i'm not sure about her atm but something is definitely there

anonymous asked:

Hey Lottie, how do you write queer sexual tension without it entering queerbaiting territory? Can you have unresolved sexual tension between queer characters in a story, or is that always a bad thing? Thanks!

this is SUCH AN INTERESTING QUESTION that I’ve already attempted to answer twice (once while drunk) and abandoned, but I’m gonna pull myself together, fucking relax about it and just answer it. okay. 

so the first time I ever heard the term “queerbaiting” it was being applied to Supernatural and I understood it off the bat: what Supernatural does, what Supernatural is great at doing (and has been doing now for 4 years at least), is going to ANY LENGTHS to avoid explicitly saying that Dean and Castiel will never end up together and that they aren’t anything other than straight. the writers say “stay tuned! you never know what will happen!” the actors talk about how much the characters mean to each other and make vaguely worded statements that they KNOW will be interpreted by the fandom as a wink wink nudge nudge I’m on your team, folks! reference, and the characters themselves make jabs, maintain intense eye contact and are incredibly devoted to each other on top of enough pointed mise en scène and subtext to make your mouth water. they will bend over backwards to make it as queer-coded and romantic as they possibly can, get your heart pumping, and then successfully interrupt the moment and start No Homo-ing it as hard as they possibly can.

the reason behind this whole song and dance is twofold: 1) The Powers That Be want you, their devoted queer audience – with your “Dean Winchester is bisexual!” badges and your manifestos and your essays and, more importantly, your MONEY – to keep watching Supernatural, but they also 2) don’t want to lose any casual straight viewers by canonising Dean’s sexuality or his relationship with Castiel. so they straddle the divide. they tease. they have their queer-coded cake and eat all the straight viewers, or something. that’s the definition of it, for me: keeping you watching, supporting and spending your money (and keeping their ratings high) with the idea that maybe something might eventually happen – but never ever putting their money where their mouth is and cashing the fuck in. 

there are two reasons why what you’re talking about is not and could never be classed as queerbaiting, IMO: 1) there is nothing inherently wrong or bad about homoerotic subtext or unresolved tension between queer characters; both of these things can be a feast, no matter the medium, and b) you’re writing it. it would be incredibly difficult to profit off your queer fans without delivering on the goods and stringing them along over a long period of time when you’re a writer; how would you even manage that? unless your blurb was THE SINGLE MOST MISLEADING BLURB OF ALL TIME, you’re gonna have a tough time baiting any queer readers. you’d have to be writing a series, and you’d have to drag your Possible Relationship out over X amount of books, write in enough subtext and UST to make people think it’s a possibility, spend time and effort keeping it simmering across hundreds of thousands of words, and then just… not. there is NO WAY that effort would be worth it. and even if, somehow, you were incredibly successful and made loads of money off of queer readers who’d been lured in, that would stop as soon as the first person put a ‘THEY NEVER EVEN KISS, FUCK THIS BOOK’ review up on Goodreads. plus… I’d like to say no self-respecting writer could fuck up their own work in such a colossal way, but, haha, let’s not go there or I’ll start in on Harry Potter

look at it this way: The Raven Cycle series by Maggie Stiefvater. they’re pretty popular books here on tumblr because they’re fucking great, but also because there’s subtext and UST out the wazoo – not to mention one canon* queer character and the Definite Feeling that we’re gunning for a second in the final book, as well as a Big Ol’ Kiss/actual declaration of love. this relationship has been building for three books now – we got to know them in the first book, found out Ronan was gay in the second book and possibly had a Crush, and the set up for them getting together found its feet in the third book. MS spent thousands of words on Ronan and Adam – individually and, eventually, sort of together. they’re a big part of the books and each others’ lives, and the subtext is slowly but surely turning into text. (the hand lotion. the barn.) 

