The rise in the popularity of Love and Deepspace (which, for brevity, I’ll be abbreviating to LADS) is incredibly interesting to me, particularly when we analyse it in conjunction with broad social trends within dating and relationships. I think that the uptick in AI Companionship and how women engage with it reflects a deeper set of issues pervading relationships and intimacy with women who experience attraction to men. Moreover, I think that this does speak to a generalised divestment - or, at the very least, re-examining - from previous views and approaches to heterosexual relationships. Personally, I believe that this is developing as a reaction to the broader uptick in misogyny.
While LADS is often dismissed as simply a ‘Gooner Game’ - that is, essentially, pornography for women - I think that such a dismissal is both inaccurate in terms of the game’s content as well as the motives and draw experience by its playerbase. It’s not entirely incorrect to point out that, yes, there is a degree of suggestive content in the game, particularly in the dating/relationship sides of the game, but LADS is much deeper than that. The game presents a self-directed approach to players: players interested in the story and universe of LADS can focus on that, whereas those players who wish to prioritise the ‘dating simulator’ aspects of the game are free to do so - while the dating aspect is, admittedly, much of the draw, presenting it as solely a dating game is, really, quite inaccurate.
Moreover, I think the way such a criticism is levelled is far more telling about the critics than the players; fundamentally, it suggests a refusal to engage with the game by simply writing it off as nothing more than just simple fluff met to titillate touch-starved players. Plus, the fact that this criticism has been, broadly, made by men is rather revealing. Firstly, it’s quite telling that a game that heavily targets, and is played primarily by, women receives these critiques, whereas arguably far more ‘explicit’ games that target men do not - or at least not from these same critics. Secondly, I think it’s rather telling that a game where the Love Interests are primarily approaching the player/main character through a lens of respectful attraction receives such heavy criticism from men.
But what truly fascinates me is the draw of LADS; as previously mentioned, I think that LADS represents a sort of ‘Heterosexual Idealism’ - that is, the idea of a heterosexual relationship where the man genuinely loves, respects, and cares for his girlfriend. And I think this speaks to a broader trend in society; we see more and more women turning to these types of ‘escapist’ content - such as LADS, CharacterAI, Dark Romance, and similar content - that, arguably, fulfills this Heterosexual idealism in response to the resurgence of misogyny in society, particularly in terms of dating.
To put it bluntly, as more and more men demonstrate themselves to be incapable of being a proper partner - often reacting with blatant misogyny when called out for such failings - I think we’ve seen a growing divestment from women. Relationships with men can be perilious, toxic, traumatising, and, unfortunately, too-often abusive. Naturally, it’s understandable that many women would choose to simply refocus their time and decentre men from their lives.
And this is where LADS comes in. LADS, and AI Boyfriends broadly, offers a sense of fulfillment for this desire for emotional intimacy with men while often avoiding the pitfalls that come with it. Women don’t have to worry about Xavier, Zayne, Rafayel, Sylus, nor Caleb abusing them, manipulating them, cheating on them, or anything else - they represent a simultaneously wish fulfillment of Heterosexual Idealism while also highlighting how, truly, low the bar is. Really, do the LADS boys truly represent an unattainable ideal, or do they simply represent the idea of a man who consistently goes above the bare minimum? It wouldn’t be impossible for a man to be what LADS players desire - sensitive, kind, emotionally intelligent, respectful, and supportive - it’d simply require consistent effort. But such a request is too often met with anger, resentment, mockery, or dismissal.
Which creates the question: if an AI Boyfriend can offer a sufficient simulacra of a relationship beyond what many men are willing to do, is it worth it? Is it worth letting oneself be wooed by the digital embrace of Artificial Intelligence?
It seems many women have, to some extent, answered yes.
