further ergi thoughts:
the basic asgardian assumption is that it's not gay if you're on top... and when only one partner is seen as queer, the closet is complicated. a relationship being publically known is likely to be mostly humiliating and dangerous for *one partner in particular*. which raises a few points:
A. the relationships (or one-off sexual interactions) that are publically discussed are most likely ones where the normative partner doesn't care about the queer partner - so ones which are imbalanced, abusive, or outright nonconsensual. so the idea of m/m sex as violence becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. you do (real or imagined) violence to your partner by sleeping with him, and then you do (undeniably real) violence to him by talking about it; and because making it visible is itself violent, non-violent m/m relationships are erased and become difficult to understand or imagine.
B. if a relationship becomes publically known and you DO care about your partner, you might try and obfuscate who the so-called "dominant" partner is. (a question which might well not even apply, but which is always assumed to). in an asgardian context, m/m relationships are normally asssumed to be masc/fem, straight/queer, but like... i feel like trying to be vague will backfire and just end up with both partners being seen as queer. if you're unwilling or unable to defend your masculinity, you must not have any. a mutually queer relationship is strange to an asgardian mindset, but not unimaginable. by being vague, you yourself have opened up the possibility that the strict straight/queer dynamic doesn't apply - but there's no way you can BOTH be straight, so you have to both be queer instead.
so, while more noble, this might actually be a less effective self-defence strategy than letting one partner "take the fall".
C. there's also the full no-homo option. "neither of us are queer because we weren't actually having penetrative sex, we were just messing around!" it's not gay if nobody's on top! this is technically a possibility, but i do feel like asgardians are likely to see it as *a technicality*, and highly suspect. it might even be seen as a version of option B. of course one of you was the woman, so why will neither of you admit it?
also, it might be difficult to assign top/bottom roles to non-penetrative sex, but i bet a lot of asgardians will try anyway. they might not agree on what the rules are, but they'll probably mostly agree that the rules exist; the idea that sex always carries a power imbalance is a deeply engrained one.
D. sometimes a m/m relationship being publically known might mean each partner pointing at the other and saying "no, HE was the woman, not me!" the court of public opinion is relevant here, but this one is a situation where it might actually come down to a duel. an interesting alternative to what i think is the more typical honour-defending duel ("i fucked him" vs "no you didn't, nothing happened.")
E. since relationships with straight men carry this imbalance in risk and privilege, it seems likely that a lot of queer men would seek out relationships with each other for safety.
this might also help them to slip under the radar. as i said above, mutually queer relationships aren't *unimaginable*... but they definitely aren't seen as the norm for m/m relationships. so rumours of a queer relationship might be seen as less plausible if no one can agree "who the man is". ...maybe.
F. so, apparently m/m sex is violence - but violence is not the only thing defining queerness. it seems clear from how the characters act in the films that excessive affection is unmasculine, and therefore potentially queer.
but again, excessive affection between two men is not the typical sign people will be looking for. a healthy, mutually affectionate, power-balanced m/m relationship is not the imagined norm! if affection is feminine, it will be primarily associated with the feminine partner and therefore with disempowerment.
so, in contrast to the real modern world, where being too affectionate with another man might feel mutually dangerous ("will you be homophobic?" and "do i seem predatory?")... an asgardian man being too affectionate with another man might just feel like he's unilaterally putting himself in danger. ("will you be homophobic?" and "do i seem like an easy target for assault?") (and these fears are not necessarily conscious/literal - sometimes it's just the core idea of who is being vulnerable here.)
but this is still a little too simple. this applies to affection in the sense of trying to show kindness, fondness or care. but physical affection just in the sense of touching someone could still have implications in the other direction: entitlement to touch someone or be in their space -> entitlement to their body -> masculine, alpha male, maybe predatory.
and, even if it's less (directly) stigmatised, that connotation will go some way towards restricting (romantic or platonic) m/m affection too! even if you aren't seen as queer for it, people might not want to be around you if you come across as overly dominant or threatening. and the status implications might also cause offence, conflict and power struggles - "how dare you try to hug me? i'm not a girl!"
but at the same time, if you *do* want to show affection to another man, doing it in a domineering, masculine way might be the easiest way, if you can get away with it. male society on asgard *is* intensely hierarchical. so if you're a ringleader or a father figure or in any other way high status, it *might* be acceptable.
and this is where thor and loki ultimately fall. their relationship is familial, not romantic, and i don't think there's any real fear or threat of it *looking* romantic... but it IS shaped by this cultural context and it is intensely gendered.
in the avengers, we see thor trying to be affectionate and loki being cold. which, at first glance, makes thor feminine and loki masculine.
but in fact, thor's affection is almost all that forceful, domineering, masculine kind. and before loki rebelled, we see much less affection from thor, and a few little hints of much more from loki.
one hint is that in t1, loki touches thor affectionately, while thor doesn't do so in return - but it's a very slight and cautious touch. he puts his hand lightly on thor's arm, and no more. thor doesn't acknowledge it; he isn't even making eye contact at the time (while loki watches thor closely and warily). and their conversation is the same: loki's tone is quiet and soothing, while thor is ranting; some of thor's aggression is even directed at loki. loki comforts thor in a way that allows thor to pretend he isn't being comforted, and to feel in control. (yes, underneath all this, loki is manipulating thor - but it wouldn't be a believable lie if it didn't reflect a real dynamic between the two.)
and as i've noted before, loki is the only character to use the word "love" in thor 1. one of the times he says it is: "i love thor more than any of you". this is unembarrassed, matter of fact, even defensive, like he feels the need to prove he's meeting some obligation. in contrast, unless i am very much mistaken, thor STILL hasn't said that he "loves" loki - he just keeps saying "he's my brother", like that's close enough... or as close as he's allowed to get.
this is vulnerable for loki, and it's a mandated vulnerability; he is *expected* to be affectionate and subordinate; he is the right hand man and confidant who thor leans on, trusts, and vents his emotions to. in a way, loki takes on vulnerability on thor's behalf. so avengers!loki drawing back and becoming less affectionate is both defensive and rebellious.
meanwhile, avengers!thor isn't exactly rebelling, but he's rattling the bars of his cage. he desperately wants to show affection, but he doesn't quite know how. he loves loki but he cannot trust him. and even if he did, he can't allow himself to cede too much power, because he believes that him holding power over loki protects them both... thor is deeply conflicted, and it shows in his behaviour towards loki. because there IS vulnerability in it now, profound vulnerability, despite everything - but there's violence too.
