#but just clarifying isn’t inherently infantilizing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

monipoka · 3 years

Text

Addressing Content Warning Concerns

I am writing in response to points that were brought up concerning my recent post. If you haven’t read that post, you can find it here.

Be warned that this is a very long post (2.8k words). It deals with the topics of pedophilia and rape. Opinions expressed are my own; however, I do offer some resources for you to better educate yourself on this post’s content.

I will not provide a link to the user that responded as she had no ill intentions. Disclaimer if the said user reads this post, I write with peace and love at 4:00 A.M. There are a couple of places where I may sound aggressive or petty, but it is analytical and not meant to invalidate you or your opinions.

Red = user’s response with minimal changes (adjusted for grammar and clarification)

Black = my response

Part 1: Age Regression and Infantilization

To learn more about age regression, here are two lovely articles describing what age regression means medically and socially.

“Age regression [agere] is a form of coping meant to eliminate stress in potentially triggering situations. Agere is not a part of sexual play and never should be. I believe [Moni] is confusing agere for age play.”

This completely misses the mark. I understand that age regressors enter a younger psychological state often as a coping mechanism. There is nothing inherently wrong with age regression as therapy. My complaints are that people are FETISHIZING age regression. As stated in my post, age regressors enter the mindset of a child commonly called a “little space.” These individuals are to be treated like children as it helps them feel safe and loved.

In my experience on Tumblr, writers commonly misinterpret Daddy Dominant, Little Girl (DDLG) or Age Play (the larger, umbrella term) for age regression. For the purposes of explanation, I am going to be using DDLG and she/her pronouns. DDLG is a type of BDSM relationship where the dominant partner (male) takes on the role of a care-giver while the submissive partner (female) takes on the role of a child. This dynamic is pretend and intended for sexual interactions. Keyword here: pretend. While the submissive portrays childish behavior, she still has an adult mindset; therefore, she can give meaningful consent. Once writers describe the submissive slipping into “little space,” her mindset is corrupt as she has age regressed; therefore, she cannot give meaningful consent making the interaction non-consensual as she embodies a child.

“Infantilization is treating somebody as if they’re a child. For example, ‘babying’ someone is the best explanation for it. This, in my opinion, is not pedophilia because it’s not inherently sexual. If it IS sexual, I wouldn’t necessarily classify it as pedophilic, but it is questionable.”

Again, this misses the mark. In a non-sexual context, infantilization is completely okay. My complaints are that people are FETISHIZING the infantilization of characters. I used this term as an alternative language to age regression because I have encountered both on this site.

“Age Play, in my opinion, is pedophilic due to how the 'older’ of the partners is benefitting from it. So if [Moni] and I are thinking the same thing, but not really using the same terminology, then I agree.”

Age Play is a kink in the BDSM community between two consenting and level-headed adults.

Age Regression is characterized by regressing back to a younger headspace.

Sexualizing age regression is pedophilic because age regressors feel, act, and exhibit childlike qualities; they genuinely believe that they are a child.

If age play includes “little space,” then it is pedophilic because the submissive has age regressed.

“None of these is what I would consider illegal due to the fact that both parties are consenting adults. But age play definitely is pedophilic. But, obviously, if both people are adults, it can’t be considered illegal.”

I called pedophilia (and rape) illegal. In the eyes of the law, sexualizing age play--given that the individual is of age--is legal. This point used the transitive property of equality (Trans POE) to point out the hypocrisy in condemning pedophilia but supporting the fetishization of age regression. To clarify, it may not be illegal, but it is morally wrong.

“Infantilization and age regression aren’t inherently pedophilic because they revolve around the idea of a mindset and not physicality.”

This is contradictory to your previous point and only half true. Age regressors largely rely on physical objects (ie. clothes, stuffed animals, pacifiers) to feel safe. While the root of age regression involves a change in psyche, it is reflected in their appearance and environment.

Part 2: Dubious Consent and Non-consensual

To learn more about rape, here is a wonderful article on non-consensual sex.

“Secondly, I’m quite confused on what she [Moni] is saying regarding calling dubcon [dubious consent] and noncon [non-consentual] rape instead of dubcon and noncon.

They are rape, or at least some form of sexual assault, but I don’t think anyone’s trying to mask them from being as such.”

I whole-heartedly disagree. It is apparent by the staggering number of dubcon and noncon posts that people use these terms to try and justify writing rape because they consider it a “fetish.” The reason I am against these terms is that writers never specifically condemn them. Oftentimes, writers mix the content of the fic into their warning section. So, by writing ‘blowjob’ next to ‘dubcon’ it underscores the severity of the situation.

“Categorizing both of the two as 'rape’ could potentially end up being very damaging. Rape is a very triggering and harsh word for some people, which is why I believe a lot of people use non-consensual sex as a term to avoid potentially triggering people.”

Again, I believe that people use dubcon and noncon to try and justify their rape “fetish.” However, if using the term “rape” is triggering to some individuals and the terms “dubcon” and “noncon” are used as a substitution, why aren’t these writers coming out and explicitly saying that they do not support these types of interactions? Furthermore, why are they writing and sharing this content in the first place if they acknowledge it as rape?

“Also, I think it’s important to clarify whether the 'sexual assault’ in fiction is dubious or non-consensual. There’s a big difference between both parties being drunk in a fic (dubcon) and hard rape, and it’s important to distinguish the two in warning columns.”

Drunk people can’t consent. Both situations are rape. The “level” of rape that you refer to, being how consensual it is, is more damaging in my opinion. Because they were drunk, it means less than if they were sober. This perpetuates victim shaming. She was asking for it. She shouldn’t have drunk so much. Rape is rape. It is never okay. And one rape is never better than another.

“Dubcon is also very important to clarify in fics due to the fact that dubcon is only a fictional concept. It helps indicate the level of consent given in the fiction because someone could be not triggered by sex under intoxication but can be triggered by hard noncon.”

I’m going to use a quote I cited from this source because I feel that the writer describes dubcon more eloquently than I can: “What bothers me the most about this situation, and what I think you are partly getting at here, is when people say that their fic isn't "noncon" or they say it is "dubcon" or "noncon depending on your point of view." Come on! Have the guts to admit that what they're writing is rape. Dubious consent bothers me as a qualifier because if you aren't sure whether someone is consenting, you don't do it or it's rape. No excuses. So, I think that people should just bite the bullet and say, this is a rape fic.... If people want to write rape fic, go for it, and I will probably read it, but let's step up and acknowledge what it is we are writing. I take issue with these qualifiers because I think that it is far more insidious than out and out rape porn. At least when we say it is rape, then we can move on to the next step: saying it's wrong, just a fantasy, etc. But avoiding the label perpetuates the rape myths that have had such a damaging effect on victims and justice: did she enjoy it, she didn't really say no, she was a tease, they've done it before. None of those things matter, and when a person labels their fic, they need to stop pretending they do.”

Essentially, the writer is reiterating what I explained in my previous comment that rape is rape. Another statement that I found describes how damaging fiction can be in real life. While most readers understand that what occurred didn’t really happen, there are real-life consequences attributed to it: “...However, not everyone in fandom uses those terms in those ways. And I think that's a problem that we need to fix. Because, especially when situations that exist in real life and that would be called rape in real life are labeled "dubcon," I think it does real harm to us all.....We currently live in a culture where not fighting back - because, for example, the rapist has threatened to kill you, or someone else, or your pet, if you don't go along with it - will very often get a rape case overturned in court. Where judges and juries and god knows the popular media will pick out and analyze every detail of a person's life to determine whether they were asking for it, whether they secretly wanted it, whether they could have conceivably fought back more than they did, why they didn't scream, why they didn't report the blackmail that was used to control them, whether or not their "consent" might've been implicitly given by winks or nods or secret handshakes or a general miasma of sexual invitation. In other words, we live in a world in which rape culture, a thing we all unwittingly participate in at one time or another, works very very hard to label things dubcon when they're really noncon.”

“Most people 'romanticizing’ non-consensual sex are victims who are trying to gain some sort of control over their trauma, so they have every right to do so. If a victim of rape should have the ability to choose whether or not they want to read/write a noncon fic and if they don’t want to use the word rape because it makes them uncomfortable, they don’t have to and shouldn’t be forced to.

As a victim of rape and sexual assault, I find peace in having the control and ability to write about my trauma. It's a way for me to gain back control that I lost and the word rape does make me uncomfortable, it makes many victims uncomfortable, and if I prefer not to use that word then I should not have to if people know synonymous terms.”

Romanticize: deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is.

If you are writing/reading smut, you are trying to get off. If you are writing/reading dubcon/noncon smut, you are getting off to rape. Instead of writing/reading about how heinous rape is and how disgusting rape culture is, you write/read fics romanticizing rape since as a reader you enjoy the content to some extent: it is with your favorite character, it takes place in a cool universe, it got you horny, you felt good after reading it. Romanticizing rape is damaging to society as it subconsciously makes rape appealing. I doubt that is the intention, but you can’t deny that these underlying connections exist.

There is a difference between writing to cope and writing to entertain. My intention has never been to victim shame. But writing non-consensual sex between anime characters and a reader-insert is a form of entertainment. Remember the purposes of writing we learned about in elementary school? Yeah, I have a hard time believing that this is therapeutic. Journal therapy uses reflective writing to work through trauma and mental health issues. In sexual assault cases specifically, victims often write about their experience and/or letters to their perpetrator(s). However, if this is your way to cope, that’s fine. But writing rape fics is not the same as sharing rape fics.

“People know the severity of noncon and dubcon, which is what I think [Moni] is missing. No one is trying to not make noncon rape because it is rape. People know that it is. Most people just chose to say 'noncon’ to avoid unnecessarily triggering others.”

Do they? I think to my previous comments in this section, people use these terms to downplay the seriousness of rape.

“And there are far more 'consensual’ fics out there than noncon/dubcon fics, so I don’t exactly understand what [Moni] means by 'romanticize’ or 'normalize it.’”

Two comments up I describe what romanticization is and how it is being done in the community. I’m going to ignore the number part of this statement because I feel that there is no relevance; If there is a platform for rape fics and people are engaging with them, numbers don’t matter relative to another type of fic. I call that authors romanticize consensual sex because it is oftentimes not explicitly stated, and I think it should be. The character(s) and reader are in a relationship and sex is a byproduct of that (I do not consider this dubcon). Personally, I have found very few fics where explicit consent is written in. People sometimes think that asking for consent interrupts the flow and ruins a moment. Works of fiction have an impact on real life, and writing/reading about consent serves to reinforce healthy practices.

“Going off of that, I don’t understand what [Moni] means by 'fairly young’ audiences. I'm hoping that most 18+ consumers are, you know, eighteen or older (obviously that's not the case in all situations), and eighteen is a legal adult. Most people over the age of eighteen are very aware of what these terms mean, and they know right from wrong. So, there should be no need to clarify what 'noncon’ is for them.”

My point is that this community is relatively young. I have not encountered many writers or readers who are over the age of 25 (if you are, kudos). At this age, you lack experience. Many of these readers have never had sex or been in a relationship before. While you might know the difference between rape and consensual sex on paper, some of these things are more subtle--especially in person. You referenced drunk sex as something that you’d classify as dubcon although intoxicated individuals can’t consent. I recently read a fic where the reader was drunk and picked up at the bar by a character. He asked the reader if they consented to sex and they agreed. This is still rape as you cannot consent while intoxicated since alcohol impairs judgment. Regardless of enjoyment, which the reader experienced, this is still sexual assault. Can you see the confusion by labeling that dubcon? What is a young adult to think when they’ve been manipulated into sex but told they consented? It’s confusing, so these terms should be clarified.

Part 3: Fiction

To learn more about how fiction affects reality, here is this interesting TED-Ed animation that summarizes fiction’s impact. Also, I read this article that cites more examples.

“Also, our writing shouldn’t have to equate 'good practices,’ because a healthy-minded individual knows how to separate fiction and reality. Give people the freedom to write about whatever they want, whether it’s in private or not, that's what fiction is for.”

You claim that you don’t want to use the word rape to trigger people, so you acknowledge that not all readers are health-minded as they could be suffering from trauma or mental illness. Likewise, some individuals can’t discern fiction from reality.

More importantly, there is a connection between fiction and reality.

“Finally, I don't think we should be so open with connecting real-life issues with fictional ones. No one is going to become a rapist or want to be raped because they read fiction on it unless they’re truly a rapist or have been raped. Equating fictional works to real-life problems is a little insulting, whether [Moni] intended it to be or not.”

Watch the video and read the article. Fiction directly impacts culture and society. It may be insulting, but it’s factual.

“Because in the end, in rape fiction, no one actually got raped. In pedophilic fiction (I don’t support it don’t get me wrong), no one was actually a victim of pedophilia. Because they’re all fictional.”

That doesn’t make it okay. Again, my problem is that writers ROMANTICIZE these topics which reflect poorly on society.

“If someone is concerned about pedophilia and rape fiction, I believe it would be best to work towards real-life solutions to those real-life problems compared to criticizing fiction authors.”

If you’re concerned about pedophilia and rape FICTION, I’d hope you’d criticize FICTION authors. Honestly, this seems to be a diversion tactic to avoid accountability.

Part 4: “No Offense, but You’re Wrong About Everything”

“Overall, I think [Moni] had good intentions, but it was poorly worded.

You pose a counter argument to each of my points and make it sound like I did not educate myself beforehand. You then deflect to talking about rape and pedophilia in real-world context to downplay the severity of pedophilia and rape in fiction.

I sound petty here, and I do not mean for my words to hurt. I wish that there was some communication beforehand since it seems that there was confusion. If my original post was unclear, I hope my comments help.

Conclusion

This is for everyone:

Please check out the resources I provided and do your own research to understand the situation before forming your own opinion.

No hate to the writer of the response. I just wish you would have reached out directly for clarification before taking my words out of context and assuming their meaning.

73 notes · View notes

afreakingdork · 5 years

Text

So this isn’t really a review as it is more a rant. I had a reaction last year that was very dangerous and it has taken me a long time to recover. When I am not feeling good I love turning to cartoons because they represent low stress and easy on the mind entertainment when everything else seems out of control. I cut the cord with cable years ago and I only have Hulu and Netflix to turn to for entertainment. I am a huge buff when it comes to cartoons in general and I even ran a club back in my college days dedicated to teaching others about the joy of cartoons, but recently I took on watching Twelve Forever on Netflix, a show that if you remember was posted as a short back in 2016 for Cartoon Network to pilot test new shows (a practice they have been doing for a hot minute now). Now I am going to put a majority of my rant under the cut just in case people don’t want to look at the text but I will simplify my point here (feel free to stop reading if you disagree). I don’t like the message that this show portrays about vices and growing up...

Now I have done the basic research and I understand the creator’s past issues with alcohol. Now because of that fact I would assume this was a direct correlation in a show about escaping the real world, but instead we are left with 25 episodes where Reggie doesn’t really learn anything. Reggie is a selfish character and an outcast. I totally get it, I was a wild child myself and I couldn’t care less if I had friends or didn’t. One time my mom tried to punish me by taking everything out of my room, but my imagination was so strong that I was having a blast playing with literally nothing. I see myself in Reggie in so many ways, but there are many ways I don’t. She is incredibly selfish as Todd kindly points out. She is so selfish that it manifests in the show via the fact that Ester is constantly trying to put some meaning into Endless. It takes all the way until the end of the series to even find out how Reggie made a way for herself to enter even though Ester has been asking those questions all along. Reggie constantly just brushes any comments about Endless away with an ‘I don’t care’ or ‘It’s more fun to accept Endless the way it is,’ which is awful considering how dangerous Endless actually is.

A big departure from the short is the added gross-out humor that wasn’t necessarily as prevalent in those first 8 minutes. I was jarred in that first episode when they started to lean heavily on creepy or downright gross comedy as I wasn’t expecting anything like that from this supposed fun and magical world. Instead we have an entire episode where our trio plans to spend all of spring break on Endless only to have Reggie removed from the equation due to appendicitis. Ester and Todd LITERALLY lose their minds due to their prolonged stay on Endless and when Reggie can finally make her appearance to save them, she has to physically force them out. They regain their memories and are visibly scared by what has happened to them, while Reggie is just mad that they ‘ignored her’ when they were clearly under some sort of spell. She doesn’t care about their well-being and instead chooses to go back into Endless alone because she missed her time there and her friends are just disrespecting her. The episode ends with Reggie lamenting that her fictional friends are her real friends. This ominous ending is just that and this idea never really comes to fruition further.

This idea is expanded on further when we meet Elmer who is a child that was orphaned and decided to move his life into Endless permanently. We are shown that he has not only lost his mind, but his humanity. While Todd and Ester are scared by this proposition, Reggie is instead spurned on. She still wants to live her life on Endless and believes she is stronger than Elmer in that she won’t succumb to the same fate. I see how this can be a definite parallel to addiction, but with 25 episodes the story that is told doesn’t even get close to showing how this mentality is a bad thing. Are the writers just assuming they are going to get another season? More story progress was had in the 10 episode arc that was Over the Garden Wall than this and I find that totally appalling. One of the main reasons I stopped watching Teen Titans Go! was because the episodes started to become moral-less.Let me clarify that I don’t expect kids cartoons to have morals! I mean I watched Adventure Time and I can totally get down on a whole episode that amounts to nothing but a fart joke. The issue i have is when you set yourself up for something real, something that can impact that life of a child, that you are doing a disservice to a very impressionable target demographic. I am worried about the kids that will watch Twelve Forever and think that this type of escapist attitude is alright in the world. This is why ensemble casts are so important in cartoons. It’s healthy to surround yourself with other people. Not caring about others isn’t cool just because you want to be weird and quirky. There are other weird and quirky people out there that will love and support you. You shouldn’t just be the way you are so boldly that it alienates you from everyone else. I’m not saying to not be yourself. You should always be yourself boldly, but human beings are inherently apart of society and it’s healthy for them to interact.

Now this idea leads into a larger concept about the infantilization of millennials and I am a millennial that is well into their 20s who loves watching cartoons. I know that this idea of nostalgia is ruling media right now and I am happily apart of it. To people who tell me I am too old to watch cartoons I of course say they are being ridiculous and cartoons have always been created for kids with the parents who have to ‘suffer’ through them in mind. Parents are always in the background of creators thoughts because they will always been inadvertently watching the cartoons also, but this message of infantilization in Twelve Forever scares me. I am scared for Reggie that she will never grow up and will be lost to Endless forever because she was never encouraged to grow emotionally for the sake of her friends. The whole reason she made it into Endless was as an escape because she can’t deal with her emotions and no one is trying to help her. This brings me to the characterization of parents in Twelve Forever. I find the parents in the show to be downright horrifying.

Reggie’s mom, Judy, genuinely thought it was a good idea to give her daughter a bra on her 12th birthday full well knowing that one of her party guests was going to be a boy. Just typing out that sentence I can feel the second hand embarrassment. Judy believes she is doing the right thing by shoving make-up at her daughter because that is what she liked at that age. It doesn’t matter to her that Reggie is an obvious ‘tomboy’ who even asked for a specific new action figure for her birthday. She can only see her daughter through her own eyes and does nothing to try to get closer or understand her on any emotional level. Now you can of course say that she is working as a nurse and those are undeniably grueling hours, but Reggie is straight up honest with her mom and her mom blatantly ignores this. Judy even has a friend, Kathy, in the show who is an archetype for a less than feminine woman. She takes no cues from Kathy when it comes to raising her own less than feminine daughter and instead just exasperatedly can’t understand why Reggie is the way she is. Now I was a ‘tomboy’ (it’s in quotes because I don’t care for the phrase, gender roles are bullshit) who grew up after my mother refused to even dress me in girls clothes. My mom was so frustrated with unhealthy depictions of women that I wasn’t allowed to have Barbies and I didn't mind this, I could crash my Hot Wheels all day and make a parade float out of Beanie Babies without a care, but when it later came to choosing my own clothes my mother never intercepted. It was always my choice, because expression is important, but Judy can barely meet Reggie halfway in the episode where they go to the mall to pick out an outfit for Reggie to wear to a wedding. She ends up forcing Reggie into an uncomfortable and ill-fitting purple dress and tries to make up for her actions by letting Reggie pick out equally ill-fitting big ole’ red boots. I don’t find this to be compromise, this is nothing but simple placation. Judy knows what she did was wrong, but she refuses to see any other way to move forward on the matter and the show thinks that this is a heartfelt way to wrap things up to which I wholeheartedly disagree.

Another failed parental image that scares me is Todd’s dad. This is a man we see only once and can only imagine through Todd’s eyes. This is a man that is in the midst of some mid-life crisis and has somehow gotten custody of his kids in a divorce. He has a new wife(girlfriend?) who he pours so much money into making her happy by taking her out constantly and doing what she suggests (dying his hair) that he can barely pay his bills and is shown to be repeatedly selling off Todd’s objects to make ends meet. Todd even tried to hide a coin collection only to have it inadvertently found by his little sisters, who are wild due to lack of parenting, and then sold immediately by his dad for cash. This unhealthy situation is of course what leads Reggie to showing Todd Endless, but the show again puts no effort into illustrating that this is a horrible situation for Todd. Instead it is just his circumstance to give some semblance of meaning to the fact that he wants to escape reality. This paired with everything else is exactly the reason why Twelve Forever scares me so much. It depicts these incredibly unhealthy and downright dangerous situations as simply existences that people have to suffer through. If I were a kid that had watched that, I would just thought that was normal and not something that is inherently wrong with our society that should not be perpetuated or fixed! This is not representation, this is normalization.

P.S. But hey, Reggie has a crush on a girl so we should support lgbtqia+ media? Well here’s my little piece of that. I love my little lesbeans. If you’ve read any of my reviews you know it’s something I crave, but Reggie is so misplaced in her emotional development that just coming to terms with the fact that she may have done something embarrassing in front of her crush is enough for her. She then shuns Conelly (and the options of gaining friends in the real world who like the same quirky stuff as she does), so that she can once again return to Endless. It’s less satisfying then yuri for the sake of perv pandering in my opinion.

#me #rant #cartoon review #at least it kinda is #Twelve Forever #cartoons

7 notes · View notes

lettucetacoboatsix · 5 years

Text

Loving "Othered" Bodies: A Look at Sexual Body Diversity, Objectification, and Fetishization

Recommended Reading:

If you're looking for anything substantial, sorry, you're not going to find it here. What literature that does exist on this topic are sole-perspective ethnographies, and all of the ones worth reading that I was able to find were from the vantage point of a marginalized individual who has become fed up with body fetishization in their sexual interludes and relationships. That being said, here are the links to a few of those articles:

“What Everyone Should Understand about Dating a Trans Woman” by Tallulah Eve

“5 Signs You’re About to Be Racially Fetishized” by Maiysha Kai

“They Aren't Just Preferences: Questions Around Attraction, Objectification, and Fetishizing” by Tyler Austin

“Trans Women and Femmes Speak Out About Being Fetishized” by Eva Reign

“Feminism 101: What is Festishization?” By Laura Jue

“Disabled Sexuality and Disempowerment Through Fetishization” by s.e. Smith

“The Fetishization an Infantilization of Trans Men” by Seth Katz

Recommended Viewing:

Pose

Bubblegum

After talking at length about consensual non-monogamy, we will be changing directions this week and next and looking at some broader topics: body diversity and sexual safety. Both of these topics present a challenge in balancing general information with best practices because there is just so much to talk about, but I hope to present the information within these posts as a starting point, a gentle shove in the right direction, for you and your lover(s) to engage in your sexual relationship together from a foundation of mutual respect and understanding. So… away we go!

Before We Begin:

First off, can I just say that I hate lumping everything that we're going to talk about into one category? Great. I hate that I am lumping everything that we're going to talk about into one category. It's problematic. It relies on the notion of the fabled norm. And it puts a whole bunch of people who are already being marginalized in some way into one group, and in doing that, it minimizes what people deal with day in and day out.

So why are we doing it this way? Well, for one, it makes the topic manageable, and this topic is definitely worth talking about, even if we're just giving a very general overview. It also serves to highlight just how widespread this issue is and hopefully shines a little light on how making assumptions or having certain expectations can really hurt someone.

Another reason is that it hopefully drives home the point that there is no one way to effectively engage sexually with another person, with any body, our own included. Bodies are diverse and beautiful. They are the physical form of a complex and wonderful person, and each body needs to be treated with the respect and dignity it deserves. We need to understand that no two bodies are identical, and, even if they were, the body is only part of the sexual being. It is our mental and emotional connection to our body, partnered with the physicality and sensuality of the sexual act that really makes up our respective sexualities. If you're looking for a play-by-play guide on how to not fetishize someone, there are only a few things that we can share as blanket statements: treat everyone with dignity and respect; understand that people are people and not a means to achieve your sexual fantasies; listen to your lover (keeping that most communication is delivered non-verbally); always get consent and know that your partner can revoke their consent at any time; be patient and willing to adapt from your expectations (because it's nearly impossible, and would probably be a little dangerous, to enter into any given situation without any expectations).

Anything more specific than those general rules would necessarily be based on assumptions about the body and expectations based on your ideas and fantasies. So if you are looking for something along those lines, I would ask you to consider why you feel you need specific details. Are you looking for a shortcut to being a better lover? I appreciate your desire, but there really isn't one. If it's to trick someone into sleeping with you by avoiding key phrases, then I would argue that tricking someone in any way, shape, or form, in order to have sex with them negates their ability to be a willing participant (that is it prevents them from bring able to provide their informed consent, and is therefore assault). If that's really all you're looking for, be up front about it. There are individuals who are okay with that arrangement.

An Introduction to Fetishization:

Several paragraphs later, it's probably important to actually clarify what exactly we're talking about. In the most general terms, fetishization is the sexualization of an object (especially an object that is not normally sexual) in order to achieve sexual fulfillment. When kept strictly in the realm of objects, it's relatively innocuous and to each, their own. If you want to watch your partner pop balloons between their thighs and your partner is on board, then, by all means, you do you. Fetishes are neither inherently good or bad, and this post is not meant to be in any way, shape, or form about kink-shaming. As long as your sexual preferences do not rely on the removal of another’s sexual agency, you’re free to explore and embrace whatever you can with your sexuality. But I hope that you can see how that becomes problematic when the object is replaced with an individual whose sole purpose you've determined is to help you fulfill a sexual fantasy. It is objectification of the individual and the body taken to the extreme. It removes that person's ability to take an active part in the sexual action and removes their agency in the fantasy.

Fetishization of individuals can occur along the lines of any category of identity. Fortunately, there's been a lot of visibility given to racial fetishization and the fetishization of trans bodies recently, but there are definitely others that we tend to gloss over or even normalize, like objectification along the lines of age (almost every porn site has a category for barely legal teens, and most also have a mature, MILF, or step-mom category). We also tend to be okay with things that we can write off as parody (like fetishization of political leanings like the whole Nailin' Palin thing and the current alt-Right obsession with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), which should be examined further. But, again, these can happen within any category of identity that is a perceived deviation from the "norm" (in Patrick Warburton's Lemony Snickett voice: a word, which, here, means white, cisgender, able-bodied bodies), including, but not limited to: age, disability, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, political beliefs, race, religion, sexual orientation, and size (height, weight, body proportions, and, yes, even relative genital size for all you size queens out there). So realistically, more than half the planet. Now, this is not to say you cannot be attracted to someone for the way they align, or do not align, with your preferences among these identity categories; rather, it is to say that reducing any person to a check mark, or a few check marks, on that small list of boxes is, generally, not okay.

This isn't an admonishment against loving someone who is beyond your scope of whatever "normative" means to you. Nor is this going to be a discussion about the morality of the consumption of pornography (as long as it’s made ethically and is not at all exploitative, you’re welcome to watch whatever you want, including videos in thos aforementioned categories, just don’t force people to live up to that fantasy, especially if you’re not giving them a choice in the matter). We are all complex and wonderful beings, trying to lead the best lives we can, and it would certainly be lonely and naive, if not a little foolish, to think that the only person you could ever love is someone who aligns perfectly with that mythical norm. Taking a line from the post on polyamory, I want you to be open to love in all its forms and that means being open to allowing others to take part in that love the way they want to.

