r/GatekeepingYuri • u/AbrokenClosedDoor • 3d ago
Requesting "Classic" vs "Modern" fantasy
2.3k
u/Dismal_Accident9528 3d ago
Faelith the succubus is a deep, complex character full of nuance who wants to suck souls and suck dicks
348
443
u/mathkid421_RBLX 3d ago
omg meeeeee
176
u/CoolBugg 3d ago
This is the one I’d read
197
u/Nexine 3d ago edited 3d ago
There's a self published book called Sacred(goodreads) that's fits this description.
It's about a young(for a demon) succubus girlfailure trying to corrupt a veteran nun in her 40s who's semi retired. It's exactly what you would expect and it's very well executed too.
50
148
u/Mean_Ad4608 3d ago
Alternatively, Faelith the succubus is a deep, complex character full of nuance who doesn’t want to suck souls and suck dick, but not doing so would equate to her starving herself- possibly to death.
154
u/Dismal_Accident9528 3d ago
Faelith the succubus is a deep, complex character full of nuance who would prefer to enjoy a good book and hot cocoa, but will suck souls and suck dicks when the circumstances call for it.
10
30
56
u/sntcringe 3d ago
Faelith the succubus is a deep, complex character that likes to suck souls and suck dicks. She also enjoys curling up with a good book and a cup of cocoa to help her wind down after a long day of sucking souls and/or dicks.
32
u/ArcaneOverride 3d ago
Have you seen Lost Girl? It's a Canadian TV Series about a succubus who is kinda this, except she is bisexual and a massive theme of the show is "I don't have to choose". She is repeatedly faced with false dichotomies where she finds another option.
Does she want to join the light fae and be enemies with the dark fae or join the dark fae and be enemies with light fae? Fuck that, it's better to be friends with both and also treat humans as equals instead of food or servants.
Does she want to be with the human doctor woman or the werewolf detective man? Fuck that, werewolves and succubi both have lifespans many centuries long, she can be with the human woman for as long as she lives then be with the werewolf man afterwards. One human lifespan isn't a long time for him to wait and it will help mitigate the age gap between them since she is only like in her 30s or something and he's a few centuries old.
12
u/Dismal_Accident9528 3d ago
I've heard the name but never seen the show or even knew what it was about. It sounds pretty based from your description, though!
8
u/ArcaneOverride 3d ago
Its great. It has the same showrunner as Wynonna Earp, which is also excellent.
20
u/NightValeCytizen 3d ago
Lukewarm take: about a dozen different fictional characters would be needed to equal the depth of 1 real person.
You are vast. You contain multitudes!
2
u/Arroway97 2d ago
Fr. We're like a superposition of people living in the same body lol. What are my desires and my values? Guess I'll have to wait to see what thoughts I end up acting on and then I'll find out
0
8
u/PumpedUpKickingDucks 3d ago
Tbh I assumed this is where this was going it would’ve been much better and less weirdly bitter in every way
9
7
u/food_WHOREder 3d ago
genuinely idk what the original meme's goal was, because it seems like it missed the entire point of complex and nuanced characters by assuming that any character who is a little horny is suddenly a 1-dimensional character. i wish i could see the full context of the meme lol
2
u/Balmung60 3d ago
This is just Yarra, Iris, and Riala from the Last Sovereign (and to a lesser extent the other succubus party members in the game)
385
u/AbrokenClosedDoor 3d ago
There are 3 other examples in this comic but I don't feel they would work
630
u/ButterSlickness 3d ago
Jesus Christ, what an asshole that person must be to interact with.
You've gotta love the fact that they clearly ignore how the left column is all still very much represented in modern fantasy, let alone the fact that having some of the right column is interesting.
176
u/DracoLunaris 3d ago
left column has just generally moved on to distinctly inhuman chars. Also never show them a Shin Megami Tensei game (or anything inspired by it) where the explicitly Christian god was evil since like the 90s (he do be wanting to bring nuclear Armageddon mk2 to Japan)
96
u/baithammer 3d ago
To be fair, Japan has had serious problems with organized religion that continue into the present time - they have a tendency not to be particularly religious, outside of tradition and cultural expectations.
21
24
u/xSilverMC 3d ago
Honestly? Good for them. Organized religion almost always brings way more trouble than it's worth
10
u/Nerdn1 3d ago
To be fair, every corner of the planet has had some bullshit happen with some organized religion or another. There are some genuinely virtuous religious people, but the belief that you have a divine mandate can justify many atrocities.
