arguing or denying, he reclaims it: he’s not calling himself gay, he’s proudly declaring that he’s THE southern pansy (not very «hurray establishment» of him hmmm?). He looks so gay and safe that cemetery man from season 2 doesn’t see a problem in telling him he uses grindr!

Tied to this: he can present as anyone else, he chooses to look soft, gay, effeminate, he chooses to make silly sounds and flamboyant gestures, and as soon as he gets comfortable he likes to go a little campy (can you imagine Crowley in ribbons and frills? do we see male-presenting Crowley in pink silky shoes? would he fight to the death before you put him into pencil-drawen moustache and bright cape with shiny starts? yes he’s GNC! there’s more then one way to be GNC and one is not better then other because it’s in black and sexy!). I’ll argue that him choosing one comfortable presentation and stick to this is no less groundbreaking by heavens standards then «hoarding all the genders» since he’s not treats his corporation as «meat suite», he really had an identity tied to it!

And using this identity he becomes part of 100 guineas club. Part of gay/queer (it was in times where this distinction was meaningless) community with fellow queers, where he learned queer ways, such as dances, becoming part of queer culture as a whole (and should I remind you that back in days drag was mandatory part of such clubs? if we measuring queerness by how close it to cross-dressing apparently). He also collects literature by queer authors, immersing himself in this culture, again. Do I remember correctly that Oscar Wilde gifted him one of his books specifically? So we can safely assume he hangs with queer authors as well? Correct me if it’s not in canon (I’m freely mixing tv and book canon there btw although usually I treat them as two different things)

He also lives in Soho. He specifically chooses to live there, knowing perfectly well what a neighborhood it is (even back in 1600s it already had a Reputation). He knows what it says about him and he aims for it! (Crowley lives in Mayfair because it says something about him too — remember that while Aziraphale constructed himself around being soft and gay, Crowley intentionally made himself look as irrating rich asshole. If this asshole has vibes of sinister gay that would gladly corrupt you if you ask nicely, that’s another story) He is a part of this community! As a word of god, he: speaks Polari freely because he used it… with other queers (as oppose to Crowley that knows «bits» because he hangs out with criminals); he hide incriminating things from fellow Soho residents back when there were police raids (breaking law to help those in need is reacurring theme with him!). He still part of this community, he knows people, people knows him, he literally gives place to lesbian women for free so she can have her dream shop (supporting your local queer business!) (also great call back to Edingurg minisode! Aziraphale, personal saint of broke lesbians!)

I’ll also argue that letting in first Gabriel and next Muriel was a very queer of him. Queers help other queers: he may not like Gabriel, but «he has no other friends» (and he's homeless after being kicked out from heavens after disaster forbidden love affair with other queer being, hmmm? paralleles with reality of being queer much?), so he steps in. And Muriel, while being the same age as those two (we're NOT child-coding Muriel in this house), vibes as queer youth in needs of guidance, and Aziraphale, that had every right to be suspicious and cold to them, immediately lets them into safety of his shop and tries to be nice and supporting in both older queer and older ND cousin way.

So, in conclusion: Aziraphale is a queer being, that likes to make it clear that he’s queer and queer GNC man specifically; he’s part of queer community for at least couple hundred of years, participant in queer culture, and he watches out for other queers, helping his own as much as he can, using his money and other resources and breaking law to do so when needed. What there can make him look straight even as a joke?

Crowley is absolutely a queer being too, in very queer love with other queer being, and I'm sure he has a blast pocking into rules and boundaries of genders, orientations and all kinds of relationships since he loves questioning and testing so much. He also has a cool rebellious aesthetic and «fuck all» attitude, so it’s understandable that he becomes tumblrs queer icon (and being played by David Tennant helps for sure). But if you ask them both where’s local shelter for homeless queers located, one of them will have an answer and it won’t be a Crowley, or he wouldn’t sleep in his car (I'm joking), and this is as much of the part of being queer as having cool aesthetic or being kicked from home (I'm joking again). And it's a shame that some people want to make a competention out of it, because it gives us infinity possibilities to discuss their different experiences and choices, down to what their respective aesthetic choices says about them, and how they can use their strong sides to support each other! But alas.

