Torencuriosity: being primarily nomascic and noenboric (NOT attracted to men nor non-binary people) but showing/pursuing interest in men and non-binary people for any reason; wishing or considering to experiment sexual/sensual or romantic/affectional/platonic relations with men and non-binary people but you usually don’t feel attracted to them; a state of questioning when one is unsure if they are mascic and enboric.
Toren-curious individuals don't necessarily need to be femaric/boric, they can be nullarian/a-spec. Not to be confused with urancurious.
Intimacy: An Aromantic, Queer, Storyteller's Perspective on Raya and Namaari's Relationship in RatLD
Ok, I know people have lots of opinions about Raya and the Last Dragon. (Please go watch it if you're able to, it's fantastic.) I'm not here to step on any toes, nor am I here to deny that Disney has work to do on openly queer representation. But I wanted to give my opinion on the subject because I've already seen some thoughts flying, and I've got my own too.
Note: potential Raya and the Last Dragon spoilers ahead!
Now, I'm here for queer women. (I'm so here for queer women that I'm queer for them.) I love Raya's depth, design, and arc. I love Namaari's depth, design, and arc (and oh my god, her face shape). I love the way the narrative treated these warriors: like warriors! I could talk all day about how this movie is such a brilliant step toward treating women as people on screen.
But I'm here to talk about the queer aspects.
Any queer person watching that movie saw a couple of baby gays. Anyone saw the tension between Raya and Namaari as adults, their distrust for one another, but also their recollection of how close they once were, how close they could have been, how similar they actually are, but they both don't want to admit it for one reason or another. I think that tension is done beautifully.
I also want to take a second to remind everyone that romantic attraction is not necessary to make something queer.
Sure, maybe you could view their interactions as having romantic undertones. I don't think that's necessarily wrong, but I also don't think that the movie needed a romantic subplot to work. The subplot was platonic, even queerplatonic. The subplot was about Raya learning to realize how similar Namaari was to her, in all the uncomfortable ways Raya wasn't ready to admit. Raya wanted to remain focused inward; she wanted to protect her goal from destruction, she wanted to bring her Ba back. And she didn't want to trust anyone again. She didn't feel like she could, and she didn't want to try, especially not with Namaari.
And yet, during their interactions, there is a sense of intimacy. No doubt, over the six (6) years after the gem broke, Raya and Namaari have run into each other on several occasions. It seems like they still know each other well enough to banter mid battle. Raya knows Namaari well enough to be able to easily "push her buttons" and distract her. There is an intimacy here that strays easily into frienemy territory. It has the potential of being romantic. It also has the potential of not being romantic at all.
And, as someone on the aromantic spectrum, I want to reiterate that romantic queerness is not the only queerness. Aromantic affection, queerplatonic affection, allosexual aromantic affection — all of these are valid and real queer identities and queer expressions.
So, while I agree that "Disney is a coward" and that queer people deserve genuine, wholesome, and healthy representation in movies — I also want to emphasize that you can remove romanticism from the equation and still retain the queer narrative (or, what we the audience read as a queer narrative).
(I personally think there is nothing straight about these two characters, but I also respect the possibility that cultural norms and expectations can change how queerness manifests, or what is even considered queer. I'm a white person from the USA; the way I read or express queerness may not be the same as the way someone of Southeast Asian descent would read or express queerness. That topic in itself is worthy of an entirely different mega post. But that is very important to note.)
Furthermore, I want to add that while, again, seeing Disney explicitly tackle a queer relationship on screen would be so amazing, I also don't think this particular narrative had room for it.
Raya and the Last Dragon has a beautiful story filled with strong cultural tradition and Southeast Asian communal values. Love for one's community and family is especially important, as the writers have expressed, and this value was purposely woven into the narrative as a centerpiece.
Disney has a long history of making that centerpiece romantic love. Movies in general, Disney included, have a very long history of using romantic love as an easy subplot. It is such a common thing to do in the industry.
Stepping away from that norm is a breath of fresh air, in my opinion. And I'm not saying that because I'm aromantic and I "hate romance"—I don't, by the way, and I'll show you why.