BUT: nothing has been ~canonised~ yet in Actual Words. (IIRC! I haven’t read them since last year.) MS could feasibly go full Supernatural, make absolutely nothing happen and be like “lol, what? haha, you crazy fangirls, it’s all in your head!” and that would be queerbaiting: keeping your fans eager and forking out their dough with the promise of a queer relationship but pulling out at the last minute. but she won’t do that, because then her books would be complete rubbish. she would have written an entire relationship into the subtext of her series and then just farted it away. it would have been a complete and total waste of 1000s of words and a loose thread marring her tapestry. no writer would spend the time it takes to write three novels setting something up only to back out at the last second. (I trust Maggie.) 

and BESIDES, having homoerotic subtext (/UST) and not explicitly canonising it =/= queerbaiting. subtext (and allegory, metaphor and anything else you can point to and yell ‘THIS ONE’S GAY’) and the deciphering of it is one of the joys of reading or watching anything ever. it’s a useful and age-old part of storytelling. homoerotic/queer subtext can tell us things about a character that the character would never tell us themselves; it can be undeniable or just noticeable to those who’re attuned to it; it can play a part in the overarching narrative or not; it can be eventually made text or it can remain subtext for the duration – it doesn’t matter. there’s nothing wrong with it either way. the subtext and sexual tension itself isn’t the problem – producers and studio execs writing it in and making it blatant just to snag queer viewers and then refusing to say either way whether or not it’ll ever become Touching Of Mouths canon so that they can keep taking everyone’s money is the problem.

(it’s like the difference between pre-Swan Song Supernatural and post-Swan Song Supernatural: pre-SS had a lot of Dean-centric queer subtext – but didn’t labour the point overmuch – and UST between Dean and Castiel that grew from their epic meet-cute, initial chemistry and intense friendship. post-SS realised that a hell of a lot of people were watching for Dean and Castiel’s relationship, and immediately ratcheted it up to 11 with jokes, references, straight-up romance novel dialogue and UNREAL mise en scène and subtext and then fell all over themselves to insist that it’s all fan interpretation and nothing really supports it in canon, haha, but you never know! maybe! there’s so much of the story left to tell! I’m not sure what the current party line is re: Dean/Castiel or Dean’s bisexuality, but I can assure you it’ll be something like: LOL! MAYBE!!! WHO KNOWS?!?)

tl;dr having homoerotic/queer subtext or unresolved sexual tension between queer characters is absolutely not a bad thing, and it’s not queerbaiting. sometimes it’s queerbaiting, but generally it’s not queerbaiting. irregardless, whether it’s queerbaiting or not is irrelevant when it’s in a novel/short story because queerbaiting in literature is… pretty much impossible(/a terrible choice for your Art). okay. the… end…?

(*I’m not actually sure if Ronan Lynch is canonically queer in a ‘“I’m gay,” said Ronan’ way, or if it’s just been heavily implied. see? implication! subtext! no actual verbal 100% undeniable confirmation! and yet: not queerbaiting.)

Request: Dance With Me

Request: can you do a samxreader imagine where he catches her dancing and singing along to i feel like dancing (or somethings gotta give) by all time low? its funny and fluffy please ?¬ロト️

Word Count: 644

Here it is, I hope you like it! Thanks!<3

It’s just been one of those days. You’ve just gotten back from a long, hard hunt that came along at short notice, meaning that when you got back (bruised, battered, but intact) the bunker was almost entirely unstocked, and beer bottles, plates, and wrappers littered the place.

The guys excused themselves earlier this morning, before you were awake, to go on a supply run. That was about three hours ago – it’s a good hour and a half to the supermarket that the guys like and you presume they went there.

You did try to hang around, waiting for them to get back so you could clean up together, but you couldn’t bear it any longer. You pulled up music on your laptop and set it playing while you worked, bagging up rubbish and bottles. You’ve been going for about an hour when you decide to make a start on the dirty dishes. That’s when one of your favourite songs comes on, and you can’t help but grin.