But from this comes another question: how do we bridge the human desire for physical intimacy with the intangibility of AI? Currently, while AI has made admittedly shocking strides in advancement in terms of communication ability, memory, and realism, it is still bound by the limitations of the black mirror of computer screens.
moreover, i'd like to briefly add - in an admittedly more unstructured addition - that this issue surrounding how we conceptualise masculinity as inherently malevolent also hurts queer people as well.
even if we choose to decide that we have no concerns about how this can - and does - hurt men (which, personally, is not something i can agree with), it cannot be ignored how this affects queer people by proxy.
when we assert masculinity is inherently toxic, we therefore, whether intentionally or not, implicitly assert that those who are connected to masculinity in any way are similarly toxic - or are at least, by nature of their proximity masculinity, inherently more 'dangerous.'
this is the type of essentialist logic that paints transgender women as predatory or inexorably socialised as male for no reason other than having committed the 'original sin' of being born a boy; this is the same type of essentialist logic that asserts that transgender men are, by nature of identifying with masculinity, somehow 'dangerous' to women (please, i encourage you to read the many posts discussing this transandrophobia); this is the essentialist logic that leads to bisexual women being seen as 'dirty' through this puritan lens of evaluating their attraction and love of men as somehow 'tainting' them; this is the essentialist logic that presumes butches are, by their masculine nature, 'aggressive' or 'rougher' than femmes.
it's easy to fall victim to these ideas - and it doesn't inherently make you a bad person - but it's important to critically examine and sit with our conceptualisations of masculinity, gender, and gender essentialism so that we can grow beyond them.
i’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in pornography, specifically in the seemingly gendered approach to it. Broadly speaking, there is a sort of ‘binary’ to the demographics of AI Pornography; men, typically, gravitate towards AI Images while women tend to gravitate more towards AI erotic roleplay (such as Chai and similar platforms which permit 18+ roleplay, unlike CharacterAI, generally speaking). While the gendered differences in consumption of pornography have been discussed and analysed before, I’m particularly interested in the broader implications of the intersection of AI and roleplay within pornography as I feel it differs from the traditional erotica-focused/text-focused pornography that many women gravitate towards, which I feel indicates a broader social pattern.
Particularly, what fascinates me about this is how much of this roleplay isn’t simply action-based (i.e., focused solely on sex) but rather more narrative-based (i.e., a specific dynamic - a mafia husband who’s secretly falling for you, a demon boyfriend courting his angel girlfriend, a prince smitten with a princess, and so on), which speaks to a broader desire for emotional connection.
Simply put, a cursory glance at these bots suggests that the user demographic seeks more than just sex - they seek connection.
Now, on its own this is not inherently surprising nor new - many women tend to prefer to feel ‘desired’ or ‘courted’ by their partners - but rather, I think that the broader social context that we see this interest evolving in is noteworthy. I think it is fundamentally linked to a larger social dynamic of the growing social gaps between men and women.
Over the past several years, particularly since the start of the pandemic, men in many countries have shifted towards more conservative and reactionary viewpoints; men overwhelmingly vote conservatively, many men have become far more outspoken in their misogynistic viewpoints, and many men have overwhelmingly demonstrated themselves to not be a desirable partner - be it due to politics, unequal contributions to domestic labour, disinterest in female sexual pleasure, or a litany of other factors.
Moreover, as the rate of female college graduates continues to rise - while the male rate declines - and womens’ overall growth in careers, mental health, education, income, and similar categories catches up to - or outright outpaces - mens’ performance, more and more women have seemed to developed a growing awareness that, simply put, being in a relationship with a man frankly does not offer the same benefits as it once did.
In reaction to this, many - though not all, of course - men have reacted negatively, instead doubling down on these behaviours rather than seeking to improve, which, in turn, has resulted in many women de-centering and de-prioritising men.
Concurrent to this, we’ve seen the rapid development and evolution of AI, which almost offers an escape - the ability to instead find fulfillment from an ‘AI Boyfriend’ - who’ll never leave dishes by the sink or ignore your pleasure - which I think contributes to this divide. Fundamentally, if you still desire companionship, at least in the vaguest of senses, you can satisfy it momentarily through the virtual embrace of AI.