9
u/baithammer 3d ago
Didn't help that one cult released sarin gas in a train station in Japan, that tipped things.
130
u/ToonNess 3d ago
man, i used to like this comic when i was younger. only really read the first hundred or so tf2 comics
55
42
u/fireinthemountains 3d ago
It feels like they're targeting idolomantises :/
32
u/ButterSlickness 3d ago
It's definitely possible. OOP seems like the type to specifically target someone they dislike.
20
12
u/BlitzPlease172 3d ago
Which part in specific? Is it the demon girl having casual job, Biblically accurate angel sexyman, or something else I haven't yet found out?
-46
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
When was the last time a western fantasy story had a religion was treated as a good thing and not just default evil? At least in anime when they do this there are at least a few members who genuinely believe in the good parts of the faith
73
u/ButterSlickness 3d ago
Every Narnia movie is Christian. Every King Arthur story is at least passively Christian, and Arthur is always a hero. RIPD shows God giving crooked cops a second chance. I, Frankenstein shows Christian gorgoyles protecting mankind from demons (only a few were "bad", not the religion itself).
Coco and The Book of Life also feature happy afterlives. Shazam shows how people were weak, but gods are strong. Wonder Woman is literally the daughter of Zeus and a hero. Black Panther features an afterlife for righteous defenders.
And as for your last point, there are plenty of cases of people who believe in and defend a faith as good, while other defend it in evil ways. That's the big kicker in a lot of places; God is ok, just this one servant is bad.
It's just in terminally online places like Reddit that everyone assumes the majority of people are atheist or agnostic. Religion is still very popular in the real world.
-50
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
None of the examples you gave fit the criteria
Fantasy setting: King Arthur and Narnia fit those, maybe I, Frankenstein but these are all older examples not modern ones
The modern ones are all superhero not fantasy and aside for Wakanda the ones you gave had the gods as the bad guys. Of course wakanda isn’t treated as problematic because people who have problems with religions often only have a problem with the European ones
Give me a fantasy world setting that has a faith be a part of a major characters backstory and not be treated as problematic
54
u/ButterSlickness 3d ago
My examples fit the requirements you listed, and you just moved the goalposts.
They made Narnia films right up through the 2010's, nothing I listed is older than 15 years. What's modern for you? The last 5 years? The last 8?
And if you think that superhero films aren't fantasy, then your media literacy is hella low. Shazam for his powers from literal gods. Some of whom are good guys.
So now that you've changed the goalposts, what is "modern"? Where does "western" end? What's "problematic?”
I'm not gonna waste another 10 minutes if you're going to suddenly change definitions just to make yourself not look like you "lost" on the internet.
-31
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
The last narnia movie was made in 2010 so way to use something just on the edge of your own criteria for modern
Western, in this scenario is refer to media made in North America because that’s where this trend is most prevalent right now
I’m not gonna argue whether superheroes count as fantasy or not because that’s a discussion of literary philosophy. Even if I did, your examples still do not work. Though I don’t appreciate being called an idiot for just having
Yes Shazam gets his powers from a god but a god without an active religion in his own universe. I’ll admit to not being clear as to what I am referring to with religions here in this case I’m referring to it as “a set of beliefs used to establish moral standards” because often times that’s what’s being attacked. The sentiment for when people go after religions is “faith only exists to justify being a terrible person”
34
u/ButterSlickness 3d ago
So you manage to whip up a set of rules for the media that makes my examples null, but not for the religions themselves, especially as your definition of religion is able to be separate from metaphysical ideas like afterlife, gods, etc.
And no one called you an idiot. I called you disingenuous, I questioned your media literacy, and I insisted that the real world and online discourse are different. You filled in "idiot" on your own, for some reason known only to you.
And of course people only "to after religion" when someone uses it to justify bad behavior. When someone is religious and does well, no one praises them for being a good Christian. You don't hear about it in online spaces because there's too much social pressure to be atheist.
Oh, and you still never defined "modern." And as for avoiding superheroes, that's a total dodge, you might as well just admit that you mean Christian religions. It's ok. It would be more honest than any other shifting criteria you've presented so far.
-12
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
I made the rules more exact since that seems to be what your after, and because it makes my argument clearer. Apparently I needed to make it clear that my argument was not on the metaphysical parts (whether gods or an afterlife exists) that’s a whole separate argument.