Is Fetishization ever Okay?

Generally speaking, in vanilla, day-to-day sexual encounters: emphatically no. Fetishization and objectification are not okay. But there is one instance in which that answer might change, and that is in the case of negotiated scene play, in which all participants discuss and agree to highlight that fetishization as part of a sexual encounter in order to role play or call attention to some form of power dynamic, so it's a kind of consensual fetishization, but it's still important, especially if those differences are real and not just fantasy, that safe words and gestures are utilized if any lines are crossed. This includes more kink-related things like age play, race play, feminization, master/slave relationships etc. But the key elements here are that there is an acknowledged end to the scene and that those terms have been negotiated.

And this type of fetishization can be super beneficial for all participants. I've mentioned my research about using BDSM and power play to help recover from sexual trauma, so imagine the emotional release involved in acting out a race play revenge fantasy for someone who has lived through racial injustice, or a reversal of the power dynamic for a transwoman to be able to safely take on the role of dominating and feminizing a cishetero, alpha-male type. Again, these scenarios are not for everyone, or even for most, but they can be powerful and even transformative experiences. They can bring about a sense of renewal and rebirth, and if there was a traumatic sexual experience in the past, re-enacting a similar scene or the reversal of a scene with clearly negotiated power dynamics and rules can bring closure, understanding, and healing. But they need to be talked about before you take it upon yourself to immediately go into your own power play at the expense of your sexual partner’s agency.

But now that all of that is out of the way, let's take a look at fetishization within the confines of some of those identity categories, how to reasonably recognize and address ways of thinking that might lead to fetishization, and provide some guidelines for engaging in a sexual relationship for people who happen to be "othered" in regards to their bodies and experiences.

Racial Fetishization

Fetishization disproportionately affects people of color, which, unfortunately, isn’t all that surprising. Fetishization is the objectification of the body as a means to fulfill a sexual fantasy, and white people have been objectifying people of color for a long time; whether for a sexual purpose or as slave labor is somewhat immaterial. The focus has always been on bodies of color and how those bodies can, in some way, shape, or form benefit white society. We see it in historical examples like in the case of Sara Baartmen, one of at least two women of African-descent who were paraded around Europe as sideshow/freak show attractions in the 19th century, under the name “The Hottentot Venus,” because of her bodily proportions. We see it in the world of professional sports, and how the minute that women and men of color use that platform to make some form of political stance, they are reprimanded and taken out of the spotlight by powerful, old, white men. And we’re all aware of this phenomenon to some extent because it’s the basis of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, and that awareness is why the film was successful. Those who fetishize people of color don’t see them as romantic partners, or even whole people, but simply as sexual objects. They strip them of all the characteristics that make them complete and unique, reducing them to the colour of their skin.

This racial fetishization commonly manifests by solely focusing on certain stereotypes associated with a race. This can run the gamut from ‘big butts’ of black women to the ‘submissiveness’ of Asian women to the hypersexualization of Latinx men and women. While many who express interest in these qualities expect it to be taken as a compliment, it isn’t. It’s not okay to tell a woman of color that you love her “light-skinned pussy” while going down on her, or calling your Latinx lover a Mayan god (if you do this, I firmly believe they are allowed to throw you head first into a cenote. See you in Xibalba!) Those were real examples provided in some of the articles I read, and I hope you can see how those might be offensive. Declaring that you are attracted to someone because of the color of one’s skin or a racial stereotype is not flattering; it’s just another form of objectification and sexual colonialism/imperialism.

It’s dehumanizing and objectifying. It’s systemic oppression in full force to maintain power over marginalized individuals by denying them their humanity and demanding that their sexuality is solely for the pleasure of others. And although this perceived power differential mostly benefits white men, there are plenty of white women who also fetishize their lovers along the lines of race, and this isn’t exclusive to heterosexual relationships. If her dating profile says she only fucks Black men, then she’s actually saying she only fucks Black men.

It’s sexualized racism. If you believe you are entitled to a particular vision of a person of color in order to fulfill your sexual fantasy, you are stating that no matter how the relationship is formed or where the relationship goes, they are not an equal. They are not a partner. They are a stand-in for your own beliefs. This fetishization is not a healthy attraction and it cannot lead to a healthy relationship; giving the benefit of the doubt to someone you believe means well is not always warranted.

Detecting Racial Fetishization

Fortunately, there are some ways to detect the potential for racial fetishization, but the number one way is to ask race-related questions, like “Have you ever been with a black girl before?” If their answer is something along the lines of “Yes. In fact, I only date black girls,” or “No, but I’ve always wanted to,” you know that they’ve already brought a certain set of expectations to being with you. Likewise, if they show an over-enthusiastic, unsolicited appreciation for “urban culture,” they’re not trying to impress you; they’re trying to tell you that you should like them because they get it, right? This includes disguising themselves as allies to the cause, in order for you to let your guard down. It might sound like that level of manipulation would be ridiculous, but it does happen. If that’s all they want to talk about and they expect you to be right there with them at every single protest all the time, chances are they are using you as a pawn in some sort of game to prove that they’re not racist. Anything that shows they are coming to the table with assumptions about who you are as an individual simply based on their observation of your skin color, which is in itself an objectification through the gaze, is a good indication about whether or not they might objectify you in this manner.

But how do I not fetishize people of color?

If you’re worried that you have fetishized people of color or might accidentally fetishize people of color at some point in the future, remember that as long as you’re actively attempting to recognize that all people possess an innate dignity and that all people are people, and are therefore worthy of love and respect, you’re on the right track. Decolonizing our minds is a life-long effort. No matter how hard we work to check our privilege, inevitably racial conditioning rears its ugly head, and we are faced with problems, perceptions and biases we thought we had tackled a long time ago, and that’s to be expected. Society fucks everyone up, but you can still train yourself to recognize those thoughts or biases and to not immediately act on them. That’s not to say that being “woke” some of the time is a carte blanche to have racist thoughts all the time; it is something you have actively work to correct.

Fetishization of People with Physical Disabilities

Yes, people with disabilities are still sexual beings. No, you aren’t doing them any favors by seeking them out because you heard that sex with a one-legged woman was absolutely mind-blowing (Seinfeld…). Like with racial fetishization, the fetishization of people with disabilities is rooted historically, and, specifically, has often been aligned with the entertainment industry. In the Middle Ages, people with physical and/or intellectual impairments played an important role in the royal courts as fools or jesters, where they were “allowed” a sense of satirical freedom, and at least during the 13th century, would often perform naked for royalty. This objectification of bodies with disability was once again brought to the forefront with the vaudevillian sideshow acts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (this is an over-simplification, and those entertainment circuits did allow people with disabilities to support themselves in ways that usually were not afforded to them, but they did also depend on the exploitative nature of crowds and the gawking gaze), most obviously with Chang and Eng Bunker and the Hilton Sisters. And the fetishization of bodies with disabilities does very much still occur. This type of objectification, however, is typically easily identifiable, because people who have inclinations towards this type of fetishization, called “devotees,” tend to be focused on one particular impairment (e.g. people who are only sexually interested in people in wheelchairs), and their history of sexual partners generally points to a pattern, and, again, any act of fetishization that reduces a person to one aspect of their physical body is not okay.