‘Shawty said she wants to run away,
Says I look like a boy she used to date (Ha!).
Took me by the hand and pulled me to the stairs,
(I’m NOT interested, girl!)’

You find yourself abandoning the soapy water and instead dancing around the kitchen, ignoring the chores. This is definitely more fun, you decide, cranking the music up and singing at the top of your lungs.

'Put her tongue all up in my ear, (Gross!)
Almost made me spill my beer, (Oh Shit!)
She’s up and ready to go, but I don’t care.
(Pssh, whatever!)
'Cause I’m in the zone,
Turn off my phone, I’ve got my own agenda.

I feel like dancing tonight,
I’m gonna party like it’s my civil right,
(everybody get kinda awesome).
It doesn’t matter where, I don’t care if people stare, (Woah!)
'cause I feel like dancing tonight. ’

You spin around, twisting past the island and around the room. You’re so lost in the familiar melody that you don’t hear the door opening or Sam’s yelled greeting. In fact, you don’t hear a thing until you see a figure step into the doorway. You turn sharply, but upon seeing it’s only Sam breathe a sigh of relief. You move over and pause the song, making Sam laugh.

“Hey, by all means, continue.” He chuckles, running a hand through his hair. You find yourself blushing deep red – you never, ever sing in front of him as a general rule. Not in this kinda situation, anyway. Sure, if you’re driving along and maybe both a little tipsy and a good song comes on the radio. Maybe then. And you certainly don’t dance.

“You know what?” Sam says softly, stepping closer to you. Noticing you’re looking down, he places two fingers beneath your chin and tilts your head up to face him, “You’re good at that. You should do it more often.”

“Not a chance.”

“Not even for me?”

“Nope.” You say, and he laughs.

“Not even for payment?”

“Who do you think I am?” You raise an eyebrow, and he rolls his eyes.

“I’d pay you in kisses, genius.”

“So you’re not gonna kiss me unless I dance for you?”

“That’s the plan.”

“You go ahead with that.”

He grins, leaning down and kissing your forehead, before letting you go.

“You really cleaned up the place.” He comments, looking around, “Dean was impressed. We left quite the mess.”

“Yeah, well. I couldn’t deal with your slobbery a minute longer.” You roll your eyes as he chuckles, wrapping an arm around your waist.

“Well, you did an amazing job. Want me to help you with this last bit?”

“Depends. Will you dance with me?”

“Every day for the rest of our lives.”

anonymous asked:

hi, i was just wondering if you could clarify why it is problematic for the AVEN survey to include questions about romantic orientation? like, i get that AVEN has some issues. their methodology is pretty subpar, and they're generally shitty when it comes to survivors of sexual violence (ace or otherwise). but i'm not quite sure what the issue with rom orientations is?? not trying to start a fight, just curious. i ID as aro ace and i want to make sure the way i ID isn't stepping on other folks?

there r a couple diff reasons that i posted that particular screencap:

the first is just that, uhhhh, WTFromantic is patently absurd. “grayromantic” or “demiromantic” are also ridiculous and founded on skewed ideas of what the average human experience with romance is. like… honestly, there does not need to be a specific term that means “only starts falling for someone after knowing them,” that’s literally how romance works??? it’s ridic.

but those are quibbles with specific parts of that section. to answer your question more broadly, i disagree with the concept of romantic orientation. there are a couple reasons.

