simply quotations

anonymous asked:

I'm a little confused on why people get so concerned over over who tops/bottoms; it's the same 2 characters, so does it really make a difference?

Oh man okay so this might get long and I might not be able to articulate my thoughts very well but… I personally think it should NOT matter who tops/bottoms for this reason:

“TOPPING” and “BOTTOMING” are strongly stereotyped, and people often see a correlation between those two words as winning-losing/dominance-submission. THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

Did you know that in many healthy same-sex relationships, PEOPLE SWITCH? Why? Because top/bottom SHOULD NOT BE A POWER PLAY THING. It should be a sex thing, a making love thing, a “hey we are equals so let’s do whatever we want” thing, and maybe that means one person PREFERS how it feels to have their prostate ground against, or maybe someone PREFERS to be the one penetrating because of how it turns them on, NOT because they want to dominate their partner. top-bottom relationships aren’t always fluid, but to say a character “shouldn’t be a bottom” or “would never be a top” means you are looking at something in their characters that makes you think that- and it all comes down to our skewed perception of heterosexual intercourse.

We base our ideas of homosexual intercourse off of what we know about heterosexual intercourse, simply because heterosexual intercourse is usually what we “learn” about first (i place learn in quotation marks simply because our sex ed is shitty as hell). and the things we are taught about heterosexual intercourse are EXTREMELY patriarchal. Women are submissive. Men dominate, men are on top, men win. Even when a man is submissive and a woman is the dominant one, the act only finishes once the MAN comes, once the MAN penetrates the woman and WINS. And when we look at same-sex relationships, we look at them with these ideas of winning-losing/dominance-submission without even realizing it, and end up fitting the characters into these roles based on the patriarchal ideas we’ve been brainwashed to believe all our lives.

So to put it simply: topping and bottoming does not matter, because who tops and who bottoms has NOTHING to do with their characteristics. The only thing it has to do with is what makes them horny, or whose turn it is that night, or what their preferences in sex are. And guess what- NONE OF US KNOW WHAT OUR OTP’S SEXUAL KINKS/TURN OFFS/ETC ARE UNLESS THEY ARE STATED IN THE CANNON, WHICH IS EXTREMELY RARE.

As long as the characters remain in-character, there should be NO problem with who tops/bottoms.

Stoic characters might love being fingered.

Cute characters might not like the feeling of penetration.

Just stick to the characters, and then do whatever the fuck you want. I understand why people get upset when they see fanart or read fanfiction where a character they could never imagine bottoming is taking it up the ass and moaning and writhing and crying- but do you know why you find it upsetting? Because they are out of character, NOT because they are taking it up the ass. The author/artist is forcing the character into a mold of the patriarchal female, breaking them out of their character, just so they can fit into the “bottom” role. BUT IF A CHARACTER STAYS TRUE TO THEIR CANNON PERSONALITIES WHILE TAKING IT UP THE ASS, THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM, RIGHT? Because!! IT! DOESN’T! MATTER! WHO! TOPS! OR! WHO! BOTTOMS! BECAUSE! WHO! YOU! ARE! DOES! NOT! DEFINE! YOUR! POSITION! IN! SEX!!!!!!! and vice versa!!!!!

And by fighting over who “tops” and who “bottoms” based on characteristics made up by a patriarchal society which views the “woman’s role” in sex as lesser, we create an imbalance of power in same-sex relationships, when all in all sex should be a mutual act of passion/love/lust/whatever the fuck you want to call it.

I rambled, and probably talked in circles, and a lot of you probably have no idea what I’m trying to say so I’m sorry. But to answer your question, anon:

No, it shouldn’t make a difference who tops or who bottoms.

Until a year ago, I felt that I wasn’t fully able to perform my job as a kind of project leader for inspiration, because my time was not really my own. Like many people, I was hyper-scheduled, often in depressingly small chunks of time, at one meeting after another, with very little time in between. I remember one particular day when I had a different appointment or task every 10 minutes. My brain almost exploded.

Creative people thrive on serendipity, spontaneous interactions, moments of ribald humor, intense debate or just simple eye contact, and I felt as if I was losing myself. I decided that it was time to act. So I tried an experiment. I just stopped saying yes and started saying no to things.

Actually, there was a bit more method to my madness. I started a ritual that I still use today: I sit down and look at my calendar every Sunday night, pore through my coming week’s meetings and cancel a bunch of them — redundant ones where I don’t need to be “in the loop,” ones where there is an opportunity for someone else to make a decision, ones that don’t particularly inspire me, or ones where I can’t really add value. My overarching goal right now, wherever possible, is to give myself more time to simply be.

— 

Paul Bennett, Where the Fish Swims, Ideas Fly

Two great lines:

I just stopped saying yes and started saying no to things. […] My overarching goal right now, wherever possible, is to give myself more time to simply be.