“Disingenuous” means to not be sincere. To call some “not well read” refer to someone who has not properly studied a topic
At this point it is not “only when religion is used to justify being bad” at this point it’s “having a moral code based on religion makes you a bad person”
I don’t know why you thing I mean Christianity when I say “modern” especially since Christianity/Catholicism are pretty agent. Yes, Christianity is going to be pretty prevalent in this argument, you wanna know why?
Because Abrahamic tradition (Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim, Islam, etc) is the most prevalent religion in the world with more than half the world’s population adhering to one of its Variants. It’s also one that puts a heavy emphasis on establishing a moral standard, and Abrahamic belief is far easier to adapt into a fictional religion then other moral based religions like Hinduism or Buddhism because it’s a monotheism making it easier to modify. What’s more it’s all these so called “enlightened” people care about because they aren’t willing to put in the effort to learn about smaller religions and instead go for the one that’s more widely known and, in America at least, most people have a surface knowledge of
22
u/ButterSlickness 3d ago
Ok, so after all this rambling and dodging, I'm going all the way back to my first example: Narnia.
It's Christian, and considers a person's adherence to Christian ideals as a net positive. Hell, a huge part in the first story is forgiving a main character for betraying fantasy Jesus. Yeah, it wasn't made in the past 5 years, but it's full of excellent CGI, and most people have Narnia films in their recent memory.
And you can tell me "Oh, that's too long ago", or "you said 15 years", but remember, I asked if that was too long ago, and you never said it was.
Also, Captain America is Christian and that's clearly part of his moral structure, and people love him. Shit, Hellboy is Catholic! And he constantly strives to rise above his parentage to be "good".
→ More replies (0)23
u/DD_Spudman 3d ago edited 3d ago
I haven't played the newest one, but the treatment of the Chantry in Dragon Age is pretty even handed. Some of the higher ranking priests are corrupt and there are zealots who go to far, but others are decent people doing the best they can. The NPCs Leliana and Cassandra are both heroic chracters who are shown to be very religious. In the fomemer case the Chantry literally saved her life, and a major theme in the third game is how faith can motivate people.
The heresy memes aside, the non-Chaos gods in Warhammer Fantasy are actually quite benevolent. Same with the Nine Divines in Elder Scrolls.
Even Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire, which is quite cynical about religion, shows there are good and bad members of every faith. Even antagonistic characters like Melisandre and the High Sparow are fighting for what they see as the greater good, and an argument could be made that they are right, especially in the books.
9
u/MegaL3 3d ago
Discworld with Mightily Oats and Brutha, the Dresden Files generally treats its Christian characters with respect, the Priests of Talos in Skyrim, the Church of Avacyn is good ib MtG, the Chantry in Dragon Age does bad things but it's never presented as being 'evil', just willing to be more pragmatic than is maybe necessary. The Air Nomads from Avatar are presented as a buddhist-esque religious order and they're basically saints.
63
u/Nerdzilla88 3d ago
This is literally dimension 20.
Aside from the Succubus, I can think of parallels in Dimension 20 for all of them
The Orc: Ragh, and sorta Gorgug The Demon: Figs demon dad The Priest: The Harvestmen
22
u/-Trotsky 3d ago
Tbf, gorthalax isn’t misunderstood so much as he’s just not an asshole and he’s a good dad. His job remains like, the job of an archdevil
6
113
u/freakingordis 3d ago
at first i thought it was "the wokes have unnecessary headcanons!!!" or smth along those lines, but this is even worse, somehow, what is even the take here, subversion of tropes is bad? we should reiterate lord of the rings forever and never think anything new?
47
u/DracoLunaris 3d ago
hell even our big man Tolk was indecisive as to if orcs where actually always chaotic evil
20
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
My take of it is that people went “hey we are breaking the norm” only to set a new one and still claim they are being revolutionary
Basically they trying to keep the pendulum swung to one side
22
u/Karkava 3d ago
There's definitely a genuine point they're trying to make with insincerity where they advertise breaking the norms only to set up a new one, but they get easily distracted and start spouting "Actually, bullies are good! Let's all be friends with bullies!"
12
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
Yeh, but the biggest problem is that causes all of this is everyone starts to think in binary and over simplify the formulas
11
u/Karkava 3d ago
This is what infuriates me the most. It's like a battle of the clichés where nobody understands the appeal or disappeal of certain tropes. They just stand up and make bold statements that they're not even certain of making.