The bodies of people with disabilities are already dehumanized and marginalized in our society; this fetishizing only furthers this dehumanization. It’s not even about the attraction to the disability, it’s about the perception of weakness and helplessness and the assumption that the person with the disability somehow needs you. The problem is the sexualization of disability itself and the treatment of people with disabilities as sex objects. Again, this isn’t to say that it’s impossible for someone who is able-bodied to love a person with a disability. Because of this aspect of their identity, people with disabilities know how to overcome challenges that many of us don’t ever have to think about, and perseverance and resourcefulness are both really attractive qualities, but if that attraction is based on the perceived neediness of an individual with a disability it is a confirmation that that relationship will never be between equals.

Fetishization of Transgender Identities

While racial fetishization tends to rely on histories of colonial and imperial oppression and stereotypes, the fetishization of transgender identities is focused more on the individual commiting that act of objectification rather than the person being fetishized. It’s an obsession with anatomy and questions of one’s own sexuality. It’s objectification to the point where the body of desire isn’t even considered as anything beyond a means to satisfy a curiosity. And this isn’t exclusive to binary trans identities, though objectification of transwomen and transmen may be more recognizable; it also affects people who are non-binary, androgynous, and gender non-conforming, as well.

If racial fetishization is sexual racism, then it follows that the fetishization of trans* bodies is sexual transphobia. And while there are certainly people who will announce that they are transamorous or interested in sexually pursuing individuals who are trans, transphobia can also come under the guise of faux positivity. It’s insidious and manipulative, but a lot of people who express this desire to sexually engage with transbodies learn how to masquerade as allies. What’s worse is that these individuals also often try to make it seem like they are doing you a favor by being attracted to you and throwing themselves at you. But even the term “transamorous” removes the agency from the person being “desired.” It equates transwomen as feminine bodies with a penis and transmen as masculine bodies with a vulva, and, even though this might not even be the case, it reduces both to sexual objects. And the transgender aspect of a person’s identity is only part of a whole. It may very well be a key part of that identity, but people are not two dimensional characters in your fantasies. Again, this is not to say that you cannot love or be attracted to someone who is trans, but if your attraction is solely based on the objectification of a trans body, then we have a problem.

Detecting Fetishization of Transgender Bodies

Like with racial fetishization, the best indicator that someone is fetishizing your body’s status as being transgender is their fixation on that part of your identity. Are they asking questions about your progress in your transition? Are they demanding that you tell them what your dead name was? And again, are they “supportive” beyond what you’re comfortable with, inserting themselves into your legal or medical history? Unfortunately, these point to a set of very strict expectations, and if you fail to live up to those expectations, it can be dangerous. Not only is it possible for an errant touch or a hurtful phrase to trigger feelings of dysphoria, but often times, this failure to live up to an expectation can end in very real physical violence.

I’m Dating Someone who is Trans and Don’t Want to Do Something Wrong:

Again, as long as you’re acknowledging that the person you are with is a fully-recognized human being beyond just their anatomy and this aspect of their identity, you’re on the right track, but the reality is that, because “transgender” is an umbrella term, there is a great deal of variety within the trans experience, and therefore a lot of variety when it comes to transbodies. There isn’t any one way to correctly love a person who is trans. Try to limit your expectations for any physical intimacy and let things happen naturally if it gets to that point. Be open and honest about your relationship, don’t hide it away from the world. This is, after all, a person and not some dirty little secret. And don’t treat the experience like a science experiment or a litmus test for your sexuality. Being with someone who is trans has no impact on your sexuality and is really not anything to be ashamed of. If you identify as a cishet guy and you are attracted to a woman only to later find out the she happens to be trans, guess what? She's still a woman, and you are still a cishet guy. It's weird that people focus on what is, or is not, in between someone's legs. We all have parts that interlock with others' parts, and we're all pink on the inside. Why is genitalia a deal-breaker for you, when everything else about the person is wonderful and beautiful and moments before you were attracted to her? We, as a society, need to start raising the bar above just treating folk who are trans with a base-level of respect as a sign that we’re good people because it's really not that difficult and not that complicated.

In the event that your relationship does become physically intimate and you’re nervous about what to expect, ask your partner to take the lead. This doesn’t mean they have to take on a dominant role, but allow them to set the pace, if you’re unsure. Let them guide your hand, your mouth, whatever. Again, being with any person for the first time is a moment of sexual exploration, and a great means for the exploration is mutual masturbation, if you’re both up for that. Watching your partner explore their own body, or holding them as they touch themselves and learning how their body reacts can be a very erotic experience. And if neither of you is really into voyeurism or exhbitionism whatsoever, you can engage in sexually explicit conversation. Pay attention to what words your partner uses and which ones they avoid. Learn how to communicate effectively with your partner to avoid phrases that might trigger a negative reaction, and remember that a large portion of communication is non-verbal. There are very clear differences between an aroused, quick inhale and a frustrated sigh or ceasure of breath. Likewise, there is a difference between an excited shiver or an arching of the back to meet your touch and a wince from a hand passing over a part of the body that might cause a feeling of dysphoria, but remember, even if you’ve been with someone who is trans in the past, there is no universal transgender experience of sensuality. As with any lover and any body, it takes getting to know your partner.

Another thing you can do is to expand your understanding of the things that you find sexy. No lover is ever going to be a perfect fit for any given sexual fantasy. By learning what turns you on, you not only learn to communicate your desires effectively to your partner, but you also give your partner a chance to show their affection for you effectively. If your partner is presenting as masculine and is wearing a binder, but you have a thing for lingerie and undressing your partner, don’t force them or even ask them to remove their binder if it’s not something they’re offering. Instead, you could give them your dress shirt and help them to button it up. The clothing is still a part of the scene for you, and you get to go through the sensuality of dressing your partner, which might very well be a new experience for you. And at the end of it all, it shows your partner that you understand something that might cause them discomfort and are actively trying to meet them on their level, and you get to see that person wearing your clothes, which can be its own erotic little experience. Again, that’s not to say that all transmen or people who are non-binary and are at that moment presenting as masculine are going to find that endearing or sexy, but it’s about compromise and sexual negotiation and it shows you’re paying attention to your lover’s needs, and there isn’t much in this world that is sexier than that.

Is that everything?

Certainly not, and, again, I hate to present the material in this way, but it is too broad of a topic to try and cover all at once and it’s too important a topic to not cover at all. This is the starting point of the conversation. Like we said at the beginning, fetishization of an object is really neither good or bad; it is simply the manifestation of sexual attraction, but there is certainly a problem if you apply that mindset to individuals and reduce them to sexual objects to fulfill your own sexual desires without their informed consent. This type of fetishization can really occur along the lines of any identity category and is certainly not limited to the three we went into above. If you’re interested in this topic, please read the articles that I included under recommended reading. If you ever need someone to talk to, I am here for you. If you would like me to go into more detail or think I got something wrong, tell me or send me an anonymous ask!

With love, friends.

