What Happens Next: A Gallimaufry

melancholic romantic comic cynic. bi & genderqueer. fantasy writer. sysrae on ao3.

a linguistic proposition

rhube:

fozmeadows:

Given the seemingly near-universal acceptance of Jensen Ackles’s beauty among the queer women, straight women, queer men, straight men, asexuals, aromatics, nobinary and genderqueer persons of my acquaintance; and given also that we currently lack a single, distinct word for “a person who makes me question and/or redefine my sexuality”, I hereby propose the introduction of the word ‘ackles’ to fit this definition. Not only would this simplify things enormously, but we’d cut down on reductive and ultimately inaccurate statements like “I’d go gay for Ruby Rose” by saying instead that “Ruby Rose is my ackles,” aka “someone who makes me rethink my sexuality, even if only in a single instance”. 

All in favour?

Rejected. I have never ever ever found Jensen Ackles attractive. And whilst I respect the fact that other people do, I really don’t need more of him in my life.

In general, assumptions of universal attraction are a real issue and not cool.

Sorry, it’s just that this kind of thing really is unfun if you’re on the outside of it.

People can just like other stuff, OK? Actively pushing it on others is much less fun, though.

Two things:

- I’m not asking you to find Jensen Ackles attractive, or telling you that you should. I’m proposing his name in this context on the basis that hey, this is a person who lots of people that I know frequently cite as one of their “exceptions”, or sexuality-challenging-crushes, which seems as decent a basis as any for using it. Because I do think having a word for this thing would be useful, and given the fact that - as you’ve said - there’s no such thing as a universally attractive person to name it after, picking someone who is, in my experience, attractive to a very wide range of people seems to make a certain kind of sense.

- I explicitly didn’t claim that he’s a universally attractive figure, and used three clear qualifiers to that effect: seemingly, indicating that this is based on my perception; near-universal, indicating that it still wasn’t unanimous even in my observations; and persons of my acquaintance, meaning that I’m talking about people I know, not the general population.

So, I mean. If you don’t think we need a word for this, then cool, and if you want to propose that such a word is a good idea, but that it shouldn’t be named after Jensen Ackles, then also cool, but I’m not asking you to find him hot, I’m not assuming that you already did, and I’m definitely not stating it as a universal. Just to be clear. 

(via rhube)

  1. wordslikewings reblogged this from obsessionisaperfume
  2. djpaige reblogged this from persephoneshadow
  3. sarkywoman reblogged this from therockcoxon
  4. warriorjo reblogged this from shiningdean
  5. owlifer answered: While I agree on Jensen Ackles’s beauty, and also 100% agree that there should be a word for this, I think it should NOT be someone’s actual name, because there is no such thing as universal appeal of a human being to/for other human beings.
  6. fireblooms reblogged this from kali
  7. therockcoxon reblogged this from futuriana and added:
    Aye!
  8. kali reblogged this from continuants
  9. continuants reblogged this from fozmeadows
  10. rosaenvuelta reblogged this from fozmeadows
  11. hexfruit reblogged this from fozmeadows
  12. inandoutofspaceandtime reblogged this from 35000percent-done
  13. maxinne35-blog reblogged this from fozmeadows
  14. fozmeadows posted this