Now, this isn’t to blame women for such a pivot - it’s wholly understandable why, given the above reasons, a woman might decide that remaining single isn’t that bad of an option - but I think it nonetheless requires discussion as we stare down the question of what happens when a large portion of the population may not end up in a relationship?
Regardless of what side of the issue an individual falls on, the question nonetheless retains its gravity. Fundamentally, whether or not we view men as wholly or in part at fault for this social trend in women choosing to remain single, we must consider how this affects men.
For example, if we take a group of 100 heterosexual men and estimate that 20% of them will not end up in a relationship, that leaves 20 men effectively isolated - particularly when we look at statistics of male friendships. Now, if we assume that 40% of them are unable to find a partner for ‘self-induced’ reasons - such as holding misogynistic views, for instance - that nonetheless leaves 12 seemingly ‘decent’ men single.
Now I’m not arguing that those 12 individuals are entitled to a relationship nor that they are obligated to be ‘given a chance,’ but rather I think we must ask ourselves: what happens to those overlooked individuals? It’s not sufficient to simply say “sucks to be you” as, ultimately, humans will still desire connection. Moreover, when we look at the systems that target these men - pipelines of radicalisation, such as the Far-Right - we fundamentally need to consider the outcomes of these circumstances.
I’m not positioning myself as a ‘defender of men’ here, but I fundamentally believe that we should not just abandon a segment of the population for no reason other than their gender. While, yes, the onus does ultimately fall on men as a whole to build up spaces and connections to combat this isolation, we nonetheless have to consider, as progressives, what will we do in response to this? Will we simply abandon these individuals, telling them to effectively ‘figure it out’ and leave them to search for communities, many of which implicitly push them out?
Fundamentally, I feel that that is an issue that pervades many progressive spaces; there is this tendency to engage in rhetoric outwardly hostile towards men and then be surprised that men are broadly disinterested in these spaces.
Now, I’m not arguing that we should placate and centre men - much of this rhetoric comes from people and groups who have understandable reasons to be distrustful of men, given the unfortunately too-common experiences of male violence - but we must nonetheless consider how we communicate this. To put it bluntly, we cannot reasonably expect men to happily sit by and be told they are fundamentally evil due to their gender; rather, we should try to find a reconcile our justifiable anger towards patriarchial violence while still offering space to men.
This doesn’t mean that we have to blindly tolerate patriarchial views and attitudes - fundamentally, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, should be held accountable and encouraged to grow - but instead we should open ourselves to a more intersectional perspective that considers that we are all victims of patriarchial violence.
Obviously, I’m not trying to equivocate between individual experiences of patriarchial violence and present them as all equal; instead, I’m simply positing that, in our ever-divided society, extending empathy to others is beneficial to reactionary ideology when we can.
In closing, I feel the words of Bell Hooks communicate my point much better than I ever could:
“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.” - Bell Hooks, “The Will To Change”
i’ve been thinking a lot lately about AI and its use in pornography, specifically in the seemingly gendered approach to it. Broadly speaking, there is a sort of ‘binary’ to the demographics of AI Pornography; men, typically, gravitate towards AI Images while women tend to gravitate more towards AI erotic roleplay (such as Chai and similar platforms which permit 18+ roleplay, unlike CharacterAI, generally speaking). While the gendered differences in consumption of pornography have been discussed and analysed before, I’m particularly interested in the broader implications of the intersection of AI and roleplay within pornography as I feel it differs from the traditional erotica-focused/text-focused pornography that many women gravitate towards, which I feel indicates a broader social pattern.
Particularly, what fascinates me about this is how much of this roleplay isn’t simply action-based (i.e., focused solely on sex) but rather more narrative-based (i.e., a specific dynamic - a mafia husband who’s secretly falling for you, a demon boyfriend courting his angel girlfriend, a prince smitten with a princess, and so on), which speaks to a broader desire for emotional connection.