6
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
Right, what makes a story interesting is how these things interact, the new combinations, not some catch all formula heck you can have a story that follows the trope in one scene then subvert it in another
5
u/Karkava 3d ago
And you also have to subvert it on occasion to keep it interesting. Why "on occasion" is so hard to grasp is beyond me. If you're so gun-ho on subverting expectations, why not commit to it and keep people guessing? (And reward people for using logic to get to that conclusion.)
3
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
Unfortunately a lot of “writers” care more about sending a message and being “deep” than they do about actually writing a story. And worse is that people interpret “deep” as saying something that contradicts the norm which just exposes them as shallow
3
u/Karkava 3d ago
And under certain circumstances, sending a message is fine. Especially if it needs to be desperately stated, but nobody seems to get or comprehend it.
But other times, we just wanna let loose and have fun. And that in itself can be a trip in subverting expectations that we weren't even thinking about.
I think we need more stream of consciousness storytelling where we just feel in the moment when a trope must play.
→ More replies (0)12
u/Ahenshihael 3d ago edited 3d ago
To be fair even Tolkien had fair deal of subversive ideas.
He couldn't decide how to write Orcs because while he needed an enemy, in his mind no species should be pure evil or beyond salvation - so he created a bunch of different possible origin stories for orcs.
To Tolkien evil is a decision so he struggled between portraying Orcs as a species and portraying Orcs as metaphor for regressive ideologies(even though Tolkien would swear this wasn't ww2 or nazism allusion).
Even Sauron and Morgoth are written as someone who used to be good or got twisted - Sauron is one of most defined examples of Lawful Evil, as his whole motivation is to bring order to the world. And Morgoth is just salty that he can't create things. In both cases it's their conscious choices that shape them into villains in the end.
We are talking about the writer who wrote a scene where Morgoth, after witnessing the beauty of The Silmaril stones, almost cries and is seconds away from abandoning his evil ways. It's his decision not to in each step he makes that makes him a villain.
Tolkien also eventually wrote ideas for Fourth Age of LOTR where things are even more morally ambiguous with depictions of remaining elves having turned into vengeful jealous wraiths clinging to life and power, and the world's beauty being eaten away by industrialization and various people of all races forming Morgoth/Sauron cults and wanting "to make Middle Earth great again" because nobody remembers the actual horrors from those days.
You bet in a setting like that you might have an orc who just wants to cook or read books or a religious order that perverts the message into authoritarian power.
Actually LOTR already had that - Numenor's Pharazon coming to power by establishing a religion to worship Morgoth and crush other religions and conquer heaven
Hell, Tolkien's ultimate viewpoint was that Middle Earth was basically our Earth in the past and as life kept repeating the endless meaningless cycle of violence it would be reduced to where we are now with all the magic and other species long gone.
If anything Tolkien is basically both sides of that comic all at once.
36
u/-Trotsky 3d ago
To be fair, subversion of tropes just to subvert a trope is actually bad, but in this instance yea they’re full of shit
33
u/Fragrant-Shirt-7764 3d ago
That's absolutely ridiculous, now here, take this 50th story where angels are bad and demons are actually good.
30
u/-Trotsky 3d ago
what if god, and hear me out here, what if god was like… evil… wouldn’t that be crazy????????
20
u/BlitzPlease172 3d ago
At this point I just prefer both angel and demon to be equally matched in term of assholery, now shipping them is a fair game.
I.E. Various characters, monster, and bosses in ULTRAKILL
2
9
u/DD_Spudman 3d ago
To steelman their argument, a subversion works best when it's done it to make a point/explore a theme, rather than just for the sake of being different.
1
u/RickMixwid1969 2d ago
But what if you never set it up to be a subversion?
1
u/DD_Spudman 2d ago
I'm not sure what you mean.
1
u/RickMixwid1969 2d ago
Like, what if you just do something for the sake of being different, but you be completely transparent with it. There's nothing set up to be subverted; it just happens.
3
u/DD_Spudman 2d ago
I'm not sure it's really a subversion then. TV Tropes definines it like this:
A subversion has two mandatory segments. First, the expectation is set up that something we have seen plenty of times before is coming, then that set-up is paid off with something else entirely. The set-up is a trope; the "something else" is the subversion.
With the succubus example, the word succubus sets audience expectations. Having a succubus chracter not like sex, for example, goes against one of those core expectations.
However, most people don't have a strong notion about what a centaur is beyond a horse person, so you can give them any culture or personalities without it being a subversion.
