My First Blog Post

24 Aug

Well, this is awkward: I don’t like first blog posts. In fact, I hate them. I mean, when other people do them it’s fine: my discomfort refers only to my own first blog posts. I don’t really know what I want this blog to be, yet, apart from more temporally successful than my previous blogs and also less whiny. (Good start, Lizzo.) It just feels so hard to get into these things without worrying that you’re setting some kind of precedent – and then admonishing yourself for imagining you have a particular type of audience, or any at all beyond futureliz. (Hi, futureliz.)

Fuck it. I’m going to write a blog post about hot men.

There aren’t many men that I find hot; I like to call them my ‘exceptions.’ I suppose it’s kind of like that Friends episode where they’re all discussing the famous people they’d be allowed to sleep with if they got the opportunity whilst in an otherwise monogamous relationship – except it really isn’t because it’s hardly as though the people I’m involved with have a rule against me fucking men. I just generally don’t find (cisgendered) men at all appealing. Except. For these guys. I think part of the appeal is that I am clearly never going to meet these people and also they are mainly characters in TV programmes so there is a suitable distance between me and having to interact with a cisman’s actual penis (although, that said, I suppose that wouldn’t be a necessity). I think another part of the appeal is HELLO look at them.

Eric fucking Northman

OH HAI. I’ve been watching some episodes of True Blood season four with my brother Will recently and it has just brought all the Ericlust back, although I do still prefer him with longer hair. I think a lot of what made it easy for me to be attracted to Eric (because I generally find it difficult to find my way into a mental space in which I can find men attractive) was all the homoeroticism which I’m SURE wasn’t just shipping but was a bit of a real actual thing in the True Bloodiverse. I mean. Just look at him.

Spike

Clearly there is a bit of a theme here. HELLO SPIKE. I started watching Buffy when it was first shown on BBC2, so when Spike hit the screens I would’ve been about twelve and identifying as bisexual. These days I can see that a lot of the physical attributes Spike and Eric have are attributes that I find incredibly attractive in women – tallness, good cheekbones, muscly, bit moody-looking (or “interesting”). I especially like Spike in New York in 1977, as pictured here – he basically looks like my ideal boy when I was in my teens, whom I obviously never met because he only really existed in fiction and also had I met him irl I would have hated him for being problematic on, like, a million levels. Oh, also, the homoerotic potential of Spike and Angel totally didn’t pass me by.

Jeremy’s Iron

Oh, Jeremy. Jeremy with the SILKEN VOICE and EXCELLENT FACE. The other day, Ryan and I were watching the latter bit of The French Lieutenant’s Woman and it was just the best thing ever, especially with Meryl Streep. We just didn’t know where to look. Also, it was really confusing and we probably should watch it from start to finish some time. ANYWAY. I am in a constant state of dismay that I haven’t seen Brideshead Revisited, since my favourite men are men that get with other men; I mean, I do want to read it before I see it, and I haven’t read it yet, so there is a very simple way to solve this problem (except I’m reading Orlando and Sex and the Slayer at the moment, so). Jeremy just has such a delicately beautiful face and the lip curve is just omg. Also I’ve more often than not seen him playing villains, which is obviously something I like in a fantasy man.

After all that, I actually can’t think of any other men I find really attractive; I think I might have manswooned myself out. At least my first post is done 🙂

Advertisements

4 Responses to “My First Blog Post”

  1. burnyourbones August 24, 2011 at 13:22 #

    Cor Jeremy’s Iron! I was not expecting that. You scrub up. Or, you know, have the ability to take your top off, it appears.

    I haven’t seen Brideshead yet for exactly the same reason. The worst part is I have read half of the book but got a bit bored and haven’t ever finished it (yet! I do plan to finish someday, Kif.)

    Oh yes, villains. Have you seen any of the Borgeas yet? Apparently he’s great in that as a baddie. Though I mainly want to see it for unnecessarily ugly rat-faced ginger stuff-puncher and one time player of Ian Curtis, Sean Harris.

    I’ve just remembered Irons was in Playbus. Or Playschool. Or Play Days. Or something like that. Youtube must have evidence of this.

    #procrastinationklaxon

  2. Tim August 24, 2011 at 17:43 #

    You probably thought you were doing the right thing by specifying that it’s only cis men you rarely find appealing, but as it is, this whole post has a nasty undertone of implying that you consider trans men to be a variety of woman.

    You know some of us have those icky penises as well, right? Of course, you probably don’t find us ‘appealing’ once we transition far enough that you can’t pretend we’re just butch girls.

