2009: Random: Loneliness
2010: Not Rushing To Either Sex or Climax
2011: Chewing On Thoughts
2011: Vulnerability, Sexuality, Sensuality: Or Things That Have Made Me Feel Like A Freak (aka
DemisexualDemiromantic Is A Word)
Note to self: REREAD YOUR JOURNAL. Apparently you try to tell yourself things and then totally forget them/ they sink beneath the waves of psyche. I can't believe I forgot 'psychic road rash'. How do you forget such a phrase?
Next thing I know, I'll find things from 2009 and further back. Really, how long have I been hopscotching towards a vocabulary?
ETA: 2009 link (w/ Elynross)
I've spent several days now, in a kind of daze (writing things out, on and off ) and I think I've come to some realizations. The first, is that vocabulary by itself is not what has me shocked, stunned, other words. Vocabulary is what has/had me questioning how I accepted the concept that something was wrong with me that needed to be fixed. How lack of vocabularly, led to me thinking something was physically wrong or psychologically wrong. And that the realization that I went to the I'm not like everyone else, therefore there is something wrong/broken with me place, that I bought into that, and accepted that, when in so many other areas of my life I wouldn't and haven't and thought I never would - that's where the upset, startled, dazed, shock comes from.
( There's more... )
Thou shall not sleep with a man, as with a woman.
I've always, always wondered at that bit, and at how lesbianism (the possibility of woman to woman sex) isn't mentioned at all and it has finally hit me; the misogyny of it all. To sleep with a man, as with a woman would be degrading and wrong. To treat a man as a woman, would be wrong. But that doesn't actually have to happen in order for there to be sex between men.
I wish I could find the key to see it differently. But the missing piece I've puzzled over for years, pondering the concept of respect and substitution, is misogyny. Call a man by terms usually said to a woman? Put a man in sexual positions, usually reserved for women? The modern (not so modern) leap from gay to gay sex to penetration to who becomes subservient/submissive - all about that 'but then someone is a woman'.
Which I guess is not at all news to a great many people who're queer, queer and spiritual and the rest of it. It' just that, I missed it. I completely missed how misogyny plays into it. I was caught up on it not being respectful to another man to be thinking of someone else while with him (just as it might not be respectful towards any sexual partner). And I missed it, completely missed the; power plays and inheritance issues, an the ability to protect oneself and one's family all tied into the presentation of masculinity and strength intertwined.....
And there it is, threaded into queer culture via the homophobia and misogyny and general assholishness we all have to live through; dehumanize and be disgusted by the one in positions/scenarios reflecting traditional dependence for life. Children's rights, women's rights, rights and freedoms and respect for the disabled - it's all tied in.
Not that I have a clue if there's a culture somewhere where what happens sexually between men is a manly thing between equals as long as who knows what requirements are satisfied.
And yet, I don't want to believe this as just a blanket generalized ahah; because I believe in the 'A husband should satisfy his wife, if not that's grounds for divorce'. There are shared facets of culture due to environment and geography between the religion and cultures of muslim/jewish, arab/persian/varied desert tribes & civilizations. Or was that bit, yet another way in which Jews were meant to be different than the societies surrounding them?
Then again, I'm never going to make sense of things following the paths as currently laid out - because I ponder stupid questions of; Well, theoretically it could have been Adam and 'Steve' (Or Lilith and Eve) until 'expulsion' and then the need to procreate. Why have breasts without children to suckle nourishment? Why assume in a religious depiction of the creation of mankind, within an age of innocence, that gender or genitalia would play any part? (I remember one case at least where the Greeks didn't).
Biromantic Sensualist Lesbian _____sexual.
I keep running into the phenomenon of realizing I have no problems with affection, attraction, longing, yearning, want and desire - just visual depictions of sex and occasionally written depictions.
I have no idea if the created/false aspect is what's getting to me (specifically the pornification of the world with outside sources determining the already falsified movement/mental intrigue), or if I just have no interest in the physical steps of sex as has been demonstrated to me via society.
Do note, I mean partnered sex, not pleasure - as I still think massage of all types to be giddy making. But I'm no longer quite certain if it's 100% about levels of stimulation.