Simply put, a cursory glance at these bots suggests that the user demographic seeks more than just sex - they seek connection.
Now, on its own this is not inherently surprising nor new - many women tend to prefer to feel ‘desired’ or ‘courted’ by their partners - but rather, I think that the broader social context that we see this interest evolving in is noteworthy. I think it is fundamentally linked to a larger social dynamic of the growing social gaps between men and women.
Over the past several years, particularly since the start of the pandemic, men in many countries have shifted towards more conservative and reactionary viewpoints; men overwhelmingly vote conservatively, many men have become far more outspoken in their misogynistic viewpoints, and many men have overwhelmingly demonstrated themselves to not be a desirable partner - be it due to politics, unequal contributions to domestic labour, disinterest in female sexual pleasure, or a litany of other factors.
Moreover, as the rate of female college graduates continues to rise - while the male rate declines - and womens’ overall growth in careers, mental health, education, income, and similar categories catches up to - or outright outpaces - mens’ performance, more and more women have seemed to developed a growing awareness that, simply put, being in a relationship with a man frankly does not offer the same benefits as it once did.
In reaction to this, many - though not all, of course - men have reacted negatively, instead doubling down on these behaviours rather than seeking to improve, which, in turn, has resulted in many women de-centering and de-prioritising men.
Concurrent to this, we’ve seen the rapid development and evolution of AI, which almost offers an escape - the ability to instead find fulfillment from an ‘AI Boyfriend’ - who’ll never leave dishes by the sink or ignore your pleasure - which I think contributes to this divide. Fundamentally, if you still desire companionship, at least in the vaguest of senses, you can satisfy it momentarily through the virtual embrace of AI.
Now, this isn’t to blame women for such a pivot - it’s wholly understandable why, given the above reasons, a woman might decide that remaining single isn’t that bad of an option - but I think it nonetheless requires discussion as we stare down the question of what happens when a large portion of the population may not end up in a relationship?
Regardless of what side of the issue an individual falls on, the question nonetheless retains its gravity. Fundamentally, whether or not we view men as wholly or in part at fault for this social trend in women choosing to remain single, we must consider how this affects men.
For example, if we take a group of 100 heterosexual men and estimate that 20% of them will not end up in a relationship, that leaves 20 men effectively isolated - particularly when we look at statistics of male friendships. Now, if we assume that 40% of them are unable to find a partner for ‘self-induced’ reasons - such as holding misogynistic views, for instance - that nonetheless leaves 12 seemingly ‘decent’ men single.
Now I’m not arguing that those 12 individuals are entitled to a relationship nor that they are obligated to be ‘given a chance,’ but rather I think we must ask ourselves: what happens to those overlooked individuals? It’s not sufficient to simply say “sucks to be you” as, ultimately, humans will still desire connection. Moreover, when we look at the systems that target these men - pipelines of radicalisation, such as the Far-Right - we fundamentally need to consider the outcomes of these circumstances.
I’m not positioning myself as a ‘defender of men’ here, but I fundamentally believe that we should not just abandon a segment of the population for no reason other than their gender. While, yes, the onus does ultimately fall on men as a whole to build up spaces and connections to combat this isolation, we nonetheless have to consider, as progressives, what will we do in response to this? Will we simply abandon these individuals, telling them to effectively ‘figure it out’ and leave them to search for communities, many of which implicitly push them out?
Fundamentally, I feel that that is an issue that pervades many progressive spaces; there is this tendency to engage in rhetoric outwardly hostile towards men and then be surprised that men are broadly disinterested in these spaces.
Now, I’m not arguing that we should placate and centre men - much of this rhetoric comes from people and groups who have understandable reasons to be distrustful of men, given the unfortunately too-common experiences of male violence - but we must nonetheless consider how we communicate this. To put it bluntly, we cannot reasonably expect men to happily sit by and be told they are fundamentally evil due to their gender; rather, we should try to find a reconcile our justifiable anger towards patriarchial violence while still offering space to men.