    I’m sorry to be so negative on your first post, especially when it’s otherwise so innocuous, but that statement really rubbed me up the wrong way. The cis female queer community has a really nasty history of fetishising trans men and completely marginalising bi and lesbian trans women.

    We are at least in agreement about the fact that Alexander Skarsgard is hot, though I personally preferred him in Generation Kill. The 80s-rock hairdo doesn’t quite do it for me.

    • lizsylvian August 29, 2011 at 16:55 #

      Hi, Tim,

      I’m sorry that my blog rubbed you up the wrong way – I certainly didn’t mean for it to imply that I considered trans men to be a variety of woman, which is a point of view to which I am entirely opposed. I feel, though, that you misinterpreted where I was coming from; I accept that this is partly because I wasn’t careful enough with my language, but also feel that, to some extent, you have jumped to a conclusion about what I meant.

      I think context is really important here. A penis isn’t in itself problematic but, for me, context is extremely important and has a massive effect on how I interact with and respond to penises. I have reasons for finding penises belonging to straight, cis men troublesome that also mean that I find it difficult to disentangle my discomfort with them from my discomfort with straight cis men in general. There is a great deal of tension between this and my intellectual desire to reject gender essentialism, and I understand that you might not find this sufficient defence. That said, I won’t apologise to you for my experiences.

      It was never my intention to imply that penises could only be the property of cisgendered men, or that trans men couldn’t have penises; that simply isn’t something that I believe. I understand that the language I used left this open to interpretation, which isn’t okay when dealing with a subject like this, which is immediately relevant when discussing genitalia and gender identities and sexuality. I’m really sorry about dropping the ball like that.

      I don’t mean to deny you the right to your own reading of this blog post: I’m on board with the whole Death of the Author thing and accept that, particularly when I publish text in a public forum, it isn’t up to me to dictate ‘what it means.’ However, I feel that the following statement you made in response to my blog post was really unfair: ‘Of course, you probably don’t find us ‘appealing’ once we transition far enough that you can’t pretend we’re just butch girls.’ I feel that this is really problematic, not least because it was the result of you making the choice to jump to a conclusion about what I meant rather than asking me questions to make sure first. It is unfair for you to assume anything about my sexual and romantic relationships – the people that I have them with, and the way that I interact with these people’s genders. It is particularly unfair of you to accuse me of ‘pretending’ that people I might be interested in identify in ways that you presume I would find more comfortable than how they actually identify. This is something that I have never done, and would never do. I feel really hurt that you’ve said this about me; to be honest, I think it’s really fucked up. I also think that it wasn’t meant as part of a constructive response to things in my post that you found problematic: I think you said it to be nasty, and I don’t appreciate that. Another problem I have with this statement is that it reduces the spectrum of female masculinity to ‘butch’ and it imposes a fixed barrier between female masculinity and transmasculinity, which just isn’t there: there are overlaps, and it is complicated, and I feel like your overview implies an essentialism that I just don’t think is true. Furthermore, it implies that all trans men undergo some form of medical transition.

      I’d like to request that you don’t refer to me as ‘cis’ in the future. To my knowledge, we have not had a discussion about the ins and outs of my gender identity, and that is not a word that I use to describe myself. Just because a lot of my gender presentation is coded as ‘feminine’ and my body was assigned female at birth does not mean that my gender “matches” my body – and, again, I would rather that you didn’t make assumptions about this part of my life. Another set of assumptions that you made that I find really problematic are the implicit ones about my involvement in a (and the existence of a cogent) ‘cis female queer community.’ My community includes women that identify as cis; it also includes trans men, trans women, and people of other genders and, as mentioned above, I don’t feel particular kinship with ‘cis female queer’ people, because that is not how I identify. I understand that my post made you feel marginalised and once again I am really, really sorry about that, but there was no call to associate me with a ‘history of fetishizing trans men.’ I accept that I was remiss in not being more specific about body politics in this post, but the only people I was fetishising were Alexander Skarsgaard, James Marsters and Jeremy Irons.

      I am totally up for discussion and debate, in particular about issues regarding sex, sexuality and gender; I also like to think that I’m very open to challenges about my language and actions, and appreciate the space to explore ways that I might better articulate myself so as to enact my politics. I can’t help but feel, though, that your post was an attack and not conducive to either of these things – you were essentially telling me off, and I find that patronising. I’d really like to continue this discussion with you but have to ask that you talk to me more respectfully.

  3. Jacob August 24, 2011 at 21:03 #

    Congrats on your new blog liz!

    My newish blog slowed down somewhat… as my capacity to write something presentable has been diminished by having too much to say and not enough words to succinctly express it without garnering flame from someone or other!

    But I can get back to it I reckon!

    HAPPY FIRST POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: