in that post abt the gender unicorn graphic, in the comments the idea of the “split attraction model” is brought up and you say you dont want to litigate that. however, im really curious what your opinion is bc i have some ideas abt it too. i feel like its sort of an incomplete analysis? like, people feel different ways about others and that cant really be flattened into like two modes of attraction. but i personally would call myself aromantic and bisexual so obviously i have some level of investment of the idea. anyways i just ask because in general i find your analysis and opinions compelling
thank you! re: this graphic
My issue with splitting “physical attraction” and “emotional attraction” is that it does the same naturalising trick that the chromosomes-as-the-symbol-of-sex does - by splitting the emotional from the physical, this implies that physical attraction is natural, without emotion, and by the same token that emotion can exist completely detached from the physical body of the person you emotionally desire. Like I just don’t think this is true! For example, the idea of “casual sex,” ie sex that is devoid of emotion/emotional investment, is a social construction, it is a sexual act that is being contrasted against societal norms of “serious sex” or “invested sex” or whatever you want to call it - sex that is being done in the context of a monogamous, married relationship, or an otherwise exclusive long-term one. the base social unit of much of western society is the nuclear family, and the nuclear family is “ideally” produced by monogamous, cis-heterosexual, racially homogeneous reproductive sex. That is the norm by which all other sexual behaviour and activity is judged by.
and to be clear I’m not using “emotional” in an idealistic or moral sense, I am not using it as a shorthand for romantic feelings, I am purposefully using the language the graphic is using - I mean any emotion. Like just to be super clear, I’m not suggesting that people who have casual sex all secretly love the people they fuck, or that sex has to always be a serious emotional endeavour, or that people who do not feel sexual attraction to the people they have romantic feelings for are secretly lying, but that I don’t think sex is something that can be devoid of emotionality entirely. Like I think we are engaging in this Cartesian body/mind dualism where the physical acts we perform are somehow wholly separate from our emotional states. Pleasure has an emotional component to it, I don’t know how to articulate my experiences with pleasure that do not involve some level of emotionality, and emotionality has a physical character to it. Like in fact I think this graphic is treating emotions as ideal states - it reminds me of like old misogynistic psychological theory that described rationality as an absence of emotion, that to engage in rationality is to move away from emotion. It treats rationality as “out there,” objective, natural, detached from social influence, and emotion as “in here,” in our hearts, ruled by the social. And this distinction is made on the idea that the social world is detached from the physical world, which is pure idealism.
this is not a dismissal or denial of anyone who feels a disconnect between their sexual and romantic desires, such as asexual or aromantic people - while I am neither of those things, I have experienced intense physical desire for the person I’m fucking while actively dissociating during sex as a result of dysphoria/heteronormativity/etc etc. by the same token I have also felt emotionally compelled to be physically attracted to someone without actually feeling physical desire. These are both emotional states that were in conflict with my physical desires, or rather my physical desires as I understood them at the time. our ability to interpret and understand our desires is itself social! otherwise heteronormativity wouldn’t be a thing. We don’t have unmediated, unemotional access to physical desire, which I think this graphic is arguing, intentionally or not.
so having complicated, contradictory, disconnected, or otherwise ‘non-normative’ relationships to our emotional states vis a vis physical desire is obviously very real, and the reason they are real is because physical desire is also socially mediated and constructed. What and who we find attractive, why types of bodies, physical and character traits, etc are attractive to us are all part of (joker voice) society.
now, idk how you easily communicate this in graphic format. perhaps these things are unsuited to the medium of easily digestible graphics, or perhaps I’m limited in my imagination. either way I don’t think bifurcating emotional-desire-as-social and physical-desire-as-natural is particularly helpful
85 notes
·
View notes
Thinking more about my isat au and I'm gonna need to change a LOT more than I thought. First things first, Siffrin's connection to the wish. Since in Of gems and pages, all the wishes stayed the same. So why is Odile the one looping and not Siff? So basically, what I think I'd do in my au is that the Universe decided to change things up a bit.
The first time the Universe granted Siffrin the means to fulfill their wish, things went horribly bad (just look at Loop). So this time, the Universe decided to give this new Siffrin, something a lil different. They still gave Siffrin the timeloop But made Odile his proxy. So that Siffrin may have helpers in this new timeline, with Loop as the guide and Odile helping as well, it Should go better, right??? And since the wish is connected with Siffrin's emotions, the Universe can't just completely make it Odile's problem now, sooo basically... Siffrin can still remember Parts of a previous loop PRIOR to their deaths.
That means during the beginning of canon when Siff was crushed by a boulder, he remembers that. And found Loop as well, but when he accidentally ended up touching a tear, he now Doesn't remember being crushed by a boulder but by being frozen in time. At the same time, he ALSO doesn't remember Anything else prior to it. So he doesn't remember that there's a boulder that can kill him by the entrance of the House, he doesn't remember Loop. All he remembers is that somehow, one way or another, he was frozen in time within the House and needs to be more careful with the tears. And because of the way that the loops affect Siffrin now is faaar too different than how it affected Loop, he can't go forwards or backwards in time. Siff will always awaken back in the meadow and Loop will always have to do their whole speech all over again (which would most likely annoy them immediately cuz why? Why is it so different now? Why can't this Siffrin REMEMBER?)
