This is an illustration I did for my friend, Dai’s, PhD thesis. A part of his thesis involved a study around how some gay men (particularly those of a minority status) negotiate being gay outside of mainstream gay culture. One story that really stood out to me as being quite unique and touching involved a middle-aged fellow who has never been intimate with another man, doesn’t necessarily identify as being gay, but spends his days knitting baby socks on park benches and on the train as a way to perform his ‘gayness’. As he still lives at home with an extremely conservative family this is essentially the only way he knows to express his sexuality.
Kojima, D. (2014). Migrant intimacies: Mobilities-in-difference and basue tactics in queer Asian diasporas. Anthropologica 56(1), pp.33-44.
A Study In Dreams / Part One : Sigmund Freud Was A Hack
‘if you think [blank character] was in love with their abuser, that’s gross’
‘[blank character] still has positive feelings about their abuser/doesn’t hate their abuser, so it’s not really abuse’
one of those statements tends to be thrown around by antis who don’t like people discussing abuse in fiction. the other is thrown around by abuse apologists.
similarities between those statements? incredibly fucking invalidating for anyone who ever loved their abuser, and incredibly fucking ignorant of how abuse operates like. in general. literally, if you’re going to make either of these statements shut your mouth and think it over and then never say it because neither of those are arguments.
Charlie's Blog 