#good omens #aziraphale defense squad #bad takes that won't let me sleep at night #makes Aziraphale look straight my ass #that's a nice post! bitchy one will stay in my head!#btw I wouldn't spend my time at it if person that wrote that take made a honest mistake trying to joke but apparently it's not their first #bad take so while I don't want to pick a fight I want to at least rant

51 notes · View notes

cobbbvanth · 6 months

Text

to me the really interesting thing about the way ofmd handles piracy as a metaphor for both masculinity and queerness is this. stede sees piracy in general as an escape from heteronormativity, and the way he runs his ship specifically as a way of deconstructing toxic masculinity. both of these things allow the crew to become a safe space for him to express his queerness, surrounded by other queer folks at different stages of their various queer journeys. meanwhile piracy for ed is a space for queerness (anything goes at sea) BUT to him it's also irrevocably represents toxic masculinity, not an escape from it. and this is where their opposing arcs come from in s2, because they're at different points in their journey.

piracy to stede is about the community he's built that allows him to be himself in all his camp effeminate gay glory, but for ed it reminds him of the abuse he now knows he doesn't have to endure anymore. and ed realises this because he met stede. (which makes me so !!!! the effect they've had on each other since day one!!) ed supported stede on his piracy journey, helping stede understand that his worth as a man didn't have to be tied to how effectively he played his role in society. this helps stede put his masculinity/queerness/piracy triangle in balance, seeing his life of piracy as a positive departure from the stifling expectations of masculinity and heteronormativity of his old life.

his time with stede kind of has the opposite impact on ed though, and that's where their conflict comes from. ed thought he had a functioning balance in his masculinity/queerness/piracy triangle - because being a pirate meant he could at least have his queerness, and he'd found a way to keep performing masculinity as 'blackbeard'. but stede helped him see that he didn't need to keep performing, he showed ed that there can be room for softness even in their line of work. stede giving ed the option of a different lifestyle did lead ed, the impulsive king that he is, to attempt to cut out piracy altogether. he reacts this way because he's not quite at the same point in his journey that stede is. stede was able to reach a balance after stepping away from piracy and going back to his family in s1, and we see ed doing the same thing by leaving piracy to be a fisherman in s2.

ed's (brief) time away from piracy shows him that he can't keep neglecting one part of his piracy/queerness/masculinity triangle - he needs to find a balance and acceptance of all three. in the end ed puts his leathers back on for love, and was able to lay 'blackbeard' to rest with izzy, helping him properly understand that piracy can be a positive analogy for queerness AND masculinity. stede and ed step away from piracy at the end of the season anyway, but they both do so with a much better understanding of how piracy gave them freedom to be themselves. i just think the way the show handles all of this is pretty neat

#ofmd #our flag means death #ofmd meta #stede bonnet #edward teach #blackbonnet #stede x edward #text #**#shout out to elio for understanding my ramblings about this akjsgsl #i just. god yeah shout out to the ofmd writers

56 notes · View notes

venvellan · 8 months

Text

There ARE valid arguments to be made about "playersexuality," especially if a character is written/heavily implied to be gay/lesbian but given a straight romance. That specfic scenario isn't something I'll get into in depth right now to make this as brief as possible, but "it's ridiculous that every character is bisexual" is NOT one of those arguments. I saw it for Dragon Age 2, and I am annoyed but not surprised to see it for Baldur's Gate 3.

This will feature reclaimed use of the word queer. Tagged below, but thought it might be good to mention.

Dragon Age as a franchise is significantly less committed to queerness than BG3. Thedas was built, intentionally or otherwise, to be heteronormative and gender conforming. To a lesser extent than real life, in that same-sex attraction in Thedas is generally considered unremarkable, but oppression and othering of queer people in-universe DOES exist and it isn't hard to find. (The biggest examples: Dorian's experiences in the upper-class Imperium, the framing of Krem's trans-ness as uncommon or atypical). And DESPITE that, the bisexuality of DA2's main cast does not feel forced or ingenuine to me. The party doesn't remark on or make political statements about each other's sexuality. Sexuality is, at least to this group of people, entirely apolitical, and they all just happen to be a similar sort of queer.

