#just because you don't like someone's interpretation/it goes against yours that doesn't make it inherently homophobic/biphobic | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

scalematez · 1 year

Note

At nekropsii's recommendation, what are your thoughts on rage and hope as aspects?

Thank you for asking!! Alot of this is based in my own interpretation, research and opinions, here are my thoughts below the cut though:

Rage and Hope as aspects intrigue me, because they really do have a lot of potential. They're the pair of aspects I've studied the most and probably the only pair of aspects I've actively made posts on. A lot of difficulty in interpeting them as aspects comes down to 2 things:

Our canon Hope and Rage players to study consist of 4 with destructive classes, and a Page.

Every Hope and Rage player is a character that was either written to be a terrible person, a villain, or Hussie didn't like them and approached them in a mean-spirited way. Often some combination. Essentially, they're either the worst or a joke.

Also the description for Rage on the True Sign website was 100% written by a cop.

While you cannot for even a second evade the fact that Hussie's bigotry is a part of it, with @nekropsii having already made a good post (which I'm sure is the one you came from) on how the Makaras (and how the author wrote them) are a lot of the reason why Rage is the way it is, I do believe Hope and Rage as aspects can easily be written and interpreted in a way that doesn't have this problem and in my opinion more interesting and nuanced than the interpretation of Rage being "the most dangerous aspect".

Start by accepting that no Aspect inherently has more or less capacity for evil by default, because that'd be fucking dumb. They are supposed to be base elements of the universe. Even if the """""canonical""""" True Sign quiz says so, it logically wouldn't make sense. Rage, as long as you're not writing it like a bigot, has just as much capacity for good as Hope does, and Hope has as much capacity for bad as Rage does. After all, beliefs are destructive all the time, so someone having the power to overthrow belief systems is not necessarily bad. It's all dependent on the individual and how they're using that power.

I find one of the easiest ways to repair Rage as an aspect to some extent is to focus on it not as an aspect of inherent anger, instability or destruction, but rather of rebellion, skepticism and most of all iconoclasm. If the greatest power of Hope is to believe in things even against all odds, then the power of Rage would be to not simply accept things at face value even if it's the easier option. Rage is essentially the punk aspect. It is an essential and healthy concept.

The anger or pessimism facet of Rage as an aspect, if and when incorporated, should be handled with care. Don't just make a character angry for no reason other than because they're a Rage player; is there a source for it? Is their anger justified? Because it most certainly can be. Don't just needlessly villainize a character for feeling anything non-positive. And certainly don't needlessly villainize a character by writing them as a racist caricature, but that should be a given.

Hope, on the other hand, isn't necessarily a good or fun aspect to have. It's certainly not an evil one either, not inherently so (if your beliefs or insistence on pushing them on others are harmful enough it can be), but because the majority of Hope players are likely to be classes that directly challenge their sense of Hope in some way, they actually tend to be pretty miserable at points.

I mean Jake isn't even a destructive class and he spends a lot of his screentime nearing the end of the comic sad and somewhat unresolved. He gets called "Joke" more than once and doesn't even have it in him to correct it. And of course, the canonical and legitimate Worst Character in Homestuck title goes to a character who is a Hope player; Cronus Ampora.

In my studies on hope as a concept (and figure) in Greek myth I found that one thing vital to understanding, for example, the story of Pandora's Box, is that hope was not inherently seen as a good thing. It was more akin to "expectation". It was rather seen as an extension of human suffering. It's only later that views towards it became more positive. Remaining positive in adversity and staying true to your beliefs can most certainly be an incredibly good thing. But believing in or expecting things that simply are not true or will not come true can put you in a really bad place.

I think that understanding the Hope and Rage aspects as, at least in part, an extension of and/or response to suffering can help give them nuance. Two different tools to face adversity with. It's just a different stance of approach.

And I can't go without mentioning that having abilities based in what you do or do not believe in make them very interesting and powerful aspects. Granted, all aspects have the potential to be interesting and powerful. But just imagine making something real because you believe in it hard enough, or calling bullshit so hard that you de-power or even destroy the antagonist because you don't believe they could even have that kind of power. Not that that's an ability that you'd wake up at level 1 with, but y'know.

I think in all honesty that they're incredibly cool aspects on a conceptual level that never reached their full potential and probably realistically couldn't in their source material, partially because of the author's approach to them, and partially because the comic ended somewhat prematurely. Which is fine (the second part I mean) but it is worth keeping in mind.