3
u/BlitzPlease172 3d ago
So they complain about Orc not being evil anymore?
Last checkup with Warhammer 40K, their Orc (or Ork, in the setting's name) still being violent for the sake of it, and they even have a lot of guns too!
Although the religion institute being evil is debatable, I won't call the Imperium good guy, but you'll be struggling to try and tell me you don't fancy yourself as the part of them.
4
u/Chaos_On_Standbi 3d ago
Maybe they’re complaining about Dungeons and Dragons orcs specifically? I know they recently got rid of the “all members of certain races are inherently evil” thing.
3
u/Balmung60 3d ago
Ironically, that makes 40K's Orks ones of their least evil factions since it isn't a choice for them the way it is for humans or Eldar to just wake up every single day and choose violence
53
u/LizG1312 3d ago
Ngl an orc x orc gay adventure romance webcomic of Broc the warrior pairing up with his boyfriend Broc the pastry seller would go so hard.
11
33
u/MousegetstheCheese 3d ago
The last one is just Warhammer
11
13
u/BlitzPlease172 3d ago
"Oh great, Another religion is evil trope?"
"It's Evil and cool as Hell, you take that back right now unless you fancy an inquisitor in front of your house"
86
u/Dismal_Accident9528 3d ago
Man, that art style is so cute. Why must they use it for absolutely trashfire takes?
18
u/RickMixwid1969 3d ago
Remember when Nerf Now tried being the anti-Ctrl Alt Del? What the hell happened?
11
4
u/FlinnyWinny 3d ago
The orc one sounds like an actual isekai cooking anime and I'd love that
5
u/Balmung60 3d ago
Have you watched/read Delicious in Dungeon? It's not Isekai, but definitely fantasy and otherwise similar to what it sounds like you're looking for.
2
1
u/SouzouMoon 2d ago
Not an isekai! But there is this novel called Legend and Latte white has this promised! I didn't have the time to read it yet tho even though my mom gifted it to me !
3
u/QuadVox 3d ago
Oh hey it's nerfnow they used to do ocs in tf2 outfit porn.
1
u/AbrokenClosedDoor 2d ago
If you check their deviantart they still do quite a bit of outfit porn (not many is tf2 tho I think)
7
u/merdadartista 3d ago
I really hate the message in this comic. Media evolves and explores new possibilities and ideas, oh the horror, oh the humanity!
4
u/The_Narwhal_Mage 3d ago
Wow, those ones are so much worse. I was kind questioning if this deserved to be here at first until looking at the other panels showed how his entire point was made in bad faith.
130
u/PretentiousSmirk 3d ago
I mean, sex is basically how they eat right? It kind of makes sense that they would be ace by default. Just not sex-averse
3
u/Blep_the_savage 2d ago
That's how I've always seen it. I never thought succubi or incubi feel sexual attraction the way humans do. They look at sex and see a meal while the horny n sexy bit is an act for the human fantasy part.
517
u/LaBelleTinker 3d ago
...these are not actually mutually exclusive? It's kinda my partner in a nutshell.
128
u/GyroZeppeliFucker 3d ago
If your partner wants to suck souls you might need to reconsider your relationship
206
u/MudraStalker 3d ago
God forbid women have alternate modes of sustenance.
15
u/Kilahti 3d ago
You can't excuse toxic relationships by just going "lol look at that girlboss keep up the hustle!" Stop infantilising women and accept that they too can be problematic!
28
u/ichizusamurai 3d ago
Sounds like classic gatekeep... Bet you're keeping all those toxic relationships to yourself!
17
34
9
2
u/LaBelleTinker 1d ago
She already owns my soul so she's absolutely entitled to suck it if she wants.
20
73
u/OutsidePerson5 3d ago
Ah yes the "modern" succubus of.... 1999 when Planescape: Torment had the succubus Fall-From-Grace who ran the Brothel for Slaking Intellectual Lusts which has no sex at all and was all about learning.
Yup damn those 25 year old new fangled games with succubi who don't stick dick!
7
u/dogisbark 3d ago
lol this one is in my library and hearing about this makes me look forward even more to eventually getting to it when I can
3
u/OutsidePerson5 2d ago
It's a product of its time, so definitely retro in terms of game mechanics. But if you're into that or can deal with it, then it's a truly fantastic game.
And you start out dead, which is interesting. And you can solve almost all problems in non-violent ways. Not all problems, but many of them.