I keep wondering though, not why the need for self-labeling; because it's good to have language to describe oneself even while admitting it can be limiting. No, I keep wondering why the language relates so much to practices and specifically reproductive or non-reproductive practices. Sex is more than reproduction and using only reproductive genitalia. But has the study of sex caught up to that thought yet?
So far all I feel I know about myself is that my brain is my biggest, most used, most comfortable erotic sex organ - and my brain is picky.
ETA: Omniromantic? Polyromantic? Panromantic? **face palm** Oh language help me.
This entry will be (kinda) about sex, coitus and the popular cultural knowledge of sex.
Mainly I'm beginning to wonder if I'm someone who believes in physical intimacy (within previously stated caveats) but who does not believe in 'sex'. I mean sex has become so co-opted. The term sexy has as well. A fricking air-strike can be 'sexy'. And sex is used to sell things; it's all breasts and bums and half nakedness, it's all particular poses and particular under clothes and particular actions - usually heteronarmative or heteronormative echoing/copying. And while I understand a huge part of that is advertising, so much of what's put out there as being what people do, BECOMES what people do by becoming part of the cultural narrative.
Diamonds weren't forever until the Debeers decided so and put that into the movies.
Maybe my brain's just tired of being told what should make me feel aroused, and what I should find attractive. I didn't sign up to be someone's experimental dog, why should the string pullers of society be my Pavlov?
Why would not responding to those markers being popularized make me uninhibited or frigid or repressed?
( Read more... )
Is it gender equality when women have locker-room talk about men; specifically male actors?
I realize I'm being triggered here and thus my perceptions are shaded by multiple things in my brain. But I'm not sure being triggered invalidates my questions. Are the squeeful delights at seeing nude or near nude shots of male actors or models based on models of male behavior? Or is lust, lust, with no particular gender traits and anything that could be coded male, is influenced by decades of males dominating the expression of lust?
But if that's the case; decades of males dominating the expression of lust; then wouldn't that mean men have been modeling lust for decades, so women could be unconsciously modeling men when they begin to forthrightly express their own?
So at what point does one step back and contemplate if western female assertive expression of desire doesn't have seeds in misogyny? That is, is objectification always objectification, or only when men do it? What else is there besides objectification? What is admiration? How is that expressed and does it have prior societally approved modes to be examined and considered first?
Is a new path of sexual autonomy being forged? Or is it being mirrored? And how do we ask these questions without seeming threatening to those who have experienced threat in expressing themselves at all?
At least in writing this out I've figured out part of why I've been triggered so much lately. Whether or not expression of desire is entangled in gender expression - it likely is to me. Because following this line of thinking, I recognize the feelings I have when triggered, and they're very much how I'd react to male objectification of women - male dominated, dominant, objectification of women with attendant feelings of helplessness, frustration, disgust and rage.
There likely is no one way to express one's desire, lust, sexuality as there's no one human being dominating the planet. But whether things are being mirrored or not, I am associating those expressions with negative and demeaning emotions. I associate expressions that... are depersonalized? Seem depersonalizing? What verb do I use? How do I know if it's expression of lust that activates thoughts and associations of objectification in my mind or if it's actual objectification?
How do those who've experienced objectification and found it negative, express their desire without falling into objectifying another individual? Are there models for this? Are they online? Cause that would be helpful.
At least I've figured out the why.
Which isn't necessarily a statement the following words will be all about groiny bits bumping, or not bumping. I could, I realize now, have titled this 'Stopping To Smell The Flowers' - but that's rather broad, even if I realize there's a thread running through personality/personhood aspect re: physical intimacy and affectional orientation and all the rest that matches things in writing (my writing) and who knows what more.
But this post is because when I think things out I write.
( tl; dr - no really. NO. REALLY. Giant Wall Of Text. )
I'm sure ficsafezone is extremely well intended. But reading the community's profile left me uneasy/pissed off/cold.
I recognize that what set me off might not set anyone else off. That said - Fuck!.
We're survivors not victims.
I'm a survivor, not a victim and I sure as hell don't appreciate the formation of group effing therapy, unliscenced and unmoderated in my hobby. I am not going to stick a patch on my forehead that says 'Abuse Survivor' so it becomes the first word/phrase that defines me sense of self. Joining a community and listing the things that send me curling into a ball and hugging a stuffed animal, so someone can judge if my pastime is safe enough for me?