I have written romance in fiction for a long-ass time. I love writing it. And in my (self-proclaimed) professional opinion, adding romance into Raya and the Last Dragon would have been really forced. I don't think the movie needed it. It would have been narratively unnecessary, and the catharsis we received regarding the mending of Raya and Namaari's relationship was more than enough. Any romance would have been extra, and, more importantly, would have been distracting from the actual main theme of the movie. Remember, the takeaway from this movie is communal trust: building bridges to unite families and communities of people. This narrative values familial and communal love first and foremost. (This is not to say that romantic love can't intersect with familial, communal, and platonic love, but I'm making the distinction here because the story writers intended to make this distinction, too.) Putting communal love first also does not devalue any romantic or queerplatonic love that might exist under that umbrella — but that's just it; communal love is the focus here, and I'm glad the writers made the decision to keep the focus of the narrative grounded and organized. It keeps the story from wandering off in too many directions and becoming confusing. It keeps us from having too many loose ends. And it keeps the runtime from being too long — or worse, it saves the narrative and all it's subplots from feeling cut short.
And here's where I jump into my main gripe. Yes, Raya and Namaari have chemistry. At the very least, when they met as kids, they formed a nice first bond: they had a lot in common, they related to each other on several things, and they had empathy for each other. That's a good foundation for a lot of things: friendship, queerplatonic relationships, romantic relationships, business partnerships... What I'm saying is, they had a good beginning. But it was just one day. And they were kids.
They were both kids who were vulnerable to the opinions and desires of the adults around them.
Namaari was influenced by her mother to betray Raya in order to gain the Dragon Gem (ultimately to give her people the prosperity they lacked). Before coming to Heart, Namaari likely saw Raya and the people of Heart like her mother/chief did: Heart was rich solely because they hoarded the magic of the Dragon Gem, and they would lie and say the Gem didn't give them prosperity only so they could continue to hoard the gem.
Raya was influenced by people in her village too, though we don't explicitly see those influences. When her father mentions that the other lands are on their way to Heart, Raya immediately believes they are coming with evil intent. When her father asks her what she knows about the other lands, Raya lists qualities about each land that portray them in a dangerous light. She views them explicitly as enemies and outsiders, people to fear and distrust in order to maintain her and Heart's safety and prosperity. Namaari included.
When Raya and Namaari meet, there is a lot going on under the surface of their interaction. Certainly, they are both kids; part of them likely has a natural urge to trust and connect with each other, as they eventually did that day! But clearly, especially for Namaari, there still exists a level of distrust and divide. Perhaps because Raya had the influence of her father, who encouraged her to see the other lands as friends rather than enemies, Raya's guard was lower than Namaari's. It's doubtful Namaari had that kind of influence, as her mother consistently displayed distrust for other lands, and focused more on the protection of Fang's people. Namaari clearly experienced quite a bit of internal conflict during the time before her betrayal of Raya, trying to balance her own desires for connection and friendship with her desire to please and protect Fang. Having a connection with Raya at all, especially a deeper connection (rather than a false pretense of connection), was likely not the intention of this subterfuge plan. Connecting with Raya likely felt good, but it also felt like a betrayal of Fang; a betrayal of Fang felt like a death sentence, especially since not obtaining the Gem would mean that Fang (according to Namaari's mother and the people of Fang) would likely perish. Namaari chose to resolve the conflict by returning to what was most familiar and comfortable: distrusting Heart for the good of Fang. For Namaari, it likely didn't dispel the discomfort of knowing that she betrayed a friend, someone who felt so close and genuine, someone who was just as obsessed with dragons as she was (which seems like it was rare for Namaari, and thus valuable). But her choice to betray Raya did, in Namaari's mind, save Fang, a strong value instilled in her from birth.
The betrayal hurts Raya a lot more openly. She sees Namaari firstly as a potential friend, a connection. Raya was taught by her father to value connection with others more than preemptively distrusting them in order to protect herself. This is likely why we see their interactions mostly from Raya's perspective. Namaari's behavior is very conflicted in intention, bouncing back and forth between deception and genuine connection, and trying to balance those two in a way that remains faithful to Fang and herself. Raya, on the other hand, is fully genuine for this interaction, save for maybe a couple moments of brief, minor hesitation. But, that hesitation is short-lived and the desire for friendship ultimately wins over for Raya. She fully trusts Namaari (to the level that she is able to, given that they just met that day), up to the moment the betrayal occurs. She is blindsided, and in response, she also returns to the comfort of her original views (before her father tried to teach her to trust the other lands). This decision to abandon the friendship is not comfortable at all for Raya; it is forced. She must do it to protect not only her land, but ostensibly the world. She is fighting between protecting her "clan" and protecting outsiders. She is struggling to view other lands as part of her clan/community, and Namaari's betrayal only solidifies Raya's eventual choice to mistrust others completely. Once her father dies, so does Raya's trust. To her, (misplaced) trust caused the downfall of the world, and more importantly, the death of her Ba. And to her, that betrayal is embodied and personified by Namaari. Namaari becomes a scapegoat and a punching bag for all that went wrong with the world, and this is a consistent mindset Raya has throughout the movie, until it is openly challenged by Namaari during the climax. Raya is comfortable in an "us versus them" mindset; it rids her of blame and responsibility for her actions, her role in problems. She, like Namaari, chooses to believe that everyone else is to blame for her downfall, while excluding herself entirely from that equation.
It goes without saying that these characters are well-written. Their emotions, motivations, and actions are complex and whole. I could (clearly) write analysis for days about these two. But here's my point.
Romance is only a potential part of their relationship at the start, no more. It is budding at best, and not fully realized or invoked. It is not ever made explicit or agreed upon. And the foundations of trust between these two, for a massive portion of the movie, are severely damaged. Any intimacy they had as children is put on hold, if not destroyed. They only trust each other as far as their blades reach, and as much as they've crossed paths during the six (6) year time-jump (enough to banter, manipulate each other, and predict each other's strategies to a degree), and and no further than that. Where they left off, they still have a connection, even while they don't trust each other with their deepest values. This foundation is clearly not enough for either of them to warrant a more intimate relationship, be it in the shade of romantic, queerplatonic, sexual, sensual, or otherwise. If it was enough, they would have done so already. Their closest intimacy is for the purpose of evading each other's attacks and maneuvers in order to get the upperhand. Their main goals are not each other, even though they both likely desire deeper connection, like they once had as kids. That childhood connection was genuine; no one is arguing otherwise.
But, by the climax of the movie, these two are not in a position of full, deep trust and connection. At the climax of the movie, when the Gem has finally been restored, their relationship is effectively back at the beginning, right where they left off as kids: budding and new, unsure yet hopeful, and with initial chemistry. That may read as potential romance, potential queerplatonics, potential you-name-it. But it is still potential, not active, not existent in the moment. They still have work to do in terms of building a deep relationship. Trust is a first step — one of many, many more steps. They're still working on the friendship and trust by the end — they just reunited as peoples from different lands, and as old ex-friends. They're relearning to see other lands as friends and not enemies, and that includes the way they see each other. They've come a long way, no doubt, and they still have a long way to go before they're remotely deep friends with established trust. They're effectively rebuilding that damaged trust by the end of the movie.
I mean, seriously. Expecting a full on romantic relationship, or even the explicit beginning of one is a massive stretch. Like, did you watch the movie? They have a lot of things to work through and talk about together! I don't care that they worked together and sacrificed themselves to save the world together. That's step one. Step one going well does not equal the kind of deep intimacy seen in romantic, queerplatonic, or deep platonic relationships, especially not the kind of romance that some audience members expressed they wanted to see from the movie. Did we forget that a genuine, hurtful betrayal happened? Did we forget that a betrayal happened very early on in the relationship? That sort of behavior doesn't scream "healthy relationship," and Raya and Namaari's subsequent reactions to said betrayal and following said event don't scream "consent to intimacy." Like, sure, they were both kids when it happened, especially Namaari, who was partially manipulated into that betrayal. But being young doesn't dilute or negate any of the very real trauma and pain felt by either of them, nor does it take away autonomy and responsibility for actions. She may have been manipulated and taught an incomplete view of the world, but Namaari also made that choice to betray Raya herself, no matter how mis- or un-informed she was about the world at the time. She still made a decision that hurt Raya, and in the process a lot of others. That can't be glossed over if we're talking about the formation of genuinely deep bonds. If the movie had made Raya and Namaari explicitly a couple of any kind, I strongly believe that any romantic, queerplatonic, or any other type of intimate social behavior would have made their relationship and conflict-resolution come across as forced, rushed, inauthentic, and unearned. Gestures of romantic intimacy especially tend to imply (in narratives that want to portray a healthy romantic relationship) a sense of depth, bond, and trust that is developed over long periods of time, marked by continuous and explicit efforts toward mutual trust. Raya and Namaari might have cultivated genuine trust for each other, but they lack a history of that trust that would realistically allow for a believable and genuine romantic/queerplatonic relationship at the level of harmony most "romance-lacking" audience-complaints demand. Raya and Namaari are not at that point yet. Rushing them there doesn't make that bond authentic, nor does it create healthy and realistic queer representation, much less healthy romantic/queerplatonic/intimate representation in general. Furthermore, rushing that sort of thing on-screen and portraying it as perfectly healthy perpetuates pre-existing, unrealistic, and unhealthy ideals of romance, human intimacy in general, and amatonormativity. Preliminary trust is not enough to give someone access to you in totality. We shouldn't portray that idea to kids, and this movie is careful not to. Trust is an ongoing process, and teaching kids that intimacy is developed over time and through consistent respect and communication is paramount. I seriously wish this movie had existed when I was a kid. I wish I had learned what this movie teaches. Romance isn't the answer to everything; it's not the highest form of love; and it's not the highest form of queer representation either. The highest form of love is the kind that is genuine and realistic and respectful.
