i was training a young person at work, and she referred to sexual assault as "SA" out loud, and i immediately was like, "no, it's sexual assault, call it what it is," bc idgaf if the algorithm overlords have taught y'all that you should fear direct language, how tf do any of you expect to ever address real issues with any amount of seriousness if you can't even say the words? imagine an advocate looking a sexual assault survivor in the eyes and asking "did he grape you?" it's absolutely fucking absurd, but these young interns and new hires are coming into an environment where we deal with survivors of all different kinds of abuse, and they're coming with the mindset that the words are as bad as the actions, and that makes them shitty at the job and look juvenile af
i HATE self-censorship for a lot of reasons, but being in crisis work makes it even more frustrating. who are you censoring for? like i am being so fr, WHO are you censoring for? have you even thought it through? people who have been raped know that they have been raped. if someone attempts suicide or is grieving someone who did, saying "sewer slide" isn't going to protect them from any of the feelings. a murder victim's family isn't going to feel better bc you said "unalived" instead of murdered. if anything, it's just extremely invalidating and othering. it's saying "what happened to you is so bad that i won't even say the word," which is NOT trauma-informed care. you are not protecting survivors/victims when you self-censor. the ONLY things you protect when you self-censor are the puritanical ideologies that are being encouraged by rich fascists who want your money and obedience
say the fucking words, guys. just say the goddamn words before i go insane!!!
I'm going to hold your hand when I say this- what someone does to their body is their choice, and this includes things that you deem "unhealthy." I understand when people are worried about gainers being "unhealthy" because it comes from a place of concern, but there are plenty of other fetishes that include body modification that aren't as openly frowned upon. People don't have to be healthy to be treated as human beings. Your "concern" is just sugar coated fatphobia.
My straight-sized type-1 diabetic since the age of three ass super wishes people gave as many fucks about “health” when it came to providing affordable access to lifesaving healthcare as they do when they try to talk to fat, healthy, not-diabetic people I love about how “unhealthy” they must be.
I’ve watched so many people die from not being able to afford basic type-1 diabetic care. Known of so many children who died because with all the public emphasis on type-2 diabetes and “obesity” and the lack of recognition of correctly diagnosing and treating type-1, their T1D kept getting treated as “the flu” until it killed them.
Cause, you know. Those type-1 diabetic children weren’t fat. They can’t have been diabetic. Diabetes is the fat people disease. Wait, what do you mean that’s just type-2 and only under some circumstances and there are other types? What do you mean type-1 diabetes makes you lose a ton of weight really fast and kills you in a matter of days if it’s not being treated? What do you mean type-1 diabetes is incurable, unpreventable, and caused by an autoimmune reaction of yet-unknown cause that kills off insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells? What do you mean susceptibility to type-1 diabetes has literally nothing to do with weight? What do you mean most type-1 diabetics aren’t overweight?
What do you mean most people who are fat are not diabetic?
Fatphobia kills.
And uh. Also kills children and people who aren’t fat, in addition to killing fat people. In case the part where it kills fat people wasn’t enough.
Roughly six thousand misdiagnosed type-1 diabetic children each year dying completely preventable deaths largely due to fatphobia? Who cares.
But, wow, a fat person is being fat in public? That seems urgent☠️
Oof sorry bro (says bi trans guy who now sometimes passes for A Straight Man ☠️) yikes
Be the straight man girls love telling their friends about. Be the “AND he’s STRAIGHT! 🤯🎉” guy that women who like men hope is out there. Be the Straight Man women clock as safe enough to sit next to on public transit. Be the straight man who encourages other straight men to act right. Use your Straight Man powers for good!
I believe in you bro, you can do it!