#fetishization #sexuality #objectification #transgender #racial fetishization #disability

1 note · View note

maxgilardi · 6 years

Text

About & BYF

Early-mid-20s white trans lesbian jew. started HRT fall 2017, it’s fucking wild.

some personal blogging, otherwise mostly aesthetic/art/Looks/etc. and gay/trans stuff (here’s a list of tags I use for ease of navigation)

occasionally Discourse, but it’s a personal blog and not A Discourse Blog, except when I have thoughts or feelings about things to do with discourse. but this isn’t a blog centered on delivering correct political lines on anything and everything. so, communist but not on main? that being said, the following is going to be discoursey, and long:

Please do not call me queer (unless you’re also going to call me a faggot) or refer to me as “a femme”, “trans fem”, “transfeminine”, “feminine-aligned”, or “fem of center” (unless you’re going out of your way to misgender me.) Feminine and Masculine are not genders or categories/clusters/alignments of genders. Woman, Trans Woman, Lesbian, and Gay are all great. thank you!!

Please do not follow if you’re any of these:

cishet and also a man (cis aro-ace men, cis het-aro men, and cis ace-heteromantic men, this means you too). Though, to clarify, if you’re AMAB and only attracted to women and questioning whether you’re actually cis/het/male or actually a trans woman, you can still follow for as long as you’re questioning!

a minor (under the age of 18) who doesn’t filter the #NSFW tag

racist/antisemitic/transmisogynist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/misogynist/etc.

TERF or “Gender Critical”

MOGAI

pro-USA, pro-Imperialist

Clinton, Obama, or Bernie fandom

fascist

BDSM stan / uncritical advocate

DD/lg or CG/l (read: pedophile roleplay) (FUCK OFF)

thinks fetishes and kinks are immune to critique Because Sex Positivity

thinks kinksters are Oppressed

Hentai fandom

Anime That Infantilizes Women And Sexualizes Young Girls fandom

Zionist

Thinks that opposition to Israel’s existence, or being vocal about zionism / Palestinian genocide / etc. is Inherently Suspect

Thinks that Only Palestinians And Jewish Voices Should Talk About Israel

Thinks that Jewish People Can’t Be White, i.e. All Jews Are People Of Color Just By Virtue Of Being Jewish

pedophile or “MAP”

split attraction model advocate

thinks cishet aces or cishet aros are in any way LGBT

Monosexual Privilege Discourser

won’t stop referring to LGBT people collectively as Queer People

Truscum / Transmedicalist / TrueTrans™

Refers to trans women you don’t like as “Troons” or “Male-Socialized” or “Futa Porn Brained” or other (even if Internalized) transmisogynist shit

Rationalist / LessWrong readership / Slate Star Codex readership

Jacobin readership

anti-“tankie”

support imperialist-backed regime change in DPRK or Venezuela

Believe anti-communist propaganda like Black Book Of Communism shit, Muh Millions Dead etc.

Think “real communism has never been tried!! :)” is in any way accurate, a compelling argument, or a useful way of building on the last century of revolutionary practice

“Anti-Civ”

“Primitivist”

“Post-Leftist”

“Egoist"

one of those nerds who talks about “toxic monogamy culture”

thinks it’s okay for grown adults to ship children and/or incest and/or abusive relationships: complains seriously about “antis”

Rocky Horror Picture Show fandom, i.e. You’re Okay With Celebrating Rape And Transmisogyny Because ~It’s Our History UwU~

You follow or are followed by Billnihilism [1] [2] [3], Butchcommunist [1] [4] [5] [6], LocalHorrorLesbian/MascPriv [1] [7], or Marxferatu/Fursonar/VladTheUnfollower [8] [9]

I hate to have a list like this, but :/ If you’re not any of the above, I hope you’re having a wonderful day 💖

(I mean, if you’re a minor who doesn’t filter that tag, I still hope you’re having a wonderful day, but still please do not follow me, sorry!!)

Be wary of following if you’re any of these:

an anarchist. Basically, if you reblog my posts to bother me about my being A Tankie or Authoritarian or Statist, or to post cold war era propaganda about communist movements, I will block you.

a Demsoc. same as for anarchists

10 notes · View notes

mlmshadowhuntersource-blog · 7 years

Note

i've never written sexual alec/lydia, period and anyone who is perpetuating that has not read the fic in question. i am a queer woman but not mlm, so i can't speak faithfully to whether any of my fics have come across as fetishistic, but if they have i would welcome the feedback on how to grow and improve

Hi! I (mod Ira) have taken the liberty of providing some pointers to your writing. First, and most importantly, I’d like to discuss non-platonic Alec/Lydia in fic. Something much of fandom seems unable to understand is that Lydia and Alec’s relationship is inherently toxic. In the beginning of season one, we see Alec as a terrified closeted gay man, willing to commit suicide before being outed to anyone. Lydia knows he has feelings for Magnus before they get married, and goes through with it anyway. She was in a position of power over him, because she never expected him to back out of the marriage, and so takes advantage of him. After the wedding kiss, Alec says that Lydia letting him go saved his life.

Many non-mlm have trouble understanding that writing non-platonic Alec/Lydia is inherently homophobic. Lydia was more than Alec’s temporary beard. Lydia was a manipulative person who took advantage of Alec’s trauma to gain an Institute. Creating au’s in which they are planning to marry is trivializing the trauma and internalized homophobia from Alec’s experiences of living in such a deeply homophobic society. Mlm can write this in order to relate it to their own experiences, and some even find it helpful to work through their own related trauma. People who are not mlm shouldn’t use it as a plot device to further Alec and Magnus’s relationship.

I’d also like to discuss a common trope in malec fics. The infantilization of Alec Lightwood in order to make him more desirable for sex is fetishistic. This is seen in your fics No Sweeter Innocence and blow me (one last kiss). Sexual inexperience is different from being bashful, blushing and embarrassed, especially when the Alec we see on screen is nothing like that. Alec in canon would resent being coddled and being seen as an innocent baby who doesn’t understand what he wants enough to articulate asking to be taken to bed, why do you write him that way?

Another issue we see is Magnus as the Ever Giving Partner while Alec sits around sucking him dry of affection. The balance between their affection is concerning. Why is Magnus the one constantly smothering Alec in love and pet-names while Alec is allowed to eat it up and never give back? Furthermore, there is again not much evidence in canon to support this. Alec is the one seen giving Magnus gifts, initiating intimacy, confessing his feelings first, and seeking Magnus out for company. Rarely is it the other way around. Why do you see Magnus as the one who lives and breathes affection and waxes poetic about Alec, and why do you see Alec as the one who has most of the orgasms and let’s Magnus coddle him?

On a more personal note, we never said your fics were garbage. Many of your fics are very sweet, I enjoyed your Found Family ‘Verse quite a lot! And yes, we’re giving you feedback to improve your writing, like you asked, even though mlm don’t exist to keep non-mlm from being fetishistic. The amount of entitlement to ask for an explanation and then vague us on your blog before actually receiving a response is astounding. I hope this was helpful!!!

Hey, it’s Tyler here. If you’re still reading I have commentary, too. First off, I am going to say that I am at fault - I should have read your works before taking the word of someone else (who was a mlm so I did trust his word, and still do). It is totally on me for not fact checking and I will remember to fact check before I state things as fact. However, he was not wrong to say your works were fetishistic nor was he wrong in suggesting we not rec your fics. (There was fetishization in your fics and while there was not sexual Alec/Lydia, there was romantic Alec/Lydia).