#sorry this took so long it's kind of a chunky post #thank you for the asks!!!!#@oscillatedself #classpecting #rage aspect #hope aspect #askboxkind

111 notes · View notes

mgsapphire · 3 years

Text

Ethics and morality... and how they're not the same...

Weird title, and I don't even know if I'll properly approach this one with all the topics I wish to this discuss in today's The Devil Judge essay, because a lot of things peaked my interest, I was debating on doing a separate post for each subject, but I'll do them all in here:

Starting simple

I know we're only 4 episodes in, but I want to break down the things that I often look for in a new show:

Cinematography

Soundtrack

Character building

Plot devices

Social commentary (sometimes)

Of course, these are things most people would consider basics, but I find that a lot of TV shows don't have enough balance in them. Also, cinematography and soundtrack are pretty up there for me because when a plot gets slow, or something like that, I stay for those two (biggest example: King Eternal Monarch).

The soundtrack in The Devil Judge is amazing and the cinematography can be a character of its own. They really get me hooked and are used as tools to properly tell a story. And I'll get into that further down this post.

The onlooker will never understand the actor

Experience is your best friend not only applies to job hunting, but it's true in the real world too. You can't truly weigh in on something unless you've experienced it yourself, you can give it your judgment and everything, but when bad things happen to someone, you'll never truly understand their pain. Am I bringing up because of the difference of mind in Judge Kang and Judge Kim's opinions? On how the public treated the minister's son? No. I'm talking about a very specific scene, where the cinematography told me to think that way and not the dialogue (it's that easy for my mind to be swayed). In episode 3, when the rich are about to dine right after the foundation's commercial for a better future, we see this aerial shot:

What's interesting about this? The seclusion and the enclosed feeling it conveys as a counterpart to the poverty shots we were just shown. Yet, these are the people making ads for a better future, what do they know?

They live comfortably behind concrete walls with no windows to see what goes on apart from the bubble they live in. This idea is further enforced at the party in episode 4, where they're not even a part of the donations, and watch and mock from afar as spectators. Yet, these people call the shots. They even call it commenting, as if they were watching the pain of others on TV.

The intriguing personality and the duality it encites

Now, this was a costume and wardrobe decision, but it was also very well thought of:

Judge Kim wears white and Judge Kang wears black. One is morally perceived by viewers of the show as morally good and the other is perceived as morally dubious at best. However, besides the costume and wardrobe thought put into this, we also have to think about the delivery of this scene and how it may further affect my detailing of this section. Judge Kang brings down the coats, and hangs over the coat to Judge Kim, he's the one who is making that annotation: You're pure, I'm tainted. This can have one of two interpretations:

Either Judge Kang believes Judge Kim to be pure and innocent due to his status as a rookie in the field

Or he believes Judge Kim to be morally white and himself morally black as he's looking at his brother's face and not at Judge Kim's heart.

Because most of the back story we're unveiling is through Judge Kim's perception, there's also an inherit bias we're having as well, because in Judge Kim narrative, he believes he's doing what's right and believes Judge Kang to be evil. In being served information about Judge Kang through Judge Kim's eyes, our bias is inherently skewed.

Another thing is that, when they put on the coat, they're standing in front of the other, as if the producers of this series are telling us they're two sides of the same coin.

The duality is made in more deceitful ways, which include:

A difference of classes that implies one has suffered while the other has not.

A difference of experience that implies one is more tainted while the other is pure.

A difference of age that implies one is a sly fox while the other one is is bunny about to be eaten.

A difference of temper that makes one erratic and the other logical.

Power dynamics

This one, in this one I could make a whole thesis based on just a couple of scenes in the drama. And you know I have to mention it: director Jung being the puppeteer.

It may not be as unexpected at first, nevertheless it brings forward a lot of things I've wished to touch upon for quite some time now. A woman being a puppeteer of an old man in the portrayed dystopia that The Devil Judge is painting makes much more sense than more common demonstrations of these dynamics where it's either a:

A man of power being controlled by a bigger man of power.

A man of power being controlled by a seemingly man of a lower status.

A woman being controlled by a man of power.

Although, there's nothing wrong with those power dynamics, and if they were to be used, a message could also be conveyed, this one in particular works as a megaphone.

A subversion of power in such a way can be interpreted as a true indication of the weak overcoming the powerful. Why? It is not that woman are naturally weaker than men, but that in society, patriarchy has been a big factor in taking voice away from women in order to give it to men.

