// when you equate queerness with cishet norms, I think you've Missed The Point of writing queerness.

// like I don't even know what to say other than many of us who write queer (gay men oriented especially) stories should know that it's an unstated rule that all writers (regardless of experience) should aim to be more aware about a minority populations' struggles

when depicting a character whose sexuality and gender plays a large role in who they are.

The fetishizing of certain behaviors is becoming stereotypical and the expectations of type of interaction is becoming just as generic and matching the ideal cis-het norm relationship.

Y'all, queer relationships aren't based on just top/dom, bottom/sub. Love is not about "subservience." Relationships aren't black and white either and liking it up the ass does not mean they have to be a sub either. And not all subs have to be fragile? Not all

doms have to be big and muscly and older?

None of those four "roles" should be stereotyped and placed into the usual "either you are like a man" or "you are like a woman" behaviors? In expression or in wording?

It low-key drives me nuts that we box characters in based on

looks or attitude (equate being shy and soft to being "like a woman" and being assertive and confident to "being like a dom") because it's easier versus exploring the infinite spectrum of queerness and queer expression.

In the end, yeah, it's up to you on how you write and

depict queer stories and queer men (in context of this thread), but would it kill you to get away from cishet norms even just a little?

Cause it's getting tiring to reply when an interaction is "colored" into a role and you're expected to reply to fit into something.

TLDR; let queer men be soft and switches and avoid the stereotype where if they look a certain or act a certain way, they're not allowed to x,y, and z.