Reblogging cause I like to think some of the fellas are TRYING.
while this IS a good sentiment, I'm not really concerned about how I'm perceived...I'd just like to experience being attracted to men? like I feel like it could happen but it never has. and frankly I'd be disappointed if it never does
Yeah, sorry, man. I feel like all the queer people who weren’t converted by conversion “therapy” and all the straight dudes who don’t know how to talk to women but would 1000% marry their best friend if they were into dudes and all the straight women who are so fucking done with dealing with straight men would all agree that uh. It’s not super possible to change sexual orientations.
But that’s okay! Some people just… aren’t into dudes! I accept you! 🫂
In the last few years there have been several popular TV shows/movies/books focused on a love story between two men but where the main audience and most of the fandom seems to be straight women. I've noticed a few common themes in the original media and in the fan-created works based on the original media that feel like they distinguish queer media made for/by queer people with predominantly queer fandoms from media focused on an MLM relationship that has a predominantly straight female audience.
Queer Stories for Straight Women and their fandoms are often told and built upon through an inescapably heteronormative, pro-systemic framework, whereas Queer Stories for Queer Audiences often deconstruct, rebut, or directly contradict the underlying heteronormative, pro-systemic framework.
The TLDR difference is: In Queer Stories for Straight Women, Queerness is the plot, because queerness is seen as abnormal.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences, there is a plot featuring queer characters, because queerness is not treated as a problem that needs to be resolved.
Queer Stories for Straight Women are told to help insiders empathize with outsiders; Queer Stories for Queer Audiences are told to help outsiders feel like they can still belong.
(Disclaimer: I like all of these pieces of media and am glad to see queer stories have a wider audience, be less isolated as a genre, and get broader acclaim, audiences, discourse, funding, greenlighting, etc. Straight women getting into queer stories has helped more queer stories get told, and has helped normalize and destigmatize the queer experience... but has also led to queer stories being told through a heteronormative lens. Queer stories are being told in less queer ways to get through to a straight audience, but I believe that does help a straight audience better empathize with and offer allyship for the queer experience. Making the queers seem less queer does help normalize us to straight people... but that doesn't mean it's not making the queers less queer, fundamentally for the benefit of straight cis people.)
Some examples: Heated Rivalry (TV) and Red, White, and Royal Blue (Film) are Queer Stories for Straight Women; Our Flag Means Death (TV), What We Do in the Shadows (TV), Killing Eve (TV), and Hannibal (TV) are Queer Stories for Queer Audiences. This is not an exhaustive list. Leaving all the original books/movies out of it to just focus on these versions of canon for consistent discourse.
1. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The main story is an MLM romance focused on two male main characters.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: There is a main story involving a queer couple, but there is significant screen time and development devoted to 'supporting' or 'background' characters and ships. The 'main' couple is not the only couple.
2. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The plot ends with the main MLM couple being in an exclusive, committed relationship. Exclusivity/monogamy is treated as the endgoal or only 'happy' ending for the main characters.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: 'Happy' endings for canon ships are not necessarily monogamous or committed; 'happy' endings may include canonically open or polyamorous or casual relationships.
3. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The nuclear families (mom, dad, siblings, grandparents, biological relatives) of the MLM main character(s) are central to the main plot and conflicts.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: The nuclear families of the canon queer ships are not central to the plot and conflicts, may only be mentioned in reference to pre-canon events, may only be depicted in canon in flashbacks, may only be depicted in reference to an unrelated plot or conflict (ex. a character's internal struggle or backstory rather than the main plot), or may not be depicted in canon at all.
4. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: Much of the fan-created work focuses on outcomes centered around a monogamous relationship and the creation of a nuclear family. (Ex. bulk of the post-canon fan work prioritizes marriage, children, nuclear family ties, domesticity, and other traditionally 'straight' family models and outcomes.)
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: Much of the fan-created work focuses on alternative family models. (Ex. more multi-character and polyamorous ships, a higher proportion of fics tagged with multiple ships, a higher proportion of works tagged as "found family", an emphasis on unrelated characters creating some kind of family unit, a lower proportion of fanworks about the characters having or raising children.)
5. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The main MLM couple's issues and conflicts within their relationship primarily stem from poor communication.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: The canon ships' issues and conflicts within their relationship are usually external or situational.
6. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The main MLM couple do not ever intentionally cause each other harm. They may inadvertently cause each other harm, but it is usually due to poor communication. They are not verbally or physically abusive to each other. They are not in any way physically violent towards each other.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: The canon ships may intentionally make choices to hurt each other, or may be intentionally verbally cruel for the sake of causing the other harm, or may do each other intentional physical harm. It is not uncommon for the main canon ship to literally stab each other and for them ending the canon in a relationship together to be seen as the 'happy' ending.
7. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: Physical violence is only done by 'the bad guys' and a character acting physically violently signals to the audience that he is 'the bad guy.' Physical violence is only enacted by men. Even if a main character is on the receiving end of physical violence, he does not retaliate with physical violence.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: Physical violence is not treated as automatically immoral. Both 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' may be physically violent. Physical violence is not exclusively a male activity; men, women, children, and others may enact physical violence.
8. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The main MLM couple behaves lawfully. The 'good guys' behave lawfully, or are not shown in the canon to behave unlawfully. Unlawful behavior is often used to foreshadow that a character is 'a bad guy' or will later create conflict for the main MLM couple.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: The main characters frequently behave unlawfully. Unlawful behavior is not automatically immoral.
9. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: Because the plot is centered around one main romance involving two men, the media may fail the Bechdel test.
(Heated Rivalry (TV) fails the Bechdel test. Red, White, and Royal Blue (Film) also fails the Bechdel test, unless you count a few lines of scene opener dialogue between two women cut off by a man entering a room, or a line of dialogue by one female character to a second female character who does not have time to answer.)
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: Due to the emphasis on supporting and background characters, multiple canon ships, and an emphasis on external conflict and multiple plotlines instead of one main romance plot involving two men, all of the examples listed pass the Bechdel test.
(Our Flag Means Death (TV), What We Do in the Shadows (TV), Killing Eve (TV), and Hannibal (TV) all pass the Bechdel test. Caveat that all of these had more screentime to work with than Heated Rivalry and Red, White, and Royal Blue... but all of them passed the Bechdel test within their first season.)
10. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The romance between the two MLM characters is the central plot/conflict/premise.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: There is a central plot, conflict, or premise to the story, and the story also happens to feature queer canon ships.
11. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: "Sex" is penetrative sex between two consenting adults. While other sex acts may be depicted, penetrative sex between the two main characters is treated as a "first" and/or a relationship milestone and is emphasized with dialogue, music, and cinematography that treat it with greater focus and priority than other sex acts. Other sex acts are depicted as build-up or precursors to eventual penetrative sex, rather than as climactic moments. Penetrative sex between two consenting adults is treated as "real" sex.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: "Sex" may not be depicted explicitly at all, even between canon ships; "sex" may include sex between more than two partners, or may be filmed in a way that makes it appear as though there are more than two partners participating; sex acts other than penetrative sex may receive the same level of focus and priority through dialogue, music, and cinematography; "sex" may not be treated as a relationship milestone; casual "sex" may be depicted or implied; sex acts other than penetrative sex between two consenting adults are still narratively and cinematographically treated as "real" sex.
12. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: The main MLM ship verbally, reciprocally, and explicitly express their love to each other. Saying "I love you" and returning it is a significant plot point and/or relationship milestone. May contribute to the miscommunication conflict.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: Queer canon ships might never verbally or reciprocally or explicitly say that they love each other. Not saying or returning "I love you" to each other does not make them not-ship or not-canon. Canonically married queer ships may never say "I love you" to each other onscreen.
13. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: At least one character in the main MLM ship (if not both) has to resolve internal conflict about identifying as queer, experiencing queer attraction, or entering a queer relationship. Background or supporting characters may have enough of their own issue with queerness for them to have a side plot about it. Queerness is treated as its own plot point. Queerness is shown as a conflict, plot, or dilemma for more than half of the canonically queer characters depicted.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: Characters in queer canon ships may never mention being queer, go through any kind of internal dilemma about being queer onscreen, be shown onscreen struggling to identify as queer, or express a specific label or term for their brand of queerness. Queerness may not be treated as a plot point at all, or may be a plot point for fewer than half of the canonically queer characters depicted.
14. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: "Coming out" as queer, especially to a member of the main MLM couple's nuclear family, is its own plot point. "Coming out" is treated as a universal and necessary step in all queer experiences; as a "when" rather than an "if."
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: "Coming out" as queer may not be a plot point at all, or may only be a plot point or referenced experience for a fraction of the canonically queer characters.
15. In Queer Stories for Straight Women: Abs. Just. All the abs, on everyone, even characters who have no narrative justification for having abs. Main MLM ship cast and filmed for the straight female gaze. Background male characters filmed and shot for the straight female gaze. Narrative reasons to have background men be athletic, shirtless, and conventionally masculine. Tons of conventionally attractive and conventionally masculine men everywhere all the time. There isn't a twink or bear or butch in sight.
Female characters are also conventionally attractive and conventionally feminine-presenting, including background characters.
Minimal depiction of characters who are elderly, disabled, nonbinary, or not conventionally attractive.
Basically: Aesthetics fall along heteronormative beauty standards, even for queer characters.
In Queer Stories for Queer Audiences: Wider array of body types and expressions of masculinity/femininity/gender, including 'queerer' archetypes of masculinity that are less conventionally masculine or less conventionally attractive, and 'queerer' gender presentations across the board. Wider character age range. Characters may be shown with visible disabilities. Female characters may not be conventionally attractive or conventionally feminine. Characters may not be conventionally masculine or conventionally feminine. Trans and nonbinary characters may exist, even if they are not the main characters.
(Separate discourse on how ableism/racism/fatphobia/ageism etc inform heteronormative beauty standards will not be addressed here. Grain of salt that the "Queer Media for Straight Women" examples are primarily romance stories, and rom-com beauty standards deserve their own unpacking. The whole 'queer story' vs 'story with queer characters' difference can account for a lot of the romcom vs. everything else aesthetic differences.)
CONCLUSION:
I think the key difference in how Queer Stories for Queer Audiences vs. Queer Stories for Straight Women are told is whether they're created for an audience who believe the system works or at least are starting with a lot of fundamental understandings about its framework being the norm, or for audiences who already think the system is bullshit. Queer Stories for Straight Women and many of their fan-created works emphasize a heteronormative status quo with heteronormative systemic status quo structures, values, and morals, even though the story is about queer characters. Queerness is the plot, because queerness is seen as abnormal. Conversely, Queer Stories for Queer Audiences feature a plot involving queer characters, because queerness is not seen as a problem to be resolved. Queer Stories for Queer Audiences usually start without the same baseline understanding of the world and systemic structure, or will actively put one character on each side of it so the audience can deconstruct the system through the characters' journey. There are reasons a lot of Queer Stories for Queer Audiences start by placing their main characters on opposite sides of an established system or framework. Starting with characters on opposing sides of the law (Killing Eve; Hannibal) is a good way to do that; so is starting out by making them all outlaws banded together against the law and order that would always have treated them as outsiders (Our Flag Means Death); so is starting out by making them vampires/not subject to the rules and systems of the human world anyway (What We Do in the Shadows), and give them someone who is subject to those constraints (Guillermo) to help them navigate human systems as outsiders.
Queer Stories for Straight Women are told to help insiders empathize with outsiders; Queer Stories for Queer Audiences are told to help outsiders feel like they can still belong.
Both of these goals matter.
Also, I loved all of these shows/movies/fandoms. <3
Please add your own in the comments/reblogs if you've got more for the list!
reblogging for the second time because I still laugh uncontrollably. in my mind the cows are trying to be gracious about their strange gift. ‘yes we love it thank u’