In order for Director Jung to achieve her purposes, it's smarter for her to do it under the pretense that an old rich man in power is the one calling the shots.

This is better exemplified by her stance when the old man tries to excuse his behavior, and what her moral compass is. I'm not saying I agree with her unethical conduct, but that her morality is directly impacted by the perception of the public of her as a weak woman:

Just because a dog bites a human does the person get dirty?

This is telling on how she perceives the actions of the old man in gropping the waitress. She didn't do anything wrong, even if you touched her, you are the dirty one.

While she's evil, it's a refreshing and deep evil.

The public's opinion and how there's actually logic in the show's portrayal

The public opinion can make or break a person, even if it's not on a public trial like this. While "cancel culture" barely works in today's society, a person's reputation is forever tainted. The show does tell that, but it also exhibits the scary downside of it, by showing how easily it was to make people accept flaggelation as a fitting punishment.

There are many experiments that have tried to test the effect of societal pressure on an individual's decision and the effect of the authority's enforcement of power in the outcome of these decisions. Furthermore, theories based on analysis of human behavior not necessarily relying on experiments can also help break this down. What do I mean? Here's a small attempt at explaining:

Milgram Experiment on Authority: which measured the individual willingness to carry out actions that go against their conscience due to an authority's approval.

Argument from Authority; The idea that people are more likely to use an authority's opinion on something as an argument for their reason. This is often seen in science, where trusted authorities have done the research and offer it to the public. In here, authority bias also plays a role, as we often believe, at first, that an authority must be right.

Moral disengagement: basically speaking, because this is evil or bad, I'm not part of it and I most probably am not actively participating in it. One may disengage by moral justification, which means that before engaging in something that has been previously perceived as immoral, I'm changing my stance on it based on what I tell myself to be logical arguments. This particular form of moral disengagement is very effective in changing the public opinion. I'll be touching on another form further down this post.

Other factors played a part, but these ones in particular came to mind when public flagelation as a form of corporeal punishment was wildly accepted. First, an authority is the one telling them it's correct, to go ahead. Secondly, another authority (the minister) had previously shown approval to such unusual punishment. Thirdly, they are not the ones to be engaging directly in the act, and even if they were, it would be acceptable because an authority has told them so. They may even believe the punishment to be a necessary evil for the greater good.

In fact, the minister's son was actually correct when pleading his case, they were accepting it because it wouldn't affect them directly.

Regarding the cinematographic descent of the public opinion regarding the situation can better be exemplified by the old man we've seen through the episodes.

Does suffering justify misdeeds?

Today I came along the difference between excuse and reason. You may give a reason for your behavior, but it doesn't excuse it.

Not because I've suffered through shit, means I have to make you suffer too.

I may explain myself, but it's on the other side to excuse me.

Why I hate the unreliable narrator and why I love it so much

This story has been told mostly through the eyes of Judge Kim and what he hears and sees regarding Judge Kang, if anything, the narrative is very close to that of the narrative we've seen in The Great Gatsby. An enigmatic man is being narrated to us from the eye of a man who hasn't known him for a long time.

How is that an unreliable narrator? The narrator has their own set of bias and moral standards which function as lenses through which they see the world.

Another way of putting it would be the way teenage romances are often written in a first person narrative where either of the two teenagers is the narrator, so the author can sell to us something as simple as offering a pack of gum as the most romantic act on earth. We're perceiving interactions through rose tainted glasses.

In this case, we're seeing the interactions through Judge Kim's eyes who doesn't trust Judge Kang from the get go due to his own preset bias.

The narrative becomes even more unreliable as we're not exactly sure if what Judge Kang disclosed himself is a fact.

The reason why I love this narrative is because it leaves a lot of space to make simple plot twists to a narrative and make them seem grand, and can elongate a story without making it obvious.

The reason why I hate it is because sometimes, in tv shows mostly, we as viewers can see the other side of the story and grow increasingly frustrated with the main character's prejudice and misunderstandings (I'm looking at you my beloved Beyond Evil).

Also, because I have to wait for a long time before I actually have a clear picture of it.

#kdrama #kdramas #kdrama recommendations #analysis #rant #the devil judge #got7 #park jinyoung #ji sung #kdrama meta #kdrama quotes #kdrama analysis #meta #the great gatsby #kim min jung #please dont let this flop

98 notes · View notes

mevekagvain · 3 years

Text

Chapter 93 - Fancy chair, love it.

