han's Topics (635)

SO REAL, bro needs to gt penetrated.

You won't be seeing all that this Manhwa will end after few more chapter s

all true but the way u put it is so

I would’ve killed myself the minute I got my secondary gender no matter what it was

You're completely right, but also may I add how it's so fucking strange that they get categorized as a secondary sex/gender? Literally what in the fuck does being submissive or dominant have to do with gender, and moreso with biological sex? These stories try to come up with ways to explain how it's an "instinctive" thing, but there is no fucking way that """instinct""" is going to be enough to categorize these things as either gender or sex

Like you said, it's just a rebrand on omegaverse. Since in omegaverse the A/B/O dynamics get called a secondary gender/sex, they do the same here-- but in ABO you can at least kinda see why that is, since it does partly have to do with a person's reproductive systems... But being inclined to be sexually submissive or dominant has got nothing to do with nothing, so how tf do they get away with that

I do academic research on omegaverse, a lot of which is BL, so let me share a thought or two?

ABO is functionally about queering gender. I find it's a genre in which people can play with concepts of transness and gender-fluidity more freely than in Non-ABO BL. Omegas are, on the hierarchy, in the same place females are IRL relative to patriarchy in BL. D/S-verse, I think, is more explicitly about power dynamics between people of the same sex/gender. And kink. Not to say ABO isn't kink, cuz it's often an excuse for kink, but BDSM being integral to the world is a pretty good tell on people's interest in it. It's giving a biological excuse to do BDSM when you could just do it anyway. But to each their own.

I do no research on the topic but as a consumer of the genre, I often find it is more about the heteronormatization of queer couples rather than "queering gender;" since, like you said, there is a very real line you can trace about omegas playing the traditionally female role and alphas playing the traditionally male role. It's true that your primary gender and often times your sexual organs are very much irrelevant, which is very nice and queer anout the whole thing... but then we default to alpha/omega relationships being the only "right" way to pair two people, or at the very least there being a clear "sanctification" of that combination (alpha/omega relationships are the only ones capable of being classified as "pairs," and there are also a lot of cases in which the concept of fated pairs also exist).

It's weird in a way because in nearly all stories, you will have your main couple be a alpha/omega couple, but whenever fleshing out the universe around them you will find mentions of how other pairings with betas also exist (usually being the characters parent's). But even when described as common "in-universe," nothing is ever treated with the same level of "sanctification" (as I put earlier) than a/o nor capable of being as normative, since there is the clear biological divide of these two sexes being physically unable to avoid attraction to each other (pheromones, heats and induced ruts, the fact many stories will lead with the fact only an alpha can quell the omega's heat, the claiming bites and pairs, etc etc).

I feel this is like, understandable in many ways; the way I see it, a/b/o popularity within queer media is much about being able to provide queer couples the possibility of a more "feral"/"instinctual" undertone to their relationship – more specifically the ability to bear children, and how this potential impregnation can imply a whole heap of things on instinctive, primitive desire. There is a lot to be said about the inescapability and fate of it, too; that regardless of primary gender, their second gender allows these people to have a very unquestionable and undefiable relationship. The more this genre envolved though, the more I stopped seeing it for the primitive desire and the more I started to see how patriarchal it all felt at the end of the day. You'd have a queer couple and you'd give them a biological kid, but then, at the end of the day, you also have them become "mom and dad."

*Nowadays,* however, I can feel queerness re-entering the space of this genre, with many more unconventional pairings being written about both in fandom spaces and the publishing world– I'd say this rise has begun circa 2020 or 2018-ish? And you'll see much more of a/b, o/b, a/a and o/o— although b/b is harder to find since it would generally just be two people unaffected by the a/b/o dynamics and thus kind of not necessarily need to exist in an a/b/o universe.



*With that said,* however (sorry for rambling), I understand why the D/S universe exists, and why there is definetely a space for a "biological excuse to do BDSM"– but having sexual inclinations for dominance/submissiveness being biologically decided for you, imo, cuts a very one-dimensional view on why people actually engage in BDSM, so tgat's why I do agree with OP in a way. My main point with my comment, however, was that there is no need to refer to these as secondary sexes or genders in the D/Sverse, and it only happens because it was born out of A/B/O. Nowadays a lot of A/B/O stories already use the word "dynamics" instead of "secondary sexes/gender" (sex and gender often being used interchangeably in this space but that's a whole 'nother discussion), so I feel like it's really stupid to not just call them dynamics in the D/Sverse too.

I like reading other people's thoughts on it--it's fun to see what other people's perspectives are. There's no one way to look at it so your rambles were really enjoyable to read. I love when other people give serious thought to stuff.

Something gets lost in translation (between languages and culture), I think(?), with dynamics/sex/gender. One would think the more accurate way to describe biological elements (in English) would be "secondary sex" and social elements + presentation would be referred to as "secondary gender". It's probs a good thing that "dynamic" has grown as a loose term encompassing both for A/B/O like you said. I would be curious to learn about the nuances in the ways the terms (in their original Japanese) are used in A/B/O and D/Sverse. Surely some translator out there has written their thoughts on it

You're totally right that "dynamic" should be used for D/Sverse, imo. For many reasons, ofc, but I'd be happy seeing people using it if only because it's quite literally about the Dom/Sub dynamic