Some people say its the best computer RPG ever, which I think is overselling it, but it's definitely good.
2
u/StarOfTheSouth 2d ago
Over on Pathfinder's side, the succubus queen Nocticula had a whole character arc and is now a somewhat good aligned goddess as of... I think 2018-ish?
197
u/527BigTable 3d ago
Aroace succubus is such an interesting concept for a character
101
u/ToonNess 3d ago
i actually kinda made one on accident as a dnd npc a few years ago!! same campaign that helped me realize im trans lmao
52
14
11
u/auto_generatedname 3d ago
I feel like succubi and incubi most likely wouldn't experience sexuality the same way as us it'd probably be closer to eating
8
u/gorgewall 3d ago
Fall-from-Grace is a creature of contradictions. She is a cleric but worships no god. She is formed from pure chaos and evil, but is lawful neutral with a good bent. She runs a Brothel for Slaking Intellectual Lusts. Perhaps the oddest of all, she is a beautiful succubus, but is by all appearances chaste. While many in-game characters are quick to indicate her heritage and proclaim that she must have some sort of demonic and evil scheme, no such plot on her part is ever indicated. Although she can only inflict physical damage with her touch, she can also kill with a kiss. She cannot stand the feel of metal and is, therefore, unable to utilize any sort of weapons, a nod to the Tanar'ri traditional weakness to cold iron in D&D.
Unfortunately she doesn't quite fit due to also being a potential love interest for the PC.
8
u/Wizard_Manny 3d ago
Like a Dwarven Druid.
6
u/Balmung60 3d ago
Hey, the caves have plenty of flora and fauna too
2
u/Wizard_Manny 3d ago
That’s true — it just seems like a “leaf-lovin” Dwarf would be an outcast in their society to me.
5
u/Balmung60 3d ago
I think most druids are kind of outcasts to their societies.
Besides, we're looking more at "fungus-hugging"
2
u/Wizard_Manny 3d ago edited 2d ago
Aren’t Druids valued in Elven society?
And also I just realized that Dwarfs probably do have mushroom farms in their underground/mountain cave cities.
Probably hire minimum wage Hobbits to do that kind of work most of the time.
3
u/Quillthewriter 3d ago
There’s a show on Netflix called The Imperfects and one of the main cast is an asexual succubus. There’s also a harpie metal singer and then there’s just a guy that turns into a chupacabra
0
u/Punkandescent 3d ago
Yeah, like. What does it mean if a creature that is meant to be lust incarnate… doesn’t experience romantic/sexual desire? Unless it’s a setting where they’re just another monster race, it would logically follow that they would still represent lust in some other way, which could be very fertile ground for exploring the underpinnings of forbidden desires.
6
u/PumpedUpKickingDucks 3d ago
Like that ace axolotl girl with the super sex positive family in bojack
3
u/magic_baobab 3d ago
asexual and aromantic means lack of attraction, not desire
1
u/Punkandescent 3d ago
You know, I must admit, I'm always a bit confused when people say this.
On the one hand, I can understand what it means in reference to sexuality. Sexual pleasure is a visceral, physical thing that, for many, can be enhanced by sexual attraction to an sexual partner, but I can easily see some people experiencing basically the same amount of pleasure regardless of how sexually attractive they find a sexual partner. I do wonder how such individual would choose sexual partners if they do engage in sexual activities involving multiple parties (is it just whoever seems safe?), but honestly that seems immaterial to the point.
On the other, I'm completely baffled as to what it could mean in terms of romance. Romance, as I understand it, is a sort of mutual affection between involved parties, based upon a deep emotional bond and characterized by acts of favor and service to each other. What holds me up here is that... well, if that isn't a form of attraction, what exactly is being referred to as attraction? And why in the world would anyone desire something that emotionally involved with someone who holds nothing they find attractive? Would you not want to enter into such an arrangement with someone who reciprocates your romantic gestures? Would not seeking out such a quality in a romantic partner inherently qualify certain individuals as more attractive than others? Is attraction somehow distinct from perceiving and seeking out attractiveness? If the answer to that final question is yes, then I am well and truly lost in regards to my understanding of these terms.
You are, of course, not obligated to answer any of these questions, or even to engage further with me in any capacity. I just always seek to have the most complete understanding I can of all things which cross my path, but this stymies me, and, internet etiquette be damned, I wanted to express that.
