romatism

No one in Gotham is Straight and I fucking Love it

Everybody is so fucking gay (umbrella term gay) whether romantically or sexually…

anonymous asked:

CHERYL'S FAMILY IS PIECE OF TRASH her mom is abusive and i hate her :\\ i also get the reason why cheryl tried to ruin jughead's birthday party. she doesnt get love in her own family so she wants to get some, idk, adoration from her classmates, and when they gave up on her and chose veronica, imo, it was some kind of disaster for her. she acts like a bitch but shes really kind and sensitive at heart i could see it when she cried over jason,said polly her(cheryl's)parents want bad for the baby(1)

also after veronica assumed cheryl loved jason not in a brother-sister loving way i started even liking her more bc if she really did love jason romatically then jason choosing polly over her was tragedy for her. like,its not an ordinary thing that happens to twins, twins are close to each other yes but i dont think they often fell in love with another one. she could have felt terrible or wrong for loving jason like that. i pity her a lot, bc shes been trough the shit and she deserves better (2)

IKR SHE DESERVES SO MUCH BETTER???? I dont think cheryl and jason were ever a thing and i dont think cheryl had feelings for him. jason was just the only one who loved her and protected her, she literally lost the one person on earth who cared about her and now’s she stuck with that shitty family all by herself. IT HURTS MY HEART SO MUCH shes so bright and smart and amazing and i just want her to have the world and i also want veronica to be her bestie and look out for her the way jason did :’(((

3

Ashi and the Wolf. Jack leaves the squad :’(( 

“So…he’s really gone now. Forever?”

“He didn’t have to do that …he didn’t have to fight him, weren’t we enough?”

_____________________________

“H-he didn’t *sniff* he didn’t have to *sniff* to-”

_____________________________

“WHY! WHY! WHY! WHY! WHY!?!?!? HE DIDN’T HAVE TO FIGHT! HE DIDN’T HAVE TO LEAVE US! TO LEAVE ME! I CAN’T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT HIM! HE KNOWS THAT! HE KNOWS WE NEED HIM! I NEED HIM SO WHY?!!?”

“Why did you …leave me Jack…….?”

“The obsession, particularly online, with the homoerotic tension between Sherlock and Doctor Watson… The template for us was the Billy Wilder film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, which deliberately plays with the idea that Holmes might be gay. We’ve done the same thing, deliberately played with it although it’s absolutely clearly not the case. He’s only a brain, ‘everything else is transport’ to him and John clearly says, “I’m not gay, we’re not together” but the joke is that everyone assumes that in the 21st century that these two blokes living together are a couple– what they wouldn’t’ have assumed in the 19th century. They’d have assumed they were bachelor best friends and now they assume they’re lovers. That’s obviously such fun to play with and the fact that people now assume, in a very positive way, that they’re together is a different joke to it being a negative connotation.”  Mark Gatiss in The Gay Times, February 2012

Hmm, I’m actually not so sure about that. Because I never got this joke (and no, that’s not a generation thing. I’m round about the same age as the show creators). Honestly, to me, two blokes sharing a flat in central London in the 21st century are just two blokes sharing a flat because it’s fucking expensive. I’d never assume anything else.

Even if one of the man was depicted as obviously gay (Girlfriend? Nor really my area. - Boyfriend? I know it’s fine.) - I wouldn’t assume any kind of romatic interest between them. I can’t see a joke there either.

But when their flat sharing gets laden with innuendo? For example, their landlady asking them if they share a bedroom. Another acquaintance taking them for being on a date. Those two blokes gazing at each other as if they were about to eat each other alive. One of the man killing for the other, who, in return, protects him from being prosecuted… Well, then I’d start to assume something’s going on - because it is shown to me and hammered home.

Only, I can’t see a joke there either…

So, what Gatiss described in the above interview wasn’t what happened. They were not just showing us two blokes living together. Because then no one in the 21st century would think of them as a couple. Moffat and Gatiss had to actively insert innuendo for their viewers to catch up on their ‘joke’ in the first place. They encouraged this on many levels: text, acting choices, casting, costume, music, lighting, cinematography.

They actively implemented homoerotic (sub)text in their show - only to lament at the same time that people cought up on it? That some viewers expected something to come out of it. Because, in the 21st century, no one thought it possible that it could just be a lame joke! Because there just is no joke to it.

The viewers took the positive attitude Gatiis desrcibes a step further and expected positive representation from the writers after playing with the inherent homoeroticism of the original stories. The fandom was far more advanced than the show runners, it seems.

And why play with the  homoeroticism it in the first place? I really can’t see where the fun might be in there, apart from cracking some cheap gay jokes that feed an outdated no-homo attitude?

What is there to play with when it’s not an issue anymore? And if it’s still an issue, I’m not sure that making fun of it ist the appropriate approach to it.

Allosexual means “not ace-spec”.

Alloromantic means “not aro-spec”.


Neither of them make any claim about anyones sexual or romatic attraction, be it whether you have it or how much you have it.


If you could identify as ace-spec, but choose not to, you are allosexual.

If you identify with an ace-spec identity you are not, regardless of whether or not you experience sexual attraction.


If you could identify as aro-spec but choose not to, you are alloromantic.

If you identify with an aro-spec identity you are not, regardless of whether or not you experience romantic attraction.