  1. the sexual orientations don’t need romantic counterparts - all of the -sexual suffixes refer to “sex” as in male or female, not doin it. now that may feel somewhat archaic to some people, who feel that our ideas about “sex” and maleness and femaleness have been complicated since then, but it’s clear that the intent in creating these words and even the phrase sexual orientation has always been - to what sex (or fill in gender if you’d like) are you oriented? not “who do u wanna bone” but “who attracts you.” thus, heterosexual, for example, doesn’t just have to mean that jane wants to have sex with dudes, and in common english it usually never means only that she wants to have sex with guys. it means she’s attracted to them, wants to date them, want to have sex with them, whatever. it just means, she’s oriented toward guys in this part of her life. so the original coining of the hetero-, homo-, bi-, and aromantic terms stemmed from a false - even a non - problem.
  2. i truly do not believe it is an easy or even possible task to separate out “sexual attraction” from “romantic attraction.” no, that doesn’t mean that i think it’s impossible to lack a desire for sex but still want to partner with people. rather, i think what asexuals call “sexual attraction” and “romantic attraction” are more nuanced and interconnected than just “do i wanna have sex with them” and “do i wanna date them.” there is significant interplay between the two, and i think if you asked the average person, who was not obsessed with picking apart every type of “attraction” and classifying it, they would struggle to clearly delineate where one began and the other ended. i mean, lbr, i don’t think i’ve ever read an asexual blogger put forward a description of these two that did not vastly exaggerate what both of these attractions are in order to make them sound as distinct as possible.
  3. do they even have any social purpose? because “sexual attraction” and “romantic attraction” are so very intertwined, the vast majority of people have a “match.” or, what do asexual bloggers call it, orientation congruence?? you’re aro ace, i’m homosex homorom. does adding a romantic orientation add any information, or does it just feed into the current tumblr obsession with splitting hairs and categorizing everything, in the hopes of finding some kind of new marginalization? some asexual bloggers contend that there are some people who are incongruent - for example, all of the hetero, bi, and gay asexuals. but that’s not an argument for romantic orientations (see #4). other incongruences involve two attractions - the fabled homoromantic heterosexual, who definitely does not exist. perhaps there are homoromantic bisexuals - but are they any different from the many bi women who despite their attraction to men choose not to partner with them for other reasons? is a “homoromantic bisexual” really just a special kind of bisexual, or are they just a “bisexual who’s only looking to date girls atm”? idrts
  4. now, what about str8, bi, and gay aces - or aromantics who are str8, bi, or gay? remember my 1st point about what the “sex” in hetero/bi/homosexual means? yeah. imo a str8 ace is also a heterosexual - a person oriented toward the “opposite” sex. the problem, imo, is that people try to place asexuality on the same dimensions as the rest. in that case, asexual would only refer to people like u - attracted to no one. but many people use it only as “no sex feelings,” which is entirely independent from to whom you’re attracted! it may be more useful to either accept this concept of asexuality and hand it over to u aro aces, as attraction to no one, and form community simply around lower sex drive or interest in sex - or, trash that concept and instead posit asexuality as a different measure of sexuality altogether, not of ur orientation but of ur general sex-type feelings. (i have reservations about this second course of action, ofc, bc i feel like it will fall into the same problems as current ace discourse does wrt misogyny, alienation of survivors, etc.) tbh i kind of feel like whether u wanna have sex with ur partners or not is a strange thing to make a core aspect of ur identity and more something that would be shared on a case-by-case basis - and before i get tons of angry anons, i want to mention again that i’m a person who has a p low interest in sex itself.

i hope this wall of text makes sense, anon - i had to go clothes shopping with my mom today and it was exhausting, so i might be writing in gibberish rn for all i know. u don’t necessarily have to agree w me or anything, i just hope u can see where i’m coming from/what i’m thinking!

the-winnowing-wind  asked:

No, I'm just saying that expecting Hanni to offer the you can betray me and you can leave me card is asking too much of anyone, imo. Will realllllly stabbed him in the back hard, with the, intensely clear to Hannibal now, lies now, and Hanni was willing to forgive it. And I think that's pretty incredible, especially for I kill you for a dirty tissue Hannibal. To ask of him to just let Will walk away, and let him betray him, is just, I don't know def not something Hanni could handle atm.