Plus, on the subject of amatonormativity, I want to restress that queerness is not defined by romance. No one is made queer by their queer relationships, or even their visibly queer relationships. No one is suddenly not queer when they're single. Raya and Namaari can still be queer representation without ever having a romantic, sexual, or even queerplatonic relationship. Does Disney still have a record of cisheteronormative-flavored cowardice towards positively portraying explicitly queer people on screen? Absolutely. But I also don't think the answer to cisheteronormative amatonormativity is queer amatonormativity. Queer people are still queer, regardless of their relationship status, and especially regardless of their romantic orientation. Queer people are queer by virtue of existing.
TL;DR:
This should be more than clear: I'm of the strong opinion that both Raya and Namaari are queer. I don't think any of my regular readership will disagree. But forcing a romance (or any sort of deeper, unearned intimacy) onto this particular relationship and narrative only has the capacity to muddy and ruin this valuable and beautiful storyline and it's themes. Such a careless choice perpetuates some very harmful and prejudiced cultural norms regarding love and it's expression, and such a choice runs the risk of directly teaching children to view the world — to view their relationships — in a limiting, destructive, and isolating way.
I wouldn't change any part of the way this movie portrays Raya and Namaari's relationship. Every ounce of their interactions: from their words to their body language, facial expressions to actions, motivations to desires, conflict to resolution — they all make sense and are fully earned in this movie.
Yes, they'd look super cute together. Yes, it would likely be super cathartic for my gay little heart to see them kiss. Yes, they have the chemistry and potential for really meaningful and fulfilling growth and intimacy down the line. That is kind of the entire message of of the movie: potential; growth seen as a process made up of steps, the first being the catalyst towards making that potential a reality.
Raya and Namaari are a queer-coded microcosm for the rest of their world. They are one of many microcosms teaching a lesson about the importance of valuing and developing communal, cross-border trust.
Please stop yelling at Disney to make them kiss. They're together in a way that matters just as much, and they're together in a way that, for once, doesn't make romance the highest and truest form of intimacy. Write your fanfiction, enjoy them as a pairing, write letters to Disney and tell them we deserve explicit and normalized queer representation (because we do). Do what you wish, and do what makes you happy! Enjoy your queer pairings! I encourage you! I implore you!
But please, please, please don't discount the importance, validity, and power of the connection they do have. This connection is no less intimate and no less important than romance, sex, or anything else. They don't need romance to be queer, and they don't need any label at all to be a beautiful, realistic, and healthy portrayal of human relationships, queer or not.
And for the record, they are very, very gay, and nobody, not even Disney, can change my mind.
polyamorous people just make me instantly feel so seen and so safe. like. there is nothing like immediately knowing that this person on this dating site is likely emotionally aware of their own jealousy, needs, and desires. i feel like functional polyamory requires that. especially partners that all live together.
it could also completely suck and become a hell hole as soon as someone gets triggered or jealous, because polyamorous people do experience jealousy too. but it just feels like there's much more attention and education put toward jealousy and insecurity in polyamorous circles than in most monogamous circles.
gosh, knowing what you want is great. i want to be surrounded by hot lesbians, ranging from fem to andro to masc. and i want to be so selective that i get the hottest people in the room with me, who i am so attracted to, who i trust and enjoy spending time with, who are playful and comfortable, who know how to talk about their own needs and hear about the needs of others, who know how to take care of themselves.