Odile on the other hand, remembers ALL the loops and finds a lot of discrepancies with Siffrin. It takes awhile for her to meet Loop and they get to talk to each other. Their meeting would be pretty... rocky at first. Loop still getting regarded as a stranger by Odile, Loop finding out that Odile is the one getting affected by the timeloop from their own selfish wish. Even if that Siffrin isn't them, it doesn't change the fact that they both made the same wish. Loop thinkin bout being such a favourite cosmic joke of the Universe that not only were they turned into This, one of their family members are suffering cuz of them. And she doesn't even recognize them. It'd be pretty hard at first too cuz Loop doesn't know that their appearance changed yet, there's no mirror. For Loop, they might still look like Siffrin, right? But Odile's reaction to seeing them says otherwise.
Anyway in this au, stage wise, Odile is the actor, Siffrin is the director, and the Universe is the audience. Book wise, Odile is the character, Siffrin is the writer, and the Universe is the reader. Why is Siffrin the director or the writer and not the Universe? That's because the timeloops are Still connected to his emotions, if something he didn't want to think about happens like, that argument with Bonbon (just as an example. I'm wondering if that'll still happen here considering that only happened because of Siff had memories of all the loops in canon. He doesn't have that in this au anymore), time would loop back still, so in a way, Siff Is writing how the timeloops go.
9 notes
·
View notes
reblogs off bc i dont want to start Conversations based on other peoples posts but re the whole "who is in control you or the character" question, i find it SO interesting because it's by letting myself discovery write that I (for me personally disclaimer) found the perfect balance between intuition and intention. which to preface "intution" is the easiest way to describe how the inside of my writers brain feels bc often i just get vivid characters/stories/images/scenes with little control at first and i have to figure out what they mean. anyway discovery writing is what works for my brain to make intentional decisions because i need to be amidst a draft to get the Story Cogs working, whenever i try to outline before a draft it's always been just throwing things at a wall bc it feels too far away, but because im also using the discovery element to do that it's like. that's where i think the whole i feel like my characters reveal themselves to me comes from. because im always discovering small bits about them even if i've written them for years just but because discovery writing is also what prompts me to be intentional about writing as i write something it's like both are happening at the same time. so the whole "who's in control" it's like...i don't think control is the right word for me at all because its not Me or the Character it's me trying to understand the character to understand + then write my intentions. like neither me or the character are in the drivers seat because there's no car we are in the middle of the story forest and at first i won't know what it means at all except that it is a Story. and my character will start going one way and sometimes i'll follow and pay attention to where they're taking me to figure out if this is the right path/where to go next. and sometimes i'll figure out how to read the compass first and realise i need to drag their ass in another direction
10 notes
·
View notes
i think the witcher makes me feel a profound sadness every night because it’s about all the things we love so much, or that we wish we had, but can never get back. the tragedy of the uncontrollable. the pain of loss.
ciri, despite her youth and innocence, loses her home and family and then she even her adoptive parents, and then she even loses her youth and her innocence, and is left with nothing but a grotesque scar symbolizing her trauma that doesn’t fit her childlike face and a hardened, green glare. and a sword, which is only a burden.
her parents, despite their incredible love for her, despite all of their agony and sacrifice to get her back, despite their own loss of their honor, their pride, their blood — they lose her too. they lose a child, the most tragic loss of all.
dandelion loses his best friend, clutching at his memories like the weeds growing by loch eskalott, trying to grasp the last twenty years to write his memoires.
milva hears her father’s words when she shoots, and his wheezing echoes in her mind.
regis lost himself, his entire life, all the people he ever loved and chased away.
cahir, despite his large family that loves him more than imperial orders, can never return to darn dyffrya, feel the sun on his face in vicovaro ever again.
angoulême wonders if her mother would have loved her had she not abandoned her, imagines what her hand patting her head in praise could have felt like.
and then geralt loses them. all of them, one by one.
and nimue, reading about it all, can never meet the figures of the legend she has obsessed over for years and years… she has her part to play in it, she can know their voices from dialogues and know their faces from etchings, but will never be able to tell them she loves them, tell them how much they mean to her.
even when they find what they’re searching for, even when they find what they’ve desired so — it’s only for a bittersweet moment. they shortly lose it again. everyone in this series is so intertwined together and caught in the same snare of destiny, and at the very same time so very alone and abandoned
44 notes
·
View notes
also my voice is really grating and inconsistent in pitch and everything it wouldnt be fun listening to autistic trisha paytas voice for like an hour
3 notes
·
View notes
I know Tumblr is the worst place to voice an opinion like this but that Dead End show on Netflix was actually the most soulless thing I've ever seen in my life. And it was so unnervingly bad, and every concession was made in the name of marketing to the target 15-20 TikTok Tumblr Twitter demographic and being a poor Gravity Falls ripoff, that the few bits where it genuinely did something really bold and genuine for a kids show like that just add to it, it's like when you call to the noise you heard in the dark and it responds in your own voice. Even fucking Q Force had more integrity unironically.
3 notes
·
View notes