Me Ashton and Bella have been spending a lot of time together and neglecting our blog. We apologize. To make up for it, send us asks, come say hello! -Lukey(:
hiii hii<33 not to be that person but…the parallels between the canyon and shakes… ‘oh you think about just dying right now you’ve got to go’ ‘i wanna go out in my sleep now so I don’t feel no pain’ it’s so lashton coded and I need to lie down😵💫😵💫(it’s late and my brain decided to spiral)
no girl cause im still finding new parallels !!! i didn’t even think of this one, but they are literally songs about the exact same thing so it makes perfect sense !!! UGH !!! love my little lashton lyric archivists !!
we’re not going to talk about the blatant “follow you into the light and through the dark” that keeps me up at night.
It is so gross that you push a heteronormative dynamic on Lashton. Doesn't it feel fetishizing to you?
thank you for sending bc normally i don't answer things like this, but since it's the holidays, i am feeling generous.
i am going to recommend a collection of essays called queerly phrased to you. particularly, a section entitled "surrogate phonology and transsexual f*ggotry." this book was written some time ago, so its views are not entirely unproblematic. however, a handful of the essays are nuanced and interesting pieces of intersectional queer theory. people on online platforms have a tendency to form opinions based on information they have heard being restated numerous times on twitter. i am here to offer a few informed quotes on slash fiction:
"one common 'explanation' of [slash] literature is to deny that it is about gay men at all, or even about two men at all..." (bagemihl 1997: pp. 387-388). when these writers are not "reviled or psychoanalyzed" they often have to "'explain' their interest in gay men as the symptom of some deeper motivation" (bagemihl 1997: p. 388).
"in all [examples], we see that (once again) any deviation from strictly heterosexual object choice or orientation...becomes problematized and subject to analysis. the issue here is not whether these analyses are correct...but why so many people seem to feel that these phenomena [--slash fics--] need to be 'explained' in the first place. in other words, if we took as a given that sexual orientation, gender identity, and biological sex are not necessarily connected, would we feel such an overwhelming need to explain instances where they don't 'coincide'?" (bagemihl 1997: p. 389) (ie: when we dress luke up in feminine clothes, when we choose a more feminine role for him, when we give lesbian characters masculine traits.)
and would you believe this author goes on to explain that queer writers are excluded from this problematic analysis in the first place? and guess the sexual orientation and gender identity of the person whose ask box you're currently in.
sorry, but don't repeat everything you see on a website.
source: bagemihl, b. (1997) "surrogate phonology and transsexual f*ggotry", in k. hall and a. livia (eds) queerly phrased. oxford university press. new york, ny: pp. 387-389.