( Screw You - It's Easier To Leave )
That is, thoughts that weren't cuss words up and down, around and upside down of a titanic load of people.
And of course it happened in a comment, so:
Willow has thoughts about the lack of comprehension, shaming and ablist attitudes on the anti-warning crowd.
This title is both tongue in cheek and true. ( Not Really Feeling Considerate But WTF )
Hi, my name is Willow. This is me NOT making friends and NOT influencing people. Unclick the ticky. 0 to pissed off in 20 minutes of writing.
ETA: 4.04pm - Still mad. Still upset.
Can't read anymore links or entries, even to figure out if it's a true quote of people I know, like, love, respect. I'm in tears and I'm doing 'as suggested' and looking out for me. May also just ban the lot so I feel safe in my personal journal which is apparently the only space I should ever expect to be safe (but being me, I'm still keeping this a safe space for others, so in future don't think you can peddle your racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc here ).A Question
From ZVI: I guess I don't understand why it's so terrible to ask the author or a friend (or a reviewer if you read about a story through a review), "Does this story contain X?" if X is a problem for you. As I understand it, people who want warnings do not, in the general case, want to make stories that contain X go away. They don't want to deal with X themselves. So, asking about X creates and destroys no X content. It just helps people not be triggered, without changing the author's presentation of the story for everyone else.
If you want to know, ask the author. Isn't a warning the author pre-answering the pre-asked question from a prospective reader, already?
And doing it for all prospective readers instead of one at a time? Filling their inbox? And answering specifically so that the reader doesn't have to go down through a list of:( Short list of possibly triggery questions )
Is the point of asking meant to be some backhanded way of checking reader count and getting feedback?
Apparently I'm calmer and the tears have dried, but I'm no less upset and confused.
I've been more meta than fic writer for a while, and then skimming on the edges of media fandom (having been more involved for a time in comics fandom) and I am someone who can be triggered by certain things. But I have no idea if I've ever warned for stuff myself.
I want to think that my WIP's which were the fics I think dealt the most with dark themes were warned for before I posted them, all the way back, to the yahoo grouplist. But I was a total newbie to fandom then and was following form while not yet understanding function.
I know I was flummoxed about warnings when I transferred my first batch of fic to AO3 (haven't been back since, more's the pity). But even though that was just earlier this year, and only a few months ago, I think I was flummoxed because I had;
a) no idea really that warnings were meant to prevent and protect from triggers
b) had the idea that warnings were about squicks/kinks and character deaths.
Which seems odd when I think about it, because I do rely on friends (one mainly) to recc fic for me that I think I can handle, but I hadn't thought about why I needed that. I didn't think that h/c SGA fic was triggering, I just knew it made me feel irrationally upset, emotionally over-wrought and not worth the effort of reading them given how it affected me for the rest of the day or week.
And this while I'm in and have been in therapy for several years and am aware of triggers. I think of triggers as outside things that screw me up more than I can ground for; of certain noises, certain scenarios I might find myself in.
Focused on being present in my life and living, in the here and now, and functioning, I don't think I've consciously thought about why I avoid some television shows and why some books have become so abhorrent to me.
The more entries pop up on my flist about warnings and what people will and won't warn for; what they think will or won't be upsetting to another person has me thinking and realizing that if I, someone in therapy, aware of other triggers in my life, haven't thought about fic as more than a squick, more than knowing straight up that noncon and twincest/incest upset me - what about people who haven't had the chance to analyze their triggers at all?
And then what about discovering new triggers? Sometimes a smell can be laden with emotion I then have to climb out from under and figure out how to deal with.
Aside: I'm not saying or meaning to imply somehow that romantic relationships in, or sexually explicit, fiction have been unconsciously triggering me given my meta thoughts on General Interest Fic. I don't know. I didn't think to look at it in that context.
This is not to say the world should cater to people who're triggered. Because that would be impossible, I believe. The best thing, I've been told, is learning to handle said triggers and sometimes that means minimizing exposure while working on it. Which makes warnings make sense to me.
What does confuse me is this sense that somehow a warning for something emotionally frought like death or rape or dysfunctional enough to involve incest is somehow giving away the story
. That's what I get from a lot of what I've seen (links, comments etc), that somehow a story
is more important than another fan's feelings and emotional history. That a few words to add to what are sometimes very bland summary descriptions, thus giving more context, are ruining the craft
/ the warp and weave of fannish ficdom; A double odd since the summaries of books are often longer than the summaries of fics three times as long.