- So my theory is that Raizel just never learnt how to write in Lukedonian either.

- Tbh the janitor is suspicious. Like how hard was he googling M-21?

Chapter 94 - SUYIIIIIIIIIIII

- Ah geez the first of the racistly depicted characters.

Chapter 96 - Suyi getting mad at the kids for complaining about Hansu is so funny like when she first appears you think she's perhaps a stuck up celebrity or a pushover but it turns out she's just a really sweet friend.

- Suyi being stunned by Rai's looks but not falling for him (same with Yuna) is one of the things I always liked about Noblesse. Like sure in the first meeting they get blushy but I'll just jot that down to the inherent beauty of nobles since I can't relate to it at all.

Chapter 97 - Frankenstein's house always being stocked with so much food because the kids just started coming over daily is hilarious. Even funnier since Frankenstein obviously thinks it's overkill but is the one stocking up anyway.

Chapter 98 - Regis and Seira 🥺 Seira's og outfit was the best one she had like it only goes downhill from here folks.

Chapter 99 - It would have been so funny if Frankenstein went "they must be cosplayers" instead of realising the two were nobles.

- Regis taking all the initiative shows how it's his roadtrip coming of age journey which is pretty clever. Also Seira's just like that but still.

- Shinwoo stop exercising in class bro. Do not flex on the rest of us this is so rude 😭😭😭

- Regis confidently saying he's a noble in class to humans he doesn't plan on mind controlling... Baby boy why are you so dumb? How is this hiding your identity??? And Seira just lets him,,, good for her.

Chapter 100 - Ah yes their elegance boner at seeing Raizel... nobles are so fucking weird.

- M-21 thinking he won't get any information because of his time at the Union and thus being surprised at how open Frankenstein is is actually really sweet. Like yeah I still think Frankenstein is an unethical and questionable person but he is kind to most humans (werewolves and nobles can go fuck themselves I guess lmao).

Chapter 101 - The second hand embarrassment I felt when M-21 called the two noblesse... how do I even consume content?

- Yeah 100% most union members don't know the difference between nobles and vampires. I bet they'd classify jiangshi as either mutants or werewolves. Or to be more specific, that would be the classification given to low leveled members. On one hand I think it's dumb that the Union gives members twisted information because how would they even use it? But on the other hand it makes sense since it prevents said members from seeking nobles for help. After all, if they believe even the 'noblesse' are vampires that drink blood, than obviously they won't see them as possible escape routes.

- 'Noblesse only applies to one person'. Yeah because Rai's brother is fucking dead. And so is whoever was his predecessor/parent.

Chapter 102 - Those bullies got backup so fucking fast like Shinwoo literally just asked Regis and Seira if they were okay then boom! They're back.

Chapter 103- Regis going ??? essentially when Shinwoo tells him to take care of Seira is so funny like yes ofc he's confused she's literally a clan leader + noble females aren't physically weaker + noble women work out just like the men.

- Rude, Regis. You can't just ask someone why they're mingling among humans. You're doing that too. Who doesn't mingle among humans smh. Even cats and pigeons mingle with us.

Chapter 105 - Love how everyone else in the household is so sick of ramyeon like Raizel stop please you're being selfish.

Chapter 106 - Frankenstein is the definition of the 'right in front of my salad?' meme at Regis and M-21 arguing at the dinner table. Then there's Seira and Raizel just waiting for the noodles to get soggy so he can't even eat. Wish Urokai could see him getting tortured like this.

- The soldier rejecting backup because he knows the enemy is the Union hurts my heart. Wanting to prevent casualties... iwi

Chapter 107 - Shark how tf do you not know about South Korea? That's one of the asian countries people actually know about. I guess maybe it's because this is from around a decade back? K-pop is more recent and made the country more visible I guess.

- Ah yes Takeo. Forever known as "the first time I read Noblesse and he appeared I thought he was Marie's sister since they had the same hairstyle". Like I thought that before even learning about the Aris Taivra fiasco. My power 😔

- Oh don't worry M-21, Frankenstein stopped experimenting on people 830 years ago. You know, as one does.

Chapter 108 - Shark has like no general knowledge. Geography? History? Tf is that I guess.

- Tao saying they're the worst possible people for the job is so funny like yeah he's right. "All we do is massacre people in warzones why are we in Seoul?"

- The rest of the squad complain or are confused about the peace meanwhile Takeo is vibing. He's the normal guy TM of the group.