PLEASE consider, then, a world built entirely void of the widespread social culture surrounding sexuality, as Baldur's Gate 3 has tried to create. Where bi or pansexuality is the "common" or "expected" orientation, or more appropriately, where the concept of orientation is absent entirely. This person just cares about personality in who they date, this one doesn't really want to date anybody, this one wants to be in a polycule, and those are all completely neutral positions to hold and inconsequential to their greater character as an individual.

In this world you could easily pluck a half dozen or so random people out from the millions and find that they all desire sex and/or intimacy with any gender equally. If there's no erasure of queerness, it follows that open queerness is more abundant. Sexuality is fluid and various as gender is fluid and various and neither are reflections of someone's personality or morals. Being gay doesn't make you effeminate because there's no preconceived notion that straightness is manly, etc etc.

That's all true in the real world of course, but the difference is that it feels like Larian has tried to craft their narrative around it being the cultural norm. YOU might think it'd be ridiculous for a half dozen random people to be bisexual, if you haven't spent the time in queer spaces to learn that there are gay people everywhere. Even if you have, and there are more queer people in your life than straight ones, you might think it'd be unlikely to pick 6-8ish random people on Earth and find that they're all specifically bi or pansexual. You may even be right, because all over the world there are restrictive dominating cultural narratives that alienate, suppress, and persecute queerness. BG3 doesn't take place on Earth, though, does it? So sit down and think about it for a minute, please.

Of course there'd still be variation. You'd find people that fit the definition of straight or gay or asexual, but there's no expectation of straightness. Sexuality simply is. If you're interested in somebody, either they're interested back or they're not. You find out, you move on. Githyanki even reproduce asexually, so they don't have any flimsy biological reason for straightness, though if you're resorting to "biology" to debate sexuality, you're too far down the pipeline to have read this far anyway. Lae'zel wants a warrior, not a man. You might happen to be both, but it's not your gender she's lusting over.

Also, bisexual men deserve to exist freely without you policing exactly how gay or straight they get to "act." And you aren't somehow less biphobic for invalidating them just because you yourself are gay, so don't think that absolves you. Yes this is about Astarion. He's a bit more overtly queer-coded than Gale or Wyll. He's not gay. Bisexual men are evidently only valid to you if they "act straight." Fuck off.

Gay people exist! Let's put that lukewarm take to rest now, please. If gay people live in a culture that allows them to exist, they exist in much greater abundance. Who would've thought? Left-handedness over time graph my love. The single greatest refutation to Straight People Whining.

Look, you can just say that you're jealous you aren't in an all-bisexual friend group. It's okay. All-bisexual friend groups are awesome.

#yup!! no follow-up notes #said what i had to say #oh and i'm left handed #i love bragging about it #and queer/bisexual obviously but i think you could tell #bg3 meta #da meta #baldurs gate meta #dragon age meta #queer #dragon age #baldurs gate 3 #bg3 #fandom critical

96 notes · View notes

filmnoirsbian · 9 months

Note

gOD yes to men being conditioned and raised in society to view all those things aldjfjkakakd im raising a little boy atm and while my partner is doing his best to unlearn several other misogynistic ideas that he's picked up in life (tho it's very different process for him since he was an effeminate gay man who found out he was bi very late in life) i am so scared that if we're not keeping an eye out for our baby boy something will slip in, like how youtube's algorithms like to suggest andrew tate's videos or how one slip up on tiktok can lead you down a road of right radicalism but also how society as a whole just has that undercurrent of misogyny that gets under your skin regardless like. god it's a lot. and it wracks me with anxiety. he's only 5 and so so kind and sweet and he absolutely adores his little sister and makes it a point to bring her to the barbie aisle when we ever visit the toy store and just the idea of him growing up to be someone who'd put her down simply bc she's a girl makes me weep.

The insidious effects of the internet on kids cannot be overstated tbh not to sound like an after school special but it really is so so so easy for them to end up seeing things online that are hateful and/or extremely damaging but are portrayed in a way that kids specifically will believe, enjoy, and/or internalize. Like it's fucking terrifying and for these reasons my sister, bil and I all don't allow my niece to access the internet on her own and especially watch youtube on her own but that only lasts while she's in the house. We can't control her internet intake every hour of the day and we've already been noticing the effects from when she watches whatever at friends' houses and school. Part of what makes child raising so scary is that they are so much more vulnerable to like. Everything.

#asks #kids

69 notes · View notes

amaranthsynthesis · 3 months

Note

Underdark drow sex culture has a lot of really different assumptions than the surface world. (Ex-the socially dominant group is going to often be the receptive partner during sex. Idk where that would go exactly, but I can't see them coming to the same conclusions as the surface world or ours.)

Obviously, Ballard was dealing with a lot at the time (burning of house + social transition) but I was wondering how the culture change affected him beyond 'oh boy, that's some racism'?

I know the joke about DND and the forgotten realms lore is 'some guy was really weird and horny about this set dressing so that's why it's Like That' and unfortunately. I'm on board with the guys who were weird and horny about Drow. In a modern, transgay informed way, but also I will admit I think it's a fun sexy little sandbox and I'm in there chewing on my plastic shovel. I've got some notes and some passages jotted down for both the repro horror fic and the vaguely meandering Imton memories, I'd love to got more properly into it some time to be honest.

The lecture on procreation and reproduction made him feel cold and small, blood-blood-blood beating in his ears as they showed him a picture of a woman atop a man, taking his penis inside of her. They told him how she took her pleasure from him, that that was his role―seed and service. It had dawned on him in horror that he was more than he thought. Not a child, not a knife, but one of these adults-in-the-making, like the illustrated woman with her broad hips and heavy breasts and strong, defined shoulders. Like the guardswomen. Like the Matron Mother. The narrow man in the illustration, the lithe consorts he had glimpsed only a handful of times in their draping finery and painted faces… it wasn’t him, it was for him. He unfocused his eyes and watched without seeing everything else they showed him, tired of it all, letting the diagrams and words blur so he would simply not have to think about them any further.

I think moving up to the surface as he traveled to Baldur's Gate was in a lot of ways a step back into the familiar! Being read as male aboveground afforded him, if not to quite the same extent, the same level of basic respect and autonomy he had been used to as the heir presumptive of House Halvyriin. At the same time, trying to emulate the type of masculinity that he was used to seeing and appreciating from a distance--as decoration, as performance, as something effete and dainty--was going to evoke a very different response. In the same way that I think Faerun isn't past sexism, I don't think it's fully escaped homophobia either. So, yes, Ballard can be a man, can be greeted as a man and exist as one, but not as the kind he'd like to be, and he has to trade that precious/beautiful/treasured masculinity for some butch attempt at camaraderie, to stave off any kind of hostile attentions.

In the same way that he could more than take care of himself in the Underdark, as an unprotected male, responding to harassment with violence draws too much attention. He's already viewed as effeminate and weak and duplicitous, just for being an elf and a drow, specifically--he has to make some decisions about how else to display himself to make the journey to the Gate as smooth as possible. I think it becomes second nature so quickly that it takes year for him to remember it wasn't always his intention.

#asks #ballard #character meta #it's so fun to think about gender/transness/cultural differences #and how they all combine for Ballard #especially because I've got decades to play around with both in Monzobarranzen and Baldur's Gate

33 notes · View notes

biceratops7 · 2 years

Text

Let’s deconstruct this…

Ok, so at this point I’ve seen a great many things written on Who Ed is with a capital W, and even I’ve thrown bits and pieces of my hat in the ring. But there is one particular thing I have a burning desire to express, and that is, respectfully, Edward’s softness is his own damnit.

There’s a pretty popular notion gaining traction in the fandom that Ed’s softness is just as much a performance as Blackbeard. That him embracing it fully in those brief moments of episode 10 before “the kraken” was unhealthy actually, and he wasn’t being true to himself. In summary: Ed requires Blackbeard to be whole. And my question is: why do people find Ed an unreliable narrator in his softness, or more specifically, why do people think he lacks autonomy of it?

It bothers me when people say that Ed is trying to be like Stede to gain approval in these moments, because the only major similarity I see is aesthetic. Guys a huge theme of the show is older queer men finally finding ways to escape varying forms of toxic masculinity, and understanding that their queerness does not exclude them from manhood. Homogenizing two effeminate gay men and implying that one is “losing himself” to the idiosyncrasies of the other goes directly against this goal. In fact it actually perpetuates negative gay stereotypes, but I’ve made a video essay where I discuss that at length.

Edward writes and performs a song on deck when he wants to process and share his feelings openly. Not only is this waaay more emotional honesty than we ever see Stede express (on purpose at least), but this is a creative outlet unique to Ed. Theatrical story telling is an established motif in Ed’s character the same way literary storytelling is for Stede’s. Edward’s not only dealing with his hurt in a way Stede definitely wouldn’t (he didn’t, Stede went out of his way pretend everything was fine in episode 8), he’s also doing so through an established passion of his.

The Swede wasn’t full of shit when he said that performance can simply be an expression of you. This is not Ed trying to put on a new mask when the old one proved ineffective. This is him finding comfort and even joy in finally using performance to reveal himself instead of hide. I don’t understand why the credit for this beautiful moment of self discovery must be ripped from Ed and used to accuse Stede.

It’s the same with the “SiLk GoWn”. This is the same person who lovingly touches every piece of nice fabric he lays eyes on, and lit up like a fucking Christmas tree the second someone said the word “fashion.” Ed has had a deep love and longing for such a soft pretty thing since day 1. These were ingrained and suppressed in Ed all long before Stede came on the scene. That robe may literally belong to Stede, but just as he wore it as a sign of his newfound boldness under the safety of someone loving him for who he is, Ed’s choice to wear it symbolizes the blossoming autonomy of his own identity. To continue enjoying the things Stede made him feel safe enjoying even without his presence.

Now let’s move on (or backwards I guess?) to the academy. Something I’ve seen a lot is people decrying that Ed is sacrificing his authenticity to play a housewife for Stede. Guys… he just folded some socks, calm tf down. Saying something like this about a gay man just trying to do something small and sweet for someone he loves, again, really seems to perpetuate the toxic masculinity this show hauls ass to deconstruct. Yes the answer to toxic masculinity isn’t just “effeminacy is perfect and good”. But Ed can be genuinely content with finally being able to partake in the domesticity he never got to experience without perpetuating that.

And you know what, he can be unsure of the best way to fulfill that desire and change his mind. I don’t quite like the disregard for Ed’s autonomy when people say his decision to stay at the academy or find an escape is driven only by whatever he thinks Stede wants. He is taking Stede’s feelings into consideration because that is perfectly healthy when you love someone and want a life with them, but his choices are still absolutely driven by his own needs moment by moment too.

I think people really take Ed understandably not wanting to be subjugated by the British and run with it. Like yes he is visibly uncomfortable with the soldiers treating him like an exotic animal they’ve tamed because no shit. But I don’t know how many times Ed has to blatantly state he does not want to be a pirate anymore for it to be believed.

Edward is not an exception to this. Even if he managed to thrive emotionally in this line of work once upon a time and there are aspects of it he enjoys, Ed still became a pirate out of desperation. He didn’t choose it any more than Oluwande and Jim did, he was fleeing poverty and abuse.

It’s not that piracy is a net bad and that Ed should want to distance himself from it. It’s that he assumed piracy is the only option he’s ever had in life even when it hurts him, and the realization that he has the freedom to choose differently is empowering and a net good. Him wanting to run to China with Stede, or take the crew’s funky acts on the road, whether they’re practical or not (especially in this show) is beside the point. The point is Ed’s absolute unbridled joy in their possibilities, the pure delight in discovering that you are not chained to a series of decisions you made under extreme duress 30 years ago.

No, Ed is not doing a complete 180 of his personality during his NoBeard era. He’s been forced to sacrifice his personhood for decades, and is now finally wrestling it out the grasp of thousands of people… at the age of 50 and during two of his darkest moments no less. How absolutely amazing.

#this is probably gonna flop cause it’s a mile long but I’m passionate about this damnit #it’s about autonomy over one’s own identity babes #ESPECIALLY in the context of queerness #biceratops meta #ofmd #meta #our flag means death #analysis #Edward teach #Blackbeard #Stede bonnet #blackbonnet #gentlebeard #1x09 #1x10

561 notes · View notes