I'm glad to see notes from some that the feelings and comfort levels of all fans matter and they want to find some system to be put in place that spreads out so that everyone knows; this is the system set up for dealing with the possibility of triggers.
I just find myself thinking of the last big "Recc/No Recc Reviews are Mean/Anti Nice"
Recc/No Recc Reviews have been very helpful to me in the past and don't involve me dealing with an author directly (cold emailing someone to tell them their summary does not suffice and I need more info). Recc/No Recc Reviews feel like a stable system in addition to warnings. Especially since they tend to be done by people who like to read things and then review them for others
But there are members of the fannish community who don't like Recc/No Recc Reviews either
because it harshes their squee to know that somewhere, someone didn't like their story, didn't think their writing made it worth the effort to deal with the emotional commess of the plot, etc...
So what I gather is that there are a group of people who think warnings ruin the story, and who feel that written recc/no recc reviews ruin fandom
and in between are people who find use for both in order to enjoy fandom, who're left to fall through the cracks.
That...is dislikeable to me.Definitions
: Recc/No Recc, when people recommend a story, or say they don't recommend it when posting reviews. [ Comments Off. Not in the mood/in the space to host fannish discussion right now. Maybe later. Maybe never. ]( ETA: )
I've read people calling it performative sexuality vs intrinsic sexuality and then some stuff with descriptive and prescriptive and all very 'swoosh, make Willow's mind go boom'.
It seems confusing to me that people are upset that the concept of slash and subtext has moved from an action of writing to an action of living/behaving. How is this not a broadening of minds/lives/reality?
In the slash community several times a year there's a 'omgwtf she's all about writing the two naked gay men humping like cowboys on speed, but she thinks actual gay men are icky! Omg! The hypocrite!'
And my response has privately been; everyone has to start somewhere when it comes to dealing with sexuality. (Remember I'm a girl who had slash teach/remind her that men aren't monsters and can be individuals. Maybe that's why I can believe that slash can also slowly convince those girls that two men in love/ or just two men trusting each other enough for sex is ok.)
Heterosexuals don't have to think about sexuality all that much. In general they don't have to think about what turns them on and how and why and is it okay. So it makes sense to me that when they encounter something that does make them think - well they're going to be a bit asinine about it.
I can remember being told that I only came out as bisexual because it's less shocking than being a lesbian (Oh Mommy / Stepdaddy - how right you were. Sortof). But the fact that lo these many years later I'll proudly call myself a lesbian who finds guys cute above the waist, doesn't seem to get much of a blink now.
If I can define myself like that, why can't someone else define themselves as also liking guys only above the waist?
Is it because they put 'straight' in front of that? Are they suddenly bad little hetero boys for playing up and admitting that sexuality is fluid? And do people honestly think that just because they give a couple interviews and mention girlfriends or are even seen with girlfriends that the homophobic assholes who roam the wilds and the shadow urban landscapes of America will give a damn?
The gay community isn't the only one who knows that there are straight men who like to suck a little cock. How much more intimidating will it be for those wanna-beat-people-up-arseholes to know there are straight men who like a little male to male kissing.
I really can't believe that such acts are being done under the shelter of hetero-privilege when homoerotic behavior of any sort automatically sheers people of hetero-protection, simply because this is the age/time/place we live in.
Walking, talking, dressing, swishing, make-up, music, reading certain books all of those things can get a kid or a grown man beat the hell up - because it's not hetero enough. And yet somehow there's privilege after skin to skin hugging, lip to lip kissing and fellatioing a microphone like you know wtf to do with seven inches of tubular in your mouth?!*
The only thing I know for sure is calling it Gayface is a sure way to have me labeling you a 'clueless, nice, racist' and going out of my way to avoid you. Cause last time I checked black-face had nothing to do with self-identifying even '30%' with the african descended minority and had everything to with reinforcing stereotypes and the approving of treating another human being as lesser.
*Are there people who believe these boys, giving all these interviews and having to come up with all these definitions are not dealing with the consequences of being queer? If you're one of these people, please define for me your pov.