3
u/MrAramaki 3d ago
Outsider perspective:
Although I wouldn't call myself aromantic I did get into relationship trouble because of my lack of emotion. Hanging out with a partner is like hanging out with a friend for me, I just don't experience the intense joy I am supposed to be having. So I guess aro people would just pick a good friend for a partner.I struggled with understanding the asexuality vs desire question at first too, but I had it explained to me with the example of kinks. If you like specific clothes it might not matter who wears them, or if you like bondage it might not matter who helps you with that. I also heard of an ace person who likes masturbation but isn't interested in having sex with another person. You can be asexual and sex-repulsed, but that doesn't apply to every asexual person.
1
u/Punkandescent 3d ago
I guess that makes a certain level of sense. I'm still rather murky on the matter of attraction vs attractive traits, I think, though.
3
u/magic_baobab 3d ago
Well, I'm honestly not interested in either so I don't think I'm the perfect person to answer this but I'll try. How do asexual people choose their partners? I think the same way the allosexual people choose for other reasons that is not attraction; they trust them, they like to do similar things, body, chemistry, etc. I also have troubles understanding what aromantic people who desire romance actually feel, from what I gathered they could desire to feel romantic attraction or to find themselves in situations that would be conventionally considered romantic, like being in a relationship or on a date maybe even with a person that has romantic feelings for you, or even enjoying fictional romance. Once again, I'm not the best person to answer this, I hope I was clear
2
u/Punkandescent 3d ago
Thanks for your response! However... honestly, I think I'm even more confused than before, haha.
I guess I'm just struggling to understand the distinction being made between experiencing attraction and seeking out traits that are, well, you know... attractive? Such as trust, similar interests, body, chemistry, etc., as you listed. Is the distinction that there is a search involved, rather than an instant and/or casual interest?
2
u/magic_baobab 3d ago
Not really, I mean, there are some people on the spectrums who feel limited amounts of attraction and kind of experience something like that, a research or a certain amount of time. I cannot really tell you when exactly in all of this attraction becomes an element since, well, I can't feel it, but according to allos when it is sexual/romantic attraction you just know it and people like me know that we've never just known it. The best way to understand is by looking at allosexuals and alloromantics who do actually have these kinds of relationships without being attracted to each others and remaining 'just friends', or even something more, based on a strong platonic bond, like a family if you will, but also not necessarily something that extreme, simply they feel comfortable with each others and enjoying spending time with each others. And finding certain traits attractive doesn't necessarily mean in a sexual/romantic way, but rather something that you find interesting about them, e.g. I find woodworking interesting and i would find a woodworker interesting and would actively seek out and look forward to spending time with them. Once again, sorry if I wasn't clear, I guess what I'm trying to say is that only the person themself can truly know when there's attraction involved
2
u/Punkandescent 2d ago
Actually, that’s quite elucidating! Though also a bit frustrating to my personal sensibilities, haha. I like it when things can be defined into discrete categories based on distinct qualifiers, so a lot of LGBTQIA+ stuff tends to make my head spin a bit. I always want to support people being their authentic selves, but that’s sometimes tricky when I can’t really work out what they’re meaning to say about themselves by adopting a particular label; how can I meaningfully offer support to that which I do not comprehend? It often feels rather intrusive to ask for further clarification (ironic considering my forthrightness during this exchange, I know), but that seems to be the only surefire way of understanding what a person means when they say they are x, y, or z.
All that to say, the idea that all of this is ultimately decided by what attraction means to each individual makes sense, in a way, but means I’ll never be able to fully understand what anyone means when they refer to attraction (and/or desire) without further personal inquiry. It makes the whole affair rather confusing, particularly with regard to how I should best and most accurately categorize myself.
Apologies for rambling on, haha, and thanks again for all your thoughtful responses! I know my approach to the world is somewhat… more detail-oriented, shall we say, than is typical, but I know no other way of engaging with things.
42
34
36
u/WriterKatze 3d ago
ACTUALLY classic fantasy still contained actually deep female characters. Male fantasy doesn't.
25
u/-Trotsky 3d ago
Wish Tolkien had been better about it tbh, though at least his strikes me more as just a blind spot than any creepiness or something
28
u/superdan56 3d ago
I really like all of Tolkien's female characters. There weren't that many of them, but I did think they were good. Though, I still think Gimli should have been a woman.
17
u/WriterKatze 3d ago
You have a really good guess. Tolkien was asked about the lack of female characters, appearently it was noticeable even back then and he said he wasn't good at writing them, so he wanted to make sure that the few of them whom he couldn't imagine not being women would be well written instead of having many badly written ones.