- Ah yes noble lore. If you take canon at face value than the fact that nobles were around when humans first emerged and there being about 2-3 clan leaders before the current generation means you can estimate their lifespan. Ofc it differs wildly depending on how you interpret the 'first humans' part. I'll assume there were 3 generations before the current generation (mvp lord being the third generation) and won't be adding the current generation since a 0.5-2k years is kinda meaningless. I'll also be assuming that mvp lord entered eternal sleep at around the same age as his predecessors and that he would have died soon from old age anyway (since canonically they do have limited lifespans). If we assume it's just the first human ancestors (7 million years ago) than the average pureblood lifespan is 2.33 million years. If we assume it's when homo sapiens started to emerge (300k years ago) than it's 100k years. If it's about modern humans (130k years ago) than it's 43.3k years. Regardless I'll ignore it since my hcs are that nobles are effectively immortal unless killed and that the 2-3 clan leaders is a misconception due to a mix of Gechutel just straight up lying, because there are clans that have had fewer clan leaders, because I have nobles settling on Lukedonia only 30k years ago, and because Gechutel is factoring in his own age of 10.2k so it's more like 'There have been 2-3 Ru clan leaders before the Ru clan leader 10k years ago since after we settled in Lukedonia'. There's also the possibility that nobles didn't have lords or clan leaders until a few thousand years ago in canon but the species has existed for much longer.

- 'Nobles are individualistic... They don't despise humans but don't love them either.' Humans w/ ants. Now if the ants were capable of speaking with us it'd be exactly the same situation.

Chapter 109 - "What were they researching here?" Since when does the Union research anything aside from human modifications Kranz? Why do you even need to ask? More seriously this means that the Union doesn't actually only do human experimentation and weapons lmao. The other shit just isn't relevant I guess. It's a shame, I'd have loved to see how a lab focused on like, fixing up polluted waters, would be fit into the story.

- The fact that Tao beat Jake up is never mentioned enough. Also confirms that Jake was lying out of his ass about being the strongest.

- Marie being the weakest assassination squad member is interesting like I know why Crombel doesn't need bodyguards as the reader but you'd think the Union would be suspicious of him not having a stronger bodyguard. Also I still can't believe the Union doesn't bother learning who the members are aside from the ones Crombel tells them about like. Bro???

- Shark calling Takeo uptight is hilarious because the guy literally just shot the falling ceiling light which is the opposite of uptight. Either he was preventing them from getting hurt/being caught or he wanted that to happen considering the fact that he shot it and it shattered. And then he just goes back to leaning against the wall. Takeo please 🤣

Chapter 110 - And Shinwoo's still staying over at Ikhans place. Wonder when he's gonna move back. I really love their dynamic like yeah I beg my sister to get me food all the time too. Also love the apron and skeleton hoodie.

- Shinwoo went through the five stages of grief pretty quick huh? Like yeah it's his own misunderstanding that Ikhan is dating someone but still. Homophobia is annoying as always though.

Chapter 111 - Suyi paying for their food is so sweet of her and also I relate so much like yeah mood that's me and no I don't want to be paid back.

- Takeo,,, the fact that he just hands his wallet over because he doesn't like violence and doesn't want to beat them up,,, my heart. Otoh... how did he even get cornered in an dark shady alleyway lmao.

- Aris managing to make herself look like a teenager as Taivra is interesting since Takeo says he wants her to be able to go to school like Yuna and Shinwoo when he's treating them. I guess she looks younger without makeup.

- Takeo just straight up pointing his gun at Shark in public because he mentioned Taivra... anger issues much? I understand why but taking your gun out is an overreaction.

#noblesse #raining while reading

8 notes · View notes

transrightsjimin · 4 years

Note

I'm asking as a confused trans and gay person regarding some of your recent posts saying aphobia doesn't exist, etc. Do you consider asexual people to be inherently LGBT even if they are cisgender and straight (heteroromantic)? I don't want to discriminate at all, I'm just confused because I see people fighting on here all the time about whether aces are part of the LGBT community or not. Do you have some insight for me as an ace nonbinary person? Thanks in advance!

no it’s fine lol dw!

i’m not sure how to explain this w/o being too extensive in what i say bc i’ve talked about this before but more in private conversations (and maybe some rants in tumblr posts) nd i tend to ramble abt it.