I'm aroace and I'm gonna queerify valentines day in front of everybody, fuck chocolate, she's getting pickles bc she likes them a lot, and what's Valentine's day except another excuse for me to continue to be a serial gift giver, this has always been my language of affection, I'm just using it like any other day to notice my friend's favorite things and shower her with them, this time in the form of a corny CVS chocolate heart box secretly filled with pickles
i have been having some thoughts about what it's like to be in a relationship, even if it's difficult to label what type of relationship it is (romantic, queerplatonic, alterous, etc.). I've also been having some thoughts about my queer identity in regards to how my aromanticism affects my lesbianism and vice versa, and their relationship to gender. it's probably worth a larger post, but if anyone is curious or has comments to add about their experiences, please feel free to ask/comment/reblog/direct message.
incompletely, things I've learned so far whilst in a partnership:
Sex is cool to think about but not so much fun in practice..... irl, it can be absolutely fabulous; it can also be alright; it can also be a little boring and uncomfortable. the best part is, i don't have to do it if i don't feel like it. that's pretty cool. who cares if my medication is lowering my libido (and who cares if my meds aren't the problem, and I'm just a sex-favorable/neutral ace).
Sex usually consists of me pleasuring my partner and jerking myself off afterward, and I'm okay with that...... it's not always one-sided giving (and if you honestly think that giving to your partner is one-sided by default, as if you're suffering through the giving and waiting painfully for your turn, you really need to reevaluate how you're doing sex, because I'm sitting there enjoying watching my partner, exploring her body, listening to her breathing, reacting to her movements, and all of that is very enjoyable for me while I'm giving. orgasm is not the end all be all of sex). plus, i don't tend to receive orgasms because i have vaginismus, which doesn't allow others to penetrate me. i can penetrate myself and achieve orgasm when I'm controlling everything, but it is uncomfortable and painful still for others to control penetration, which is required for my orgasm. that said, i also receive external, non-penetrative touch and stimulation (such as receiving head: wowie 😵💫🥵). for where i am, I'm comfortable with things, and that's great.
Sex with myself is so good..... my brain has always been really good at thinking up fun scenarios that excite and turn me on. i know exactly what images push me to orgasm. i like orgasming. thanks to my medications, the orgasms aren't as strong, but i know what time of day to masturbate so that i actually can orgasm. i don't always masturbate nowadays, but when I do, it's a really lovely self care moment, and i wish masturbation was talked about that way more often. it's not for everyone, but I've definitely heard masturbation referred to as anything from "something lonely, loser singles do" to "not nearly as good as being with someone" and i honestly beg to differ on both of those. masturbating is not an indicator of loneliness or inadequacy, and it's not some second-rate pleasure in comparison to sex with a partner. masturbation is its own action, its own thing, and it has no moral or status implications. i love doing it, and i always have, and i love doing it alone.
I get the most out of sex when it's framed as a sensual experience, rather than a sexual one..... like ok, I'm not the best at figuring out the difference between sexual versus sensual, but I'm mostly interested in what feels good. if the only thing that separates them is genital touch or sexual arousal, then fine. but sometimes non-sexual touch arouses me sexually! so, in my mind, what is the point of separating them, i ask! if sex feels good, then it was a good sensual experience. if you're not paying attention to how things feel regarding your five (5) senses during sex, I'm not sure what else you're paying attention to? i mean, no shade to paying attention to other things that don't fit in the senses category, and no shame to people who categorize these experiences differently. those experiences and perspectives are valuable and wonderful! for me, it's just all sensual, even if it's sexual too. sexual gratification, for me, is in a sensual category (and also a mental one, but usually my mental additions to sexual experiences are visual in nature, such as picturing a scene/location or a fictional character).
this is all i have for now, but if i think of more things, I'll reblog and add more to this list.
as always, i welcome discussion on these topics, as it is so important for our community to share and connect over similar and differing experiences! celebrating these things about ourselves is essential to our pride, and we deserve to be ourselves fully and openly.
why the fuck do i worry so much about being "aro enough"
my orientation is for me, not for other people.
I'm the one that's supposed to feel happy and good.
and at the end of the day, there are no words to describe how i feel because i genuinely don't care about the implications my needs or desires or attractions might carry. i know what i want and that's that. i know what i don't want, and that's also that. end of story. who gives a fuck what my label is, I'm me and i have boundaries and desires and needs. that's who i am.
