December Days 2022 #23: Flaming
Dec. 23rd, 2022 11:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradept[What's December Days this year? Taking a crowdsourced list of adjectives and seeing if I can turn them into saying good things about myself. Or at least good things to talk about.]
I am generally not self-immooating, nor do I generally try to play with fire or give fire to the Internet. I have not used devices to propel fire or an already alit substance, past the use of lighters for candles or the occasional need for a controlled small flame to do some delicate heating work.
You could make a case for flaming from my sartorial choices. I know I had a couple of floral print shirts from going to Hawaii when I was much younger, so they were silk and for special occasions. For the most part, however, after I started work and was dressed down by my manager for adopting too casual a wardrobe for my position, that's when the floral pattern shirt paired with dress casual pants became my style for work. Sufficient rebellion against the idea of needing to wear formal and uninteresting shirts combined with an acquiescence that denim was forbidden from my work wardrobe, and now I have my usual style. I get a lot of people saying they appreciate the color and vibrance and the thought of going to a warmer climate from seeing my shirt. For me, mostly, I like the designs, although not all of them, because there are a lot of shirts in that general idea that use pineapples, ukuleles, the "hula girl" idea, whether as a dashboard bobblehead or a full-size human hula dancer, "tiki"-type statuary and other objects that I think are meant more for tourists or those who are looking to really up their loud and outlandish game. I would much rather have a nice pattern in a preferred hue than something that shouts and draws attention to itself.
One of the vests I had in my collegiate days was apparently much, much sparklier than I had intended it to be, such that even in a dimly lit and otherwise supposed to be somewhat mysterious space, I was a little too glittery and standing out. I didn't realize this until it was basically too late to change out of it, and it was a source of embarrassment for me for a little while. (I did get a less sparkly version of a vest fairly quickly afterward.) It wouldn't fit me any more, but I feel now, with some time and wisdom, that having something with some shine to it would be exactly the thing to wear in certain situations, and possibly even to wear as an intentional "fuck you" to someone who was behaving in a way where a dude-looking person in a sparkly vest might make them unhappy that one of the dudes was looking swish, camp, or otherwise out of sorts with his belief that all men should be fully in line with machismo. In this era, though, I have less opportunity to go out in something more formal, whether up to the three-piece suit or even just to the dress shirt, vest, and tie.
(I'm late to the Our Flag Means Death party, but there's something intriguing about the way that Izzy Hands dresses all in shades of black. I always want to know about the tie he's wearing, because it's almost the same shade as his shirt, and is mostly hidden by his vest in most of the shots. I'm sure that he keeps it mostly black because that seems to be the dress code requirement for Ed's crew (Stede's crew is very obviously allowed more color, and that's probably also an intentional foil between the two crews and what kind of good influence Stede is on trying to get Ed to be more than merely Blackbeard and how much Izzy doesn't want Ed to grow because Ed might leave him if he grows,) but in doing so, I feel like he's missing a trick to draw the eyes to something or to let his personality out more than just the tie tack/pin/fastener/holder thathe has on the tie. Or to change the color of his vest to create better contrast between the tie, shirt, and vest.)
There's more to being flaming than just dress, of course, although that's a major part of it. (For some reason, being well put-together and fashionable in a color other than black, white, grey, tan, or navy is evidence of suspicion, as if men's bodies don't look equally good, if not better, in shades outside of those colors.) In the way that the adjective is usually applied, as the slang definition states, it's supposed to be something extremely obvious. The stereotype referenced is specifically supposed to be an effeminate, usually twink-y, swishy gay man who gets "flaming." Bears, Tom of Finland-esque leathermen, and burly tops generally don't get "flaming," even if their gayness is equally evident, because all of those men display sufficient evidence of machismo that there's a nonzero chance that someone calling one of those men "flaming" will eat a knuckle sandwich or worse. Which betrays, that "flaming" is almost always intended as a pejorative in one specific direction, someone who is so obviously that thing there's no way of mistaking them for something else, even though they should be trying to hide it and pretending to pass as someone straight / "normal." Interestingly, though, we don't hear people described as "flamingly autistic" or "flamingly ADHD" or "flamingly macho," (instead, it's "toxically masculine", which is also a good phrasing.) This is despite the similar solutions proposed for both effeminate behavior and neurodivergence: try harder not to be weird. Which says a few things about where the group that has claimed "normal" by virtue of "there are more of us than there are of you" believes the onus for making the world a better place is. It's the Webcomic Name set of panels about how the majority can't permit something to exist outside of themselves, and so after they banish the different people away from them, they invade those spaces. Because the point of banishing the other people was to make them ashamed enough to decide to act like the "normal" people around them, not to actually let them build a space where they can be themselves without fear of judgment and possibly even find other people who think the same thing or who have the same experiences.
I think, at this point in my life, it's become pretty apparent that I have trouble being someone other than the person I am. Which has good points, when being the person that I am helps move me closer to my goals and generates social approval (yes, even though my self-worth is not supposed to be conditional, I do live in a society where there are advantages to being well-liked and thought of positively, smartass in the well.) Which also has bad points, where being the person that I am causes difficulties for me, like where I was supposed to wake up my partner to help them get moving in time for an early appointment, but because enough time had elapsed between the telling and the actual time I was supposed to do it, and I didn't write it down anywhere, it flew out of my head because I was trying to remember the other important parts of the morning routine and get them all done in time. Only after my partner was awake did my brain helpfully supply the reminder that I was supposed to help them wake up earlier. "Thank you for not trusting me," I said, because they had set alarms that kept them on schedule without having to rely on me. Because they've learned how to communicate with me, heh. (I taught my ex, as well, because I really do want to be able to communicate and to contribute to relationships, and there are certain ways that are more effective than others with me. I know this, so I try to get others to help me by communicating in the ways that work best for me.) So I guess, at this point in my life, I'm flamingly myself. Even if I'm still undecided about whether that's ultimately a thing where others have to deal with it and I will try to change as much as I can, or whether I have to put in more effort to change and others should do their very best to get me to keep changing and to hold me accountable when I'm not changing sufficiently well or quickly.
And, of course, there's one more kind of flame for me. Dragon, after all, but that kind of flame is better put underneath a different adjective in the list.
- flaming (comparative more flaming, superlative most flaming)
- On fire with visible flames.
- Very bright and the color of flame.
- (colloquial) Extremely obvious; visibly evident. Typically of a homosexual male.
- (Britain, colloquial) Damned, bloody.
I am generally not self-immooating, nor do I generally try to play with fire or give fire to the Internet. I have not used devices to propel fire or an already alit substance, past the use of lighters for candles or the occasional need for a controlled small flame to do some delicate heating work.
You could make a case for flaming from my sartorial choices. I know I had a couple of floral print shirts from going to Hawaii when I was much younger, so they were silk and for special occasions. For the most part, however, after I started work and was dressed down by my manager for adopting too casual a wardrobe for my position, that's when the floral pattern shirt paired with dress casual pants became my style for work. Sufficient rebellion against the idea of needing to wear formal and uninteresting shirts combined with an acquiescence that denim was forbidden from my work wardrobe, and now I have my usual style. I get a lot of people saying they appreciate the color and vibrance and the thought of going to a warmer climate from seeing my shirt. For me, mostly, I like the designs, although not all of them, because there are a lot of shirts in that general idea that use pineapples, ukuleles, the "hula girl" idea, whether as a dashboard bobblehead or a full-size human hula dancer, "tiki"-type statuary and other objects that I think are meant more for tourists or those who are looking to really up their loud and outlandish game. I would much rather have a nice pattern in a preferred hue than something that shouts and draws attention to itself.
One of the vests I had in my collegiate days was apparently much, much sparklier than I had intended it to be, such that even in a dimly lit and otherwise supposed to be somewhat mysterious space, I was a little too glittery and standing out. I didn't realize this until it was basically too late to change out of it, and it was a source of embarrassment for me for a little while. (I did get a less sparkly version of a vest fairly quickly afterward.) It wouldn't fit me any more, but I feel now, with some time and wisdom, that having something with some shine to it would be exactly the thing to wear in certain situations, and possibly even to wear as an intentional "fuck you" to someone who was behaving in a way where a dude-looking person in a sparkly vest might make them unhappy that one of the dudes was looking swish, camp, or otherwise out of sorts with his belief that all men should be fully in line with machismo. In this era, though, I have less opportunity to go out in something more formal, whether up to the three-piece suit or even just to the dress shirt, vest, and tie.
(I'm late to the Our Flag Means Death party, but there's something intriguing about the way that Izzy Hands dresses all in shades of black. I always want to know about the tie he's wearing, because it's almost the same shade as his shirt, and is mostly hidden by his vest in most of the shots. I'm sure that he keeps it mostly black because that seems to be the dress code requirement for Ed's crew (Stede's crew is very obviously allowed more color, and that's probably also an intentional foil between the two crews and what kind of good influence Stede is on trying to get Ed to be more than merely Blackbeard and how much Izzy doesn't want Ed to grow because Ed might leave him if he grows,) but in doing so, I feel like he's missing a trick to draw the eyes to something or to let his personality out more than just the tie tack/pin/fastener/holder thathe has on the tie. Or to change the color of his vest to create better contrast between the tie, shirt, and vest.)
There's more to being flaming than just dress, of course, although that's a major part of it. (For some reason, being well put-together and fashionable in a color other than black, white, grey, tan, or navy is evidence of suspicion, as if men's bodies don't look equally good, if not better, in shades outside of those colors.) In the way that the adjective is usually applied, as the slang definition states, it's supposed to be something extremely obvious. The stereotype referenced is specifically supposed to be an effeminate, usually twink-y, swishy gay man who gets "flaming." Bears, Tom of Finland-esque leathermen, and burly tops generally don't get "flaming," even if their gayness is equally evident, because all of those men display sufficient evidence of machismo that there's a nonzero chance that someone calling one of those men "flaming" will eat a knuckle sandwich or worse. Which betrays, that "flaming" is almost always intended as a pejorative in one specific direction, someone who is so obviously that thing there's no way of mistaking them for something else, even though they should be trying to hide it and pretending to pass as someone straight / "normal." Interestingly, though, we don't hear people described as "flamingly autistic" or "flamingly ADHD" or "flamingly macho," (instead, it's "toxically masculine", which is also a good phrasing.) This is despite the similar solutions proposed for both effeminate behavior and neurodivergence: try harder not to be weird. Which says a few things about where the group that has claimed "normal" by virtue of "there are more of us than there are of you" believes the onus for making the world a better place is. It's the Webcomic Name set of panels about how the majority can't permit something to exist outside of themselves, and so after they banish the different people away from them, they invade those spaces. Because the point of banishing the other people was to make them ashamed enough to decide to act like the "normal" people around them, not to actually let them build a space where they can be themselves without fear of judgment and possibly even find other people who think the same thing or who have the same experiences.
I think, at this point in my life, it's become pretty apparent that I have trouble being someone other than the person I am. Which has good points, when being the person that I am helps move me closer to my goals and generates social approval (yes, even though my self-worth is not supposed to be conditional, I do live in a society where there are advantages to being well-liked and thought of positively, smartass in the well.) Which also has bad points, where being the person that I am causes difficulties for me, like where I was supposed to wake up my partner to help them get moving in time for an early appointment, but because enough time had elapsed between the telling and the actual time I was supposed to do it, and I didn't write it down anywhere, it flew out of my head because I was trying to remember the other important parts of the morning routine and get them all done in time. Only after my partner was awake did my brain helpfully supply the reminder that I was supposed to help them wake up earlier. "Thank you for not trusting me," I said, because they had set alarms that kept them on schedule without having to rely on me. Because they've learned how to communicate with me, heh. (I taught my ex, as well, because I really do want to be able to communicate and to contribute to relationships, and there are certain ways that are more effective than others with me. I know this, so I try to get others to help me by communicating in the ways that work best for me.) So I guess, at this point in my life, I'm flamingly myself. Even if I'm still undecided about whether that's ultimately a thing where others have to deal with it and I will try to change as much as I can, or whether I have to put in more effort to change and others should do their very best to get me to keep changing and to hold me accountable when I'm not changing sufficiently well or quickly.
And, of course, there's one more kind of flame for me. Dragon, after all, but that kind of flame is better put underneath a different adjective in the list.
no subject
Date: 2022-12-25 05:51 pm (UTC)Flame on.
no subject
Date: 2022-12-25 05:55 pm (UTC)