The Feminization of Will Graham

Will Graham seems unable to escape the perpetual “bottom” allegations. Even when fans insist he’s a top, it’s often framed as a variation of bottoming, such as a power bottom. But why is that? Here’s an exploration of the deeper reasons behind this phenomenon, analyzing both aesthetics and narrative.

It’s natural, given the societal conditioning we’ve all absorbed, to impose binary gender roles onto same-gender relationships. We instinctively assign one as more “masculine” and the other as more “feminine,” even when those distinctions don’t necessarily apply. In Will’s case, Hugh Dancy is often described as looking “feminine,” when in reality, he’s simply leaner (not lean, leanER) than the actors he’s placed alongside, especially Mads, who is significantly taller. The assumption that the smaller person is more submissive is a deeply ingrained bias, reinforced by the fact that Hugh has a more youthful appearance, which further plays into the association of youth with femininity and passivity.

Beyond aesthetics, Hugh’s portrayal of Will is subtly eroticized, though not in an overt or deliberate way. His suffering, agony, and emotional turmoil are often expressed in a way that resembles the rapturous intensity of pleasure. Subconsciously, this is interpreted as submissive because there’s an almost spiritual understanding that dominance is stable while submission is chaotic and reactive. Hannibal, by contrast, rarely expresses emotion outwardly, he is always in control. Will, on the other hand, is deeply demonstrative, his every mood, sensation, and feeling written across his face and body.

However, instead of framing this dynamic through the rigid lens of femininity and masculinity, a more accurate perspective would be to view it as active versus reactive, solar versus lunar. These are more fluid, archetypal energies, ones that transcend gender entirely.

It’s fascinating how the fandom struggles to depict Hannibal as a true bottom in both fanart and fanfiction, or even to engage with such portrayals. I believe this is tied to an aesthetic preference, where someone with Mads’ physicality, his broad frame, sharp features, and restrained physicality, is not what people typically imagine in the role of the penetrated. This is especially true for a character like Hannibal, who barely outwardly reacts to anything.

There’s a visual and narrative expectation that the one being penetrated should be highly expressive, physically, emotionally, sensorially, because penetration is, by nature, an invasive act. In fiction, we tend to prefer depictions where that invasion is met with intense, positive reactions, as this reinforces a sense of willing participation and avoids discomfort surrounding themes of coercion or non-consent (generally speaking of course, since there are those who enjoy to engage with non-con media).

Yet, being penetrated is not inherently a submissive act, it is, in many ways, a powerful one. The bottom is the one receiving pleasure without exerting effort, existing in a state of pure reception, and there is immense power in that. The top, in contrast, is the one serving, exerting force, dedication, and care to bring the bottom pleasure. True dominance, then, does not necessarily belong to the one doing the penetrating. Unless the context is non-consensual, the power dynamic shifts: the bottom holds the power by requiring the top to earn access, to create the conditions necessary for their body to open. There is an expectation to be convinced, through desire, through skill, through reverence.

In this way, the act of bottoming is not about submission, but about allowing oneself to become the source of pleasure without effort. The body itself becomes the site of delight, existing solely to be worshipped in return.