cow interogaytion's Topics (163)

Lavender where…

When the omega told his fiancé “this is the one I was telling you about,” and fiance gives this ‘look,’ makes a comment about alpha’s appearance, then says he’ll be seeing a lot more of him from now…

After reading that, 100% gotta be a lavender marriage

lavender marriages are when a girl and a guy get married in order to hide that one or two of them is gay. this cant be a lavender marriage if they are both men. it could, however, definitely be a fake marriage to just cover up ml’s subgender or a marriage of convenience with no love to boost their careers.

I’m aware of what it was alluding to, but a Lavender marriage is between a man and a woman (either one queer) who marry for convenience or security to hide their sexuality and to visually conform to heteronormative standards. Those are two gay men, and believing a perceived Alpha x Omega to be anywhere near equivalent is ignorant. God I hate how A/B/O is just the patriarchy repackaged and adds nothing but a normalcy of queerness while still upholding heteronormativity.

?? im referring to this in an omegaverse fiction context where the society is fixated on a secondary gender rather than queerness. in this scenario the lavender marriage is used to conceal and hide a secondary gender (the bottom)/avoid a forced pairing/safety reasons. historically yeah its between a man and a woman but it this context i meant it in a way that it fits and adapts towards an omegaverse oriented society.

But they're not “two gay men???” They’re presumably two omegas (marrying for convenience or to hide their secondary gender or to visually conform to their world’s standards as you say).

Honestly, your argument is inconsistent. You're applying the real-world category “gay men” to A/B/O, while saying we can't apply “lavender marriage” because its original definition belongs to a different social system. If we're allowed to use real-world concepts to describe analogous social dynamics in A/B/O, why is this particular analogy off-limits?

Especially when you then argue that A/B/O reproduces heteronormative social structures. If an alpha/omega relationship is functioning as the socially acceptable norm, and an omega is concealing their status by presenting as an alpha and marrying another omega, then “lavender marriage” seems like a pretty accurate analogy.

Ofc, you can dislike it, but that's different from the analogy being invalid or people being “ignorant”.

But they are “two gay men,” hence why this is categorized as a BL, why you’d almost never see these ML/MC’s interact with women unless the author wants to maintain a perception of manliness (aka misogyny, of which I will not take into consideration when determining their sexuality), and why mlm are the focus of these stories and not women.

Their sexualities aren’t exclusive to their secondary sex’s attributes as they also search for partners exclusively with men and not just Alphas/Omegas. They literally refer to themselves as men and still operate within our gender binary system with exception of their secondary sex, so sexuality labels can/will still apply.

I argued that it’s a replication of heteronormative social structures (not positively) and that it’s ignorant because these roles are just Alpha=Man and Omega=Woman repackaged that take no other nuance into account other than that their secondary sex affects them within their society, that’s it—its why yall are even willing to argue this.

Even though he’s posing as an Alpha for his social safety (which is just a marriage of convenience), at the end of the day, he still enters a “normal” relationship just as his “wedded one” will more than likely do. They are both still engaging within a societal norm that their sexualities don’t challenge at all, contrary to the LITERAL POINT of a lavender marriage.

I legit cannot see a lavender marriage existing within A/B/O (mostly because it’s misogynistic) unless they implement real world gender—w/m specifically, not sex—inequality, sexism, and A/B/O secondary sexes at the same time. Which they never do, because they equate Omegas to women, Alphas to men, and make the inequality women face equal to that of a man—completely eradicating gender discrimination. So it’d never work. —excuse any grammar mistakes and the like, I’m quite tired.

Except a lavender marriage still wouldn’t apply here, and this situation would be a marriage of convenience since they’re both still willing (and do) to engage within their societies pairing expectations. They’re only challenging visual perception, not sexuality. Lavender marriage encapsulates both queerness and gender—the gender inequality women face, for one.

A/B/O are secondary sex characteristics that are biologically innate to their beings, just as F/M/I is, the only social construct is the idealizations that form around the secondary sexes; they’re are not genders (though it can be argued, contextually, that they’re both).

There’s no point to watering down a term to fit these stories that are unfortunately built upon misogyny that frames the Alphas as “men” and Omegas as “Women” —which I take into consideration when I make this argument since it involves our patriarchal issues.

It’s okay to say it is just a marriage of convenience.

they do feel like that

Really?? Where

https://x.com/i/status/2081371203097526395

Like just sedate me I can’t do it bro

Thank youuu