while i get and agree with the fact that gay people should probably play gay people and gay stories are best written by gay people, the fervor to prove that “straight people shouldn’t play gay characters!!” is what the interviewer used to forcibly out lee pace so like
idk maybe slow your roll and realize that like… actors can be closeted, content creators can be closeted, and tbh this “you can only write your own experiences, never write someone else’s” rhetoric is also a bigot’s fucking wet dream?? like the perfect excuse to never write diverse characters?? and to say that they have nothing in common with people who don’t look/love/exist the same way as them??
yeah, the author of simon vs the homo sapien’s agenda is a cis straight woman, which means love, simon (though directed by a married gay man with multiple gay characters played by gay/bi actors) is based on a novel written by a straight woman… but this straight woman literally ends her book acknowledging the LGBT teens who helped her write the book and make sure she was writing it appropriately.
this is the content we want
listen… EVERY SINGLE piece of media EVER involves some level of writing about experiences that are not your own, especially if it’s diverse. even bland stories just about white people involves an author writing about genders that are not their own. if you want a story with characters of color, white authors are going to have to write about those perspectives. if you want gay characters in every story, straight authors are gonna have to write about those perspectives. even LGBT narratives might involve gay authors writing about bi characters or cis authors writing about trans characters.
what we HOPE FOR when they do that is that they talk to people… actually belonging to those groups to learn what is and isn’t appropriate and true to life. which is what the author of simon vs the homo sapien’s agenda did.
it’s exactly what she did. she literally worked in a support group for LGBT and GNC kids, saw they did not have cute love stories written for them after they told her this, and then worked with them to give them the love story they craved.
this is a good thing. this is progress for lgbt people. this is the path we need to walk towards getting LGBT content created by LGBT authors.
when you attempt to take the ~moral ground on protesting this film, all you’re doing is telling people who fund these projects that gay products don’t sell. they don’t get the nuance of what you’re going for. and, chances are, you’re looking like a fucking hypocrite, because i can promise you most of the canon gay characters you stan profit a cishet somehow (if they’re even canon).
so, y’unno, as someone who has read simon vs the homo sapien’s agenda AND seen the fucking movie let me tell you!! it’s fine!! it’s diverse beyond having gay character, it’s written respectively, and it hit home on a lot of experiences i WISH i had as a gay teen. it’s corny, it’s silly, and it’s all i ever would have wanted at 13, 14, 15
if you don’t want to see it, just fucking say so! but don’t act like you’re doing it on moral grounds. you can just… not like a movie or not want to see it without it being some moral victory.
There’s a big difference between a character looking hot and a character being intended for sexualization. There are lots of attractive characters out there that aren’t intended to be consumed by other genders, objectified, and sexualized. For example:
Batman. Undeniably attractive. He is good looking.
But he was not intended for consumption by women. He get’s power poses and muscles because that’s how men want their male heroes, the one’s they aspire to be like and project onto, to look.
By contrast look at Black Widow. She is intended for male consumption.
She doesn’t have long legs, a tiny waist, a pronounced butt, and big boobs because that is what women want their heroes to look like. She looks like that because that’s what men want their women heroes, the one’s they picture themselves romancing, to look like. She’s not just attractive, she is also sexualized and intended for a male audience.
Now look at a male character meant for women. Tuxedo Mask from Sailor Moon.
He’s not buff and bulky, he’s long, lean, and well dressed. This is what women want their hero men, the one’s they want to fall in love with, to look like. This isn’t a male fantasy, this is a female one.
Now look at a women intended for women. The main characters from Totally Spies.
They have small waists and long legs yes but their boobs and butts aren’t particularly noticeable. They get power poses instead of one’s intended to sexualize. They look like this because this is what women want to project themselves on. This is a women’s power fantasy. This is closer in comparison to Batman, good looking but powerful, than it is to Black Widow, sexualized.
Now are all of these characters attractive? Yes. But do you see the difference between sexy and sexualized? Sexy depends on the ‘type’ of the viewer and what they like in men and women. Sexualized has less to do with what you personally think is hot and more to do with what society as a whole thinks is hot. So when I say that Wonder Woman in the movie was not meant for male consumption I am not saying she isn’t beautiful, sexy, or attractive (I left that movie gayer than I was before). What I am saying is that she was posed, treated, costumed, and written more like an attractive human than like an object for men to gawk at.
“Bisexuals in het relatonships shouldn’t be at pride” is literally the same as parents accepting their bisexual kids “as long as they only date the opposite sex”
it boils down to “we accept you as long as ignore your true identity and act like youre just like us”
i have no issue with atheism as a concept but if you mock people who rely on their god to help them get through hard times, you are trash and you are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are
things i am going to teach my children later: the “pick one favourite” syndrome embedded in our culture is stupid and useless
it starts at fucking pre-school, in those little get-to-know-me books, and it never ends. favourite colour? mother tongue? favourite character? best friend? favourite sport? song? movie? book? series? band? toy? no you can only pick one
and i am deeply convinced that this is intrinsically linked to one of the things that annoys me the most, which is that in our society, it’s considered a sign of maturity to prioritise one thing, and often specifically one person, above everything else. i mean, priorities are definitely important, but you are also absolutely allowed to equally enjoy/love/feel connected to different things without constructing some kind of hierarchy where one of them always wins out
“you can only like one gender, you can only be one (of the two “biological” – ha) genders, you can only have one partner, you must have one best friend, you must have one favourite activity (preferably your job, bc that makes you a functional member of society) because clearly if you love multiple things, you must love them less than if you spent all that love on one thing”
this rhetoric creates so much guilt and jealousy – as if love is a finite concept.
(incidentally it is also possible to genuinely love something without it being one of the things you love the most, and that doesn’t make that love any less valid, but that’s another discussion)
• are not selfish
• are not less of a woman
• are not weird
• are not immature
• won’t necessarily change her mind
• won’t necessary be a lonely old lady
• “a lonely old crazy cat lady” is a patriarchal asshole stereotype:):):):)
• doesn’t necessarily hate kids
• doesn’t need to give you an explanation
satire is “I’m going to take this concept to an extreme or absurd level in order to demonstrate how bizarre/nonsensical/illogical it is” and not “I said something bigoted but just kidding I didn’t really mean it hahaha”
Dang it I’ve written like 5000 words trying to explain this and I only needed this post to reblog
Nothing but My Aching Soul 