This doesn’t mean that we have to blindly tolerate patriarchial views and attitudes - fundamentally, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, should be held accountable and encouraged to grow - but instead we should open ourselves to a more intersectional perspective that considers that we are all victims of patriarchial violence.
Obviously, I’m not trying to equivocate between individual experiences of patriarchial violence and present them as all equal; instead, I’m simply positing that, in our ever-divided society, extending empathy to others is beneficial to reactionary ideology when we can.
In closing, I feel the words of Bell Hooks communicate my point much better than I ever could:
“To create loving men, we must love males. Loving maleness is different from praising and rewarding males for living up to sexist-defined notions of male identity. Caring about men because of what they do for us is not the same as loving males for simply being. When we love maleness, we extend our love whether males are performing or not. Performance is different from simply being. In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an anti-patriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth. They know from birth that simply being gives them value, the right to be cherished and loved.” - Bell Hooks, “The Will To Change”
heres a link to my first lookbook !!
it features art that....tbh i never thought i'd ever share publicly - but i've decided to be open abt...
i hope you enjoy it ^-^
hi everyone!! your 5th favourite queer yapper on tumblr has excited news !!
if youre into abstract art, i have a portfolio ^-^ you can find it here
alsooo i'll be posting my first lookbook In The Soon™️ on my instagram so take a look if you wanna see ^-^
hi everyone!! your 5th favourite queer yapper on tumblr has excited news !!
if youre into abstract art, i have a portfolio ^-^ you can find it here
alsooo i'll be posting my first lookbook In The Soon™️ on my instagram so take a look if you wanna see ^-^
oh boy, incoming bisexual discourse
so this is admittedly quite rambly, but ive been thinking a lot about the stigmatisation of bisexuality within sapphic spaces a lot lately. like, there’s this pervasive expectation that bisexuals will downplay their attraction to men (e.g., the whole “i’m attracted to like every woman and 2 men” and similar), which feels so incredibly hurtful to me.
i think my issue with it stems from the fact that it’s rooted in basically the need to ‘apologise’ for experiencing attraction to men - and masculinity writ large - that bothers me so much as a bisexual. like, i shouldn’t have to apologise or downplay that, yes, i find men attractive - and no, not just uwu submissive soft boys. like, there’s this pervasive issue within queer spaces that results in the demonisation of masculinity and it results in creating this expectation that bisexuals, especially in sapphic spaces, will suppress their attraction to men in a sort of ‘apology’ for it.
and like this is fundamentally biphobic. like, it’s rooted in this expectation that we as bisexuals must downplay and dismiss and apologise for committing the sin of gasp being attracted to men - which is deeply rooted in purity culture. this puritanism creates this notion that being attracted to or, even worse, having past experiences with men taints the individual, which is incredibly harmful. this type of attitude is what hurts bisexuals (and other multi-sexuals), hurts late-bloomer lesbians, hurts mascs, and hurts butches. it fundamentally creates this exclusionary atmosphere that is rooted in this pervasive, inescapable disdain for masculinity.