Onto your fic: First Comes Love. As Ira mentioned earlier, Alec is infantilized a lot. But most notably is how you write him as if he’s unable to make decisions or do anything for himself when that isn’t the Alec we see on screen. You make Lydia the decision maker (which she is, canonically, but so is Alec) and you make Magnus… well, I wouldn’t call it predatory but it’s really uncomfortable how he flirts with Alec, notices Alec’s uncomfortable, stops briefly, and then starts flirting again. Yes, Magnus is flirty but I don’t believe he would flirt with anyone when he knows they’re uncomfortable. (I mean, canonically Magnus told Alec he would back off if he [Alec] could say he was in love/loved Lydia and canonically Magnus did tell Maryse he would leave if Alec told him to).

I know Ira didn’t read “First Comes Love” but the whole dynamic between Alec and Magnus was… well, I wouldn’t say it is predatory because I’m not a 100% sure it is but it is uncomfortable. I think what makes it uncomfortable is how Alec has been infantilized to a point where it is completely out of character for him.

However, I’m not here to tell you how to better that fic because I actually discourage it. I read your disclaimer but ignoring canon, the relationship you have written is extremely unhealthy. It is very one-sided, Lydia seems to be the voice in the relationship and the one who ‘runs’ the relationship to the point Alec doesn’t really have an opinion on anything.

Anyway, I want to talk about your disclaimer.

Updated A/N: Just to clarify, I tagged this fic as ‘alec/lydia’ and added an extra warning tag because I know some people don’t want to read alec/women regardless of context and I want to respect that.

Ask yourself why do people not want to read Alec/women regardless of context? It’s not just a matter of it being uncomfortable. Yes, it is uncomfortable but it is also extremely disrespectful. It is disrespectful because it is taking an experience that a lot of gay men relate to and may have been through and turned it into a plot device. Our lives, our experiences, are not meant to be used as plot devices in fanfiction and they are not meant to be used by non-mlm.

And furthermore, if you wanted to respect us not wanting to read Alec/women (or, for some, not even wanting to see Alec/women) you would not write it. Period. Full stop.

As a gay man, when I watched that episode I can’t even describe the amount of pain and discomfort I experienced because I thought Alec was going to marry Lydia. Just imagine the pain and discomfort I experienced as an outsider, as someone just watching a tv show, now amplify that by a 1000 and you probably have the exact feeling that Alec felt, that every mlm who was forced into a straight marriage/relationship.

However, two things about this story, 1) Alec is gay, 2) the only pairing presented romantically is Alec/Magnus. Not offended if it’s still not your cup of tea, but just want to make that clear if people are trying to judge from tags alone.

It isn’t, though. Alec/Lydia is presented as a romantic pairing. In the fic, they are engaged- that is an inherently romantic relationship. You cannot write a relationship where two characters are engaged or even married and then turn around and say, “oh but it’s not romantic” because those are romantic relationships.

That’s all I have to say on that and if you’re still around I also read “Blow Me (One Last Kiss).” But I have to agree with Ira on literally everything that he said. Also one thing they didn’t address is… please if you’re going to write smut, please say ‘dick’ or ‘penis’ - not length.

Also not to critique a smut scene because that was the last thing I thought I’d be doing at 6 o’clock on a Monday morning but I feel like it would be physically impossible for Alec to do what you’re saying he is doing. Unless Alec just doesn’t have a gag reflex.

On a personal note. I would like to say something about the vaguing which I didn’t really appreciate when I saw your blog. You messaged us, probably seeking an apology, and feedback. Which we were both very happy to give but after we saw your blog we were kind of… thrown. I can’t speak for Ira but for me, personally, I found it childish. Why message us then vague us or vague us then message us? I get vaguing, I vague people all the time, but I don’t turn around and message them - or vice versa.

I’m gonna be frank, had you not messaged us we never would have seen your vague and you know what that’s perfectly fine. You can talk shit about us and spread lies and over-exaggerate what I said (not Ira, because they weren’t a mod at the time) and I frankly don’t give a fuck. I would rather someone not message me giving off the air of politeness and civility and then turn around and talk shit. That’s fake as hell.

But onto your vague posts which I have some problems with because some of the things really rubbed me the wrong way. Specifically the amount of entitlement.

“apparently a sh mlm blog rec’d one of my fics but then removed it and like made a recant post basically saying someone had told them i write fetishistic fic and ‘sexual alec/lydia’ so they would never post any of my fic again.”

Specifically the “so they would never post any of my fic again” part rubbed me the wrong way. You are not entitled to our spaces and we do not owe it to you to promote your fic, especially if we don’t feel the material you are writing is something that should be promoted. We are not here to promote the fics of people who fetishize mlm or portray Alec/Lydia. Actually, our blog’s purpose is to raise up the voices of mlm and we aren’t obligated to promote anyone who isn’t mlm. But the fact that you felt entitled to our spaces is just beyond infuriating.

i dunno how many followers they have but they posted my ao3 tag and everything

As of this posting we have 108. And I didn’t “post [your] ao3 tag and everything.” I stated your ao3 username, yes, but I hardly call that “everything.” I posted what I did because I choose to try and take responsibility for my actions - as I am doing right now.

(and like, tbf i would try to be open to whatever criticism this person has on the first point because i’m not mlm obvs so i’m sure i’m not perfect by any stretch, but the second point could only be made by someone who’s literally never read my fic so..)

On this part… if someone asks us for feedback, I will give it to them. However, it is not our job to go out of our way to educate every single fetishistic or homophobic fic writer. Your job, as a writer and as someone portraying mlm when you are not a mlm, is to go out and do the research and educate yourself and make sure you’re not portraying us in a negative/fetishistic light. Not to sit back and publish your work until someone comes along and tells you, “hey this is fetishistic” or “this is homophobic.” Your job, as a writer, is to make sure that doesn’t happen.

And our job, as mlm, is to make sure we aren’t promoting fics that are homophobic and/or fetishistic. (And yes, you can be homophobic despite being a queer woman and stating that you’re a queer woman is not a get out of jail free card).

if you don’t want to read my fics that’s awesome but since you haven’t actually read them can you maybe not tell everyone else they’re garbage? thanks

Neither of us has said your fics are garbage so again with the twisting of our words and over-exaggeration. All I said was that someone brought it to my attention that you write fetishistic portrayals of mlm (which you do) and sexual Alec/Lydia (which you don’t, but you do write romantic Alec/Lydia) and that I would not rec your fics on a blog by mlm for mlm. And that is fully within my rights. We do not have to cater to you or any non-mlm.

I said anyone could follow as long as they are respectful of the fact that this is a safe space for mlm because I feel non-mlm should be able to hear our thoughts on how mlm are portrayed and see proper portrayals of mlm.

But I will not tolerate people feeling entitled to our spaces because the only people entitled to this space is mlm.

#ithilien-writes #mod tyler #mod ira #commentary #long post #fetishization #infantilization #homophobia

17 notes · View notes