first of all i do not actually like the common conception that there is one way to define LGBT or the idea that everyone should fall within that category term or not, for example because the English language is colonial and rigid and does not reflect on experiences of all cultures, bc being gay or trans are not distinctly different experiences everywhere while they would be divided into different categories. so whereas i was more insistent on saying ‘you must be gay / bi / lesbian / trans to be LGBT / suffer from homophobia or transphobia’ i’ve come to realize now that this argument is rather exclusive of many gender diverse identities that do not correspond to all experiences or cultures. so i will stay away from using that argument.

however, i am speaking from my experience with online LGBT and asexual communities and have seen how the latter has tried to force itself into the other. i think a large issue with the asexual and aromantic communities is that they are partially based upon the creation of AVEN, an online forum founded by a homophobic and antisemitic man, and partially (though related to the former) by just blatantly made up statistics and history. not once have i seen a good argument or research or even personal accounts that illustrate very well why aphobia is a thing. i am asexual myself but do not want to take the lack of discrimination i faced for it as proof. there have been accounts of ‘aphobic’ discrimination that are either 1. much more a general concern with the OP facing misogyny and girls being sexualized, 2. someone making a remark based on a misconception of OP’s experiences or 3. misappropriation of terms and applying them to asexuality, e.g. ‘corrective rape’ was coined to refer to (African) lesbians who were assaulted under the presumption that it would turn them straight. asexuals have appropriated this term years ago to claim asexual people face rape on a large scale because perpetrators try to force them into liking sex. some people don’t even know the original meaning of the term because of this. i’m also not a big fan of this new interpretation of the term anyway, because legit sexual attraction is not the main reasons people commit rape; it is to seek power. this kind of mindset of asexual people being inherently vulnerable to sexual violence due to lack of feeling sexual attraction is seriously harmful; in the crime show Law and Order SVU, a suspect was let off because some main character said the suspect was asexual and this couldn’t have done it. people can be and sometimes are raped by an asexual person, because it is about taking advantage of someone and not attraction. the sole fact that so many authors of overly fetishistic fanfiction are asexual should prove this much, but instead the lack of attraction is used to distance oneself from the harm one can still cause.

and yes, asexual people can face discrimination, especially if you’re a girl you’re expected to be sexually submissive, which is pretty horrifying on its own. but this is not the same as targeted discrimination on a mass scale or institutional whatsoever. we are not thaught as we grow old that asexuals are disgusting, are a joke, or need to be violently murdered. my biggest issue with the asexual and aromantic community that we (as i have removed myself from it years ago) keep telling it that anecdontal accounts of being mildly discriminated is nowhere near the same as risking being kicked out of your house, being violently attacked due to the way you appear or having a partner of the same gender, being systematically discriminated by all sorts of institutions in society and being thaught that what you are is bad from an early age on. and then the counterargument is that LGBT is more recognized but asexual and aromantic isn’t, so ‘ace / aro’ people deserve to be included because they are underrepresented in media. but that is not the case at all. the speed at which asexuality has suddenly been incorporated and included into LGBT spaces, also offline, has been ridiculously fast. nowadays when you see a bunch of LGBT flags you see the asexual one being included a lot, sometimes in 3 different versions, while the lesbian flag is nowhere to be seen. lesbians are consistently excluded from their supposedly own community and they are not included in LGBT due to a need to change underrepresentation or lack of awareness, but because they face their own version of homophobia. the most mind-boggling thing about cis / cishet asexual and aromantic people being told that they are not oppressed, is that the response is not relief (’oh i’m glad i don’t face systematic oppression for this thing’) but anger (’how dare you not let us into your group!’). LGBT is seen as a fun party that is unnecessarily mean to anyone it gatekeeps, as if it is not actually necessary to keep out cishet people who benefit from their privilege and can use that against the rest in the group if they join.

my largest issue with the asexual community however, and i’ve touched upon this a bit before in the post, is that it victimizes itself, to such a degree where it puts itself oppositional to ‘allosexuals’. the whole idea that people who experience sexual attraction to another person are inherently privileged over abd hold power over asexual people is just not true (and the same goes for this rethoric for aromantic people). this idea is so wrong and the whole concept of the ‘allosexual’ as oppressor collapses once you consider that people who are attracted to the same gender are actually in danger and oppressed for their very attraction. not only are those who experience attraction (that isnt platonic) to other people portrayed as oppressors, but also as perverted freaks. once i decided to stop associating myself with acearo people and instead interact with LGBT people with other experiences, i realized just how much stigmatizing abd frankly, homophobic and transphobic bullshit i’ve adopted within the spaces i used to be in and that i still see gather a lot of traction (now their harmful points are also used on twitter and IRL in the public domain). the community has a huge issue where it teaches you to be puzzled and grossed out by people who want to date / kiss / have sex with other people, and this results in GSAs that now include asexuals to prohibit kissing your partner per request of asexual / aromantic members, asexual people showing up at pride with ‘can we just hug?’ signs, the common serophobic jokes (’at least we dont get hiv!!’ blergh), and for me it led to a great discomfort with kissing and sex imagery and it wasn’t until i left the community that this was in fact subtle homophobia because so much content on here is lgbt themed and to combine that with the increasing aversion to romance or sex without critically looking at that is... very toxic to say the least.

so where it’s standing right now, i don’t think including asexual or aromatic people in LGBT spaces on the basis of those identities is a good idea. one community advocates for the acceptance of sex, whereas the other is stigmatizing it and painting off those who are in fact oppressed for their transness or homosexuality, as the oppressors. it clashes and it doesn’t work. the ‘ace / aro’ community (quote unquote bc i see ‘ace’ being used a lot to imply superiority over ‘allosexuals’ like, theyre being the ace at something) has too many issues, which it is largely based on, to figure out. it can be a community on its own and i do not think you need to join LGBT to have a valid identity that has something to do with sexuality or gender and deals with a form of stigma.

it woukd be a rant, i warned you lol

#asks #anon #the asexual comm #homophobia //#transphobia //#lesbophobia //#rape mention //#serophobia //

6 notes · View notes

pickledchickenetti · 5 years

Note

(pt 1) I'm a woman and am happily married to another woman and I don't understand why everyone was so upset at Krista. She openly supports marriage equality and has defended it. She has close LGBT friends (I know having black friends doesn't make you not racist but in my experience people that have been opposed to my sexual orientation stop being friends with me) and advocates for LGBT persons to be included in the church and conservatives to accept us.

Hi friend, thanks for your thoughts! I don’t know your background, so I hope that my answer doesn’t come across as condescending or rude as that is certainly not my intention. My opinions on Krista’s stance on gay issues are strongly colored by my experiences, which I have no problem admitting. I’m sure plenty of other LGBT folks have different feelings, which is totally fine. For what it’s worth, I saw more people upset with Krista over her posts about abuse victims not remarrying after a divorce than I have over any of the LGBT posts she’s made, but I’m not going to pretend that I haven’t regularly made critical comments about her LGBT posts/stances here.

In order to be fair to her, I decided to go back through her blog (on Tumblr, not her other blog) and re-read her posts on gay issues in order to make sure that I’m not taking other people’s comments about her or vague memories I have of old posts and projecting my own frustrations with other conservative Christians’ opinions onto Krista.. I’m going to do my best to source anything I reference via links to that post, but I apologize if I miss anything.

I will also be focusing on issues regarding people who are sexually attracted to the same sex (using the blanket term of “gay”, which also represents bi/pan/etc.) for this post. I am cis myself, and your question references your same-sex relationship and family, so in this case it feels appropriate to stay in my lane and not offer opinions on a cis person’s stances on gender issues as another cis person. I do not mean to exclude gender nonconforming people from the overall LGBT community in any way.

The oldest about posts I can find from Krista about anything gay-related are anons asking her opinions. I’m fairly sure that this is the first one, where she essentially gives a fairly neutral action that could be interpreted as “I don’t think being gay sends you to hell” or as “I think gay people can go to heaven too as long as they repent of that sin along with the others”. She does not make it clear what her opinion on same-sex attraction specifically is, as another anon then pointed out in this post. Does her tone in addressing the anon bother me? Yes. Does she have the right to call out people she feels are being rude to her? Also yes.

Early on in the post she says “First, you missed out on a lot of people. It’s actually LGBTQIAAP.” (likely referencing the anon saying LGBTQIA), and it’s just a personal pet peeve of mine for straight people to try to act like they have any authority on things like the acronym, but I realize that that’s just me and she also has no way of knowing the anon’s sexuality so perhaps it was one straight person (sarcastically) informing another straight person of a perceived shortcoming. Perhaps not. She then goes on to defend her refusal to give a “straightforward answer” by, in my opinion, continuing to dodge the question.

Further down she brags that she “was actually named best advocate at a national moot court competition this past year arguing that Title VII protects against sexual orientation discrimination”. Now maybe I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that moot courts aren’t typically events where you’re expected to defend your own personal beliefs, but events where you are assigned a stance and have to argue it regardless of what you believe. If that’s the case, mentioning that is irrelevant. If it is not the case and she was able to choose that stance, bragging about it for some sort of ally point is, in my opinion, arrogant.

She ends the post by saying that her LGBT friends “are entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and safeties that I enjoy as a straight woman. Who you love and who you’re attracted to does not change your place in society or the rights that you have or opportunities you should be able to pursue.” Sure, your sexual orientation SHOULDN’T change your place in society or your rights, but it DOES. It absolutely does, and to say that LGBT folks are entitled to the same rights as straight women is, at best, misguided. Krista is a lawyer who has, in theory, interacted with multiple members of the LGBT community, so she should realize that regardless of what should or shouldn’t be true, LGBT still DON’T have the same rights as her in many states, and even in states where legally we have the same rights we still live with fears she will never experience.

As for the claim that Krista is “not only tolerant of my family but accepting” and that she “accepts me and defends my rights”, here are my thoughts. I don’t want to be tolerated. If you’re cool with just being tolerated then more power to you, but as someone who is merely tolerated by a number of Christians, it really hurts and feels extremely de-humanizing. I do feel that “tolerates” is an accurate word for Krista’s stances on gay people (with the possible exception of the gay friends she claims to have). I do not feel that Krista “defends” gay people and our families beyond her belief that she is legally obligated to uphold the law. She has said that she is “totally fine with gay couples adopting”, which is a positive. She has also said she feels families with same-sex couples should be treated like “any other couple”, which again, is a positive. I guess I just don’t feel like that’s the same as defending. She recently admitted that she has never voted for a Democrat, and while I understand why someone from Vermont might see third-party candidates as viable (because in many Vermont races they are), she has to realize that voting third-party for president is throwing away your vote in the current political climate. Beyond voting, what is she actually DOING to “defend” gay people? Nothing she has ever said makes me think she’s using her privilege to truly defend us to her conservative Christian circles. Unless proven otherwise, I can’t help but feel that she’s able to talk a (vague) big game about being supportive without actually doing any supporting.

I have recently said that it is my belief that she thinks gay sex/acting on same-sex attractions is sinful, even if our marriages should be legal. I will admit that I formed that opinion largely based on a private conversation I had with her, and which I will not share publicly without her permission. In going through old posts, I came across this post, which I feel also supports this opinion. An anon says that they can’t see any good qualities to overcome “when the thing they disagree with is gay rights/gay marriage/that being gay is a sin”, and that they’d “say the same about someone who identified as a Nazi or a white supremacist”. In Krista’s response, she literally says “But, by the same token, you and I are talking right now, and hopefully, I’m not reminding you of a Nazi”. That statement seems to imply that she falls into at least one of those categories or else why would she remind the anon of a Nazi? In another post she also says that “I do believe that all people are responsible for their sexual BEHAVIOR”, which seems to imply that there is something sinful about sexual behavior between people of the same sex.

If we want to get down to it, this is the post that was the cause of my initial feeling that Krista was not a safe person for gay people. If someone asks you if you think being LGBTQ+ is a sin and your answer is to tell them they are trying to “stir division”, it is only fair to assume that you think they won’t like your answer. If I ask someone their belief on that subject, I am asking because I want to know their opinion. This anon echoes the same sentiment. If she’s really worried about “stirring division” she should have just ignored the question.

To anyone still reading at this point, thanks for sticking it out with me. Honestly Krista’s recent posts (paired with some events in my life offline) have really got me thinking, and I have a lot of things weighing on me. I’m glad that you are able to feel that as long as she believes you deserve the same rights as she does it’s fine. I hope you continue to feel safe in that. Unfortunately, many of us aren’t that lucky. Many of us have lived too much of our lives feeling disgusting and broken and worthless because of teachings that that same God she worships and we were brought up to worship disapproves not only of any relationships we have, but of an inherent part of who we are. The biggest reason that I continue to speak out against Krista’s posts is because I just need any scared or confused young gay teenagers in the church to know that they don’t have to settle for being tolerated, and no matter who thinks they’re sinning, they’re not.

Krista’s posts (in the context of the rest of the blog) would have devastated me at one time in my life. When I speak out against them, I’m usually saying the sorts of things I wish someone would have said to me then.

#Anonymous

5 notes · View notes