Oh, I don’t think Will expected any such thing. I don’t even think he realized the offer was what it was: a statement that Hannibal now knew that Will had betrayed him, when he didn’t know before. In other words, I don’t think Will had any way to litmus test it, so to speak, because all along he’d been unable to tell how much Hannibal had been deceived. So that means that there was no way for Will to take the offer, even if he had an inkling that he’d been found out. He couldn’t know for sure what was being offered, or that his cover was newly blown, and he hadn’t prepared to leave, either mentally or physically–never even considered leaving probably until word came down that he was going to be arrested for Randall Tier’s murder, as far as I can tell, because while Hugh Dancy has talked about how one part of Will was trying to guide Hannibal “as gently as possible” toward incarceration, and one part of Will was willing to be okay with Hannibal getting away, he hasn’t suggested that Will was ever tempted to actually leave with him.  

That’d be a good question for someone to ask Hugh: “Did Will realize his cover was blown then?” I don’t think he did, or he wouldn’t have made that phone call the next day with any expectation that Hannibal might actually leave, but it’s ambiguous, and it would be interesting to hear his take on it. 

My tags were about Will’s point of view. Given that he doesn’t really want to leave with Hannibal at that point, and he’s mentally committed to getting Hannibal incarcerated, and he doesn’t know that the FBI backup is about to collapse, what would fessing up at that point offer him, if it meant he had to disappear that night–which is what Hannibal actually said, leaving a note for Alana to look after the dogs and all that–with no physical preparation to salvage what was important in his life, no mental preparation for what he would do with Hannibal after that point, and no psychological or emotional preparation for what he would do thereafter?What would he do? Commit to that relationship with Hannibal, or what? 

He’d be shit up a crick without a paddle. He’d have no support, no one knowing where he is or why, probably burning his bridges to return to a non-fugitive life, with little cash or resources to fall back on, and now entirely dependent on Hannibal, just as Hannibal has wanted this whole time. Taking up Hannibal on this offer would just be an impossible choice. 

The only thing that would make it not impossible would have been if Hannibal revealed that he had Abigail still alive. Then the fugitive life would become waaaay more practical and the necessity of it more apparent, and Will would be able to release the worst of his anger and unforgiveness, and going with Hannibal would become less about self indulgence and more about doing the right thing, specifically for Abigail (or these two things would suddenly line up somewhat on the same side, instead of being diametrically opposed to each other), and this might allow Will to put his conscience to rest at least in some ways.

But the thing that makes it so ingenious as a piece of writing is that the option to fess up about Abigail is just as impossible for Hannibal as fessing up about his deception is impossible for Will.

What Hannibal needs to believe at this point, above all else, is that Will loves him, truly and honestly and for himself, and that the betrayal and lies won’t be repeated. But he could never trust this to be true if he motivated Will to confess by showing him Abigail, because first, it would be about Abigail, not about Hannibal, and secondly, because Will is the only person in the world who really deeply threatens Hannibal. Hannibal needs Will to fess up without any possibility of having any motivations except that he wants to preserve his relationship with Hannibal. Else, how would Hannibal know that it was really honest this time, that Will wouldn’t just be buying himself time to betray Hannibal at a further point in the future? He wouldn’t know; he couldn’t know. Will could have all kinds of ulterior motives–to take Abigail and flee from Hannibal, to set up Hannibal to be caught while making Abigail out to be a victim, publicly, so that she might stand a chance to be exonerated for her part in her father’s crimes, or to take Abigail and just kill Hannibal, even. He doesn’t know–Hannibal can’t predict him, and so he can’t give Will the one thing Will needs to be able to give Hannibal the one thing he needs.

It’s the definition of a catch-22. 

I’m gonna go ahead and publish because this is literally one of my favorite parts of the finale, and I don’t see people acknowledge it enough, including myself, because the discussion always becomes about one side or the other. But it’s both sides in context with each other that gives the situation its agonizing symmetrical beauty. 

Everyone’s either “Hannibal should have…" or "Will should have…” But neither could have–neither one–and that’s what gives it that fatality, that horrid inevitability. The clock was ticking for all of them, Hannibal included. He didn’t catch a whiff of Freddie Lounds because fate was looking out for him. It was because fate had it in for him too.