Why do so many people have t'challa be a bottom? Like come on give my guy Erik a chance.
i feel like it has to do with the difference in their expressions of dominance in the movie. t'challa is a more gentle, kinder king who cares deeply about his people, esp his close circle but knows how to shut shit down when he needs to. erik, on the other hand, doesn’t show a lick of kindness. (he’s angry about the way of life, so it would be out of this particular character anyway.) he’s cocky and aggressive and holds little regard for others because he’s so focused on accomplishing his goals.
i think a lot of people (including myself) have a sort of natural tendency to ascribe aggression to dominance and that’s why people see t'challa as a bottom. of course there are also power dynamics at play if you consider that erik can easily beat his ass when he has his power removed.
yes, i think one factor in what we’re seeing is that there is a tendency to think aggressive = dominant, which ofc isn’t correct. (the whole bottom = submissive thing is just totally ridic and very troubling in general.)
t'challa doesn’t opt for overt displays as such bc he has no need for that and he prefers stealthiness, while erik is very much in your face and unapologetic, but that only means they have different styles, not that one is a more dominant force than the other. t'challa absolutely possesses the same ruthlessness as erik; he just knows now when to draw the line and he actually never really exercises that ruthlessness against erik. the film would’ve been different, for instance, if civil war!t'challa pre-zemo revelation (or t'challa as he chased down klaue) had been the one erik had to face down. i.e., a t'challa who doesn’t care for mercy.
i have no doubt that their first fight where t'challa loses is also another factor as to why there’s a prevailing opinion that erik is stronger than him (and therefore dominant and alpha material and yadda yadda yadda), but that’s also not true at all. the scene in context shows that t'challa isn’t fighting erik to the best of his ability. his mind is clouded from the revelation about his father, uncle, and erik, and he even tells erik that the only reason he isn’t killing erik is because erik is his abandoned cousin. when they’re fighting, erik is fighting to destroy t'challa, he’s fighting with utter fury, but t'challa isn’t fighting to kill erik. i think it’s twice that t'challa gives him the chance to yield instead of pushing for the kill when he could’ve easily ended erik. after all, who is the first one to be thrown onto the ground? it’s erik. what’s more, shuri shouts out, “snap out of it, t'challa!” which is the biggest indicator that t'challa isn’t fighting erik as best as he could be, and then zuri’s death further emotionally compromises him and that’s why he loses. that’s why, in the final battle, where they are again equally matched, t'challa wins and erik loses, bc t'challa is absolutely fighting to win and he outsmarts erik.
this is all to say: fanon t'challa is a very watered down, de-fanged, almost unrecognizable version of canon t'challa, and it both baffles and saddens me to see that. it seems that bc he is able to show mercy and he is compassionate towards his loved ones, some have taken this to mean he’s gullible, passive, shy, someone erik can just walk all over, and this informs a lot of the bottom t'challa characterization, but he’s none of those things. he challenges erik, undaunted and unyielding, throughout the film and he is victorious. t'challa has vibranium in his spine.