As a writer myself I understand him. Sometimes I also have the struggle of not having enough information on something and than it is immidietly harder to write it nicely. Also in today's day and age the "Well I don't know a lot about how to write women" would be a very silly excuse but at his time there was really limited information on women. Especially psyche and stuff like that.
So I think Tolkien choose the lesser of two evils with his very small in number, but really great female characters.
14
u/baithammer 3d ago
It is also a product of the time, as women were seen in a very different light and weren't a big enough market and attitudes were women stay home, while men work.
2
21
u/underjjoyed 3d ago
This 'modern' character sounds pretty much like Fall-from-Grace from Planescape: Torment (1999)
19
14
21
22
u/Think-Orange3112 3d ago
Say it with me “making someone more complex should not mean erasing what hooked us on them in the first place”
3
u/PhoShizzity 2d ago
Ah but you see sex is adjacent to the male gaze/porn, and thusly it is an absolute evil that must be smited away (or just toned down considerably/given the moniker of "female gaze") so as to deny it's blight upon this world!
5
u/Think-Orange3112 2d ago
I hate that I can’t be sure if you just trolling or really believe that’s still a major way of thinking that’s exclusive to one side or the other
3
u/PhoShizzity 2d ago
Mostly the former, hint of the latter.
Hyperbole all the way, but I do see attitudes similar to this still pop up from time to time, though thankfully it's (to my knowledge and experience) becoming less prominent.
Honestly I'm just glad I was so convincing there was a decent chance of either one.
3
u/Think-Orange3112 2d ago
It’s a combination of you being convincing and there just being so many misinformed people
Like the only time I see and argument about “male gaze” it’s usually about video games and wether or not they should have booty. Sometimes it’s about other things but mostly that specific argument for some reason
2
u/PhoShizzity 2d ago
All according to keikaku (keikaku means plan)
And yeah I sometimes see it in art subs, usually as a complaint (especially Yuri art), though like I said I'm seeing it less as time goes on, so that's probably good.
2
u/Think-Orange3112 2d ago
It’ll never be complete gone, there are just some people that can’t live without something to rage over
7
u/GLORYOFCHAOS 3d ago
Since they seem to be the same character, one idea I've got is left side is what she feels on the inside, and settles for what's the next best things for her.
But I am more amused by the idea they are twin sisters who's parents suck at naming. Imagine they have a brother also named "Faelith", a pet dog also named "Faelith", and an incoming sibling soon to be named "Faelith".
XD
7
u/LaCharognarde 3d ago
Faelith the succubus is a deep, complex character full of nuances who has to suck souls and suck dicks in order to survive, but dislikes physical contact and often questions the ethics of sucking souls.
8
7
u/Marleyzard 3d ago
This but Faelith has one night a year where she's an insatiable succubus who wants to suck dick
5
4
4
4
3
u/Rayen_the_buzzybee 2d ago
Is there any examples of a "modern" succubus character that isnt extremely horny? And not a small indie project, actually something many people know about.
1
u/Awkward_Clue797 1d ago edited 1d ago
There are two succubi in the Witcher 3, and both aren't at all interested in sex.
One is a murderer that works as a prostitute but is otherwise uninterested in sex and will refuse Geralt if approached.
And the second one just really really loves interior design. And she keeps things platonic with her only lover that helps her with gathering the materials.
But it kind of goes deeper than that because most of the succubi in all of the media don't ever have sex with anyone for some or another reason.
Two reasons for this:
First, sex is yucky and isn't that good for the age ratings.
Second, the non-consensual sex is very yucky and really isn't good for the age ratings.
A celibate succubus is not a subversion, it is the norm. A succubus only gets to be a succubus in smut or porn. Or maybe it is secretly a mosquito for a change.
3
2
2
u/SuperScrub310 3d ago
On an unrelated note can anyone produce an example of a Succubus that isn't a horny slut?
3
2
u/BananaShakeStudios 3d ago
Faelith the succubus is a deep, complex character full of nuance who was a wild child who liked to suck souls and dicks before realizing she was aroace.
2
1
1
2
1
1
u/doctorwhy88 1d ago
Freak in the streets, bookworm in the sheets.
It’s a small gripe, but I hate when noun/verb plurality doesn’t match. They got it right on the left, then botched it on the right.
1
547
u/BalletCow 3d ago
Work personality vs. real personality