anyways i'm sure i have more thoughts on this, but thats kinda what's been in my brain lately
i really look forward to when we separate androgyny and gender non-conformance from thinness
androgyny does not have to be thin, white, and eurocentrically attractive
(if microlabels. contradictory labels, xenogender, etc. are something you have issue with, then dni please)
my hot take is that i side-eye this whole intellectualisation of queerness sometimes. like, i'm all for discussing and critically examining our identities (bc oh boy wouldn't it be ironic if i wasn't), but i just get the ick with how often we'll explain an identity with a paragraph of text behind it
like, okay, take for example the current discourse around the whole afab transfem/amab transmasc stuff; while, sure, i think explaining *why* someone might feel like that label represents them is helpful, i also feel like we shouldn't *have* to
like, if someone wants to call themselves something, then they can. i do not think there should be an expectation to explain, justify, or defend their reason; the sentence "i feel that this label genuinely represents how i feel" is sufficient
i suppose the reason it bothers me is that i see it disproportionately directed towards people who use microlabels or contradictory labels, and it often tends to imply that the use of such label is not enough, that it must be proven 'legitimate' before it can be accepted
idk, i haven't fully sifted through my thoughts on this (and obv there is a lot of nuance i'm skipping over here), it's just something i've been clocking lately
i find it interesting how when discussing internet communities and spaces, the common defence is that the communities' members are minors/neurodivergent/autistic/etc so we shouldn't bully them rather than that we shouldn't bully people on principle?
like, the phrase "don't bully people" shouldn't require qualifiers like "because they're [x];" it should stand on its own. because by that logic, if someone committed the crime of Being Unusual Online and wasn't a minor/neurodivergent/etc, would that make it acceptable to bully them?
idk, it's just kinda ick to me how we seem to approach cyberbullying and online harassment as "don't do it if they have an excusable behaviour" vs "don't do it because people shouldn't be bullied"
and let me be clear, i'm not saying you have to agree with these people. like, you're allowed to not want to interact/see/whatever a certain community, i genuinely do not care. but like, that still does not justify creating blind, visceral hatred over it.
and it's not because a lot of these communities targeted, such as radqueers, tend to be younger or neurodivergent, or whatever else (though do keep that in mind); it's that no one deserves this blind hate for simply existing. you're welcome to have a dni for them, you're welcome to want to avoid stuff you don't like, you're welcome to have boundaries, but like consider whether this is a "yeah i don't feel comfortable about this and would like to avoid it when possible" vs a "these people existing is wrong and bad"
the whole “is x valid” discourse is so bizaare to me; like obviously there’s the fact that we’re arguing about whether a person’s existence and identity is valid (especially when queer existence and rights as a whole are under attack), but also just the absurdity of the premise?
like what is the successful outcome here? does anyone genuinely believe that tumblr discourse is going to make someone change their identity? like is a non-binary lesbian gonna be like “you know what, tucutesmasher46 raises a valid point and i’ll re-define my entire identity to align with their stance?” (or is it just the desire to bully and harass people who ‘don’t lesbian correctly?’)
moreover, it’s the disparity between the outrage to the population that confuses me; like, i’ll see posts ranting about rad-queers, and it’s like…guys…you’re worrying about like 30 people on tumblr.
the whole “is x valid” discourse is so bizaare to me; like obviously there’s the fact that we’re arguing about whether a person’s existence and identity is valid (especially when queer existence and rights as a whole are under attack), but also just the absurdity of the premise?
like what is the successful outcome here? does anyone genuinely believe that tumblr discourse is going to make someone change their identity? like is a non-binary lesbian gonna be like “you know what, tucutesmasher46 raises a valid point and i’ll re-define my entire identity to align with their stance?” (or is it just the desire to bully and harass people who ‘don’t lesbian correctly?’)
moreover, it’s the disparity between the outrage to the population that confuses me; like, i’ll see posts ranting about rad-queers, and it’s like…guys…you’re worrying about like 30 people on tumblr.
hi, i'm valerian; yes, i'm yet another queer theorist on tumblr - original, i'm aware /lh
generally, i try to remain on topics primarily focusing on queer culture history, and identity; however, i tend to share whatever piques my (special) interests
like, i'm gonna be so fr and say that my posts basically go wherever the autism takes me lol
i don't really care who reads/reblogs my posts and, sure, if you want to dm me, then go ahead (please refrain from messaging me if you're under 18, thanks), but i can't guarantee i'll reply. likewise, asks are fine but i can't promise a timely reply.
also if you're into art, feel free to look at my portfolio ^-^
this will likely be continuously revised as i feel the desire to btw