#I find that the term queer describes my individual relationship to that but also describes a community tie for me

[nothorses]

This is a genuine ask and I hope it doesn't come off as rude, obviously people can do whatever they want forever, but what is the logic behind a lesbian dating a transgender man? (By lesbian I mean someone who is only attracted to women), wouldn't that exclude binary trans men then since trans men are men? Or is it like "Trans men can be lesbians because they have vaginas" which just feels like bioessentialism with progressive wording...

I think the core misunderstanding here might be in your use of the word "logic". And there's a super high chance I'm extrapolating more intention than you put into that word choice, but hear me out.

On a super basic level, I think it's important to understand the reasons people use words like "lesbian" and "trans man" in the first place. In certain contexts, it makes sense to assign these terms more rigid definitions: a study would likely have a single, clear definition for those words in order to talk about some research results. An academic essay might need a shared definition if they're talking about broad trends and systemic issues.

But when we're talking about an individual's choice of identity labels- the words they use to describe their own personal experiences and relationship to gender and orientation- it doesn't make as much sense to apply someone else's definition of those words to that individual's use of them. They're trying to describe their own internal world to you; what matters in that conversation is how they understand the words they use, and why they chose them.

Don't get me wrong: common understandings of a word can play a part in that conversation! My understanding of what "gay trans man" means has been shaped almost entirely by other people. I chose those words for myself because of what I think most people will understand them to mean. In twenty years, it's possible that the common understandings of those words could change, and I might use different words to better communicate the same internal experience.

But I also might not. I might decide that my personal connection to those words is more important to me, or even that saying I'm a "gay trans man", as a person 20 years older than I am now, better reflects my internal experience as one that was shaped by the time I came to understand myself in. Maybe it'll be important to me to communicate that I understand myself as a "gay trans man" because of what those words meant 20 years ago. Maybe it'll be important to me to ask tomorrow's queer people to learn about my context, and my story, in order to really understand me.

And maybe, when I fill out a survey for a queer study in 20 years, I'll read the definitions they use for all of these identity labels and categorize myself accordingly, even though I don't personally identify with those definitions or words.

So yeah, I could talk about all the reasons someone might identify as a "lesbian" and still be attracted to trans men. I could talk about trans men who still call themselves "lesbians" because of what the words meant 20 or 40 years ago, or some unique definition they heard in one place and decided they liked enough to keep, even though nobody else has even heard it. I could talk about lesbians whose partners turn out to be trans men, and who still feel attracted to them afterwards; whose partners are okay with, or even feel validated by, their lesbian partners still calling themselves "lesbians". I could talk about nonbinary trans men, and bigender or multigender trans men, who are women and/or lesbians as much as they are trans men. I could talk about bi and pan lesbians, who may find themselves attracted to one trans man or a handful of men- trans and cis both- but otherwise mostly experience attraction to women.

But like, the point shouldn't be to find a good enough reason to justify it. The point isn't the "logic". The point is to understand that everyone's internal experience is fundamentally different from yours, and to be curious about each individual.

It's great that you asked this question in sincerity, but I'm the wrong person to be asking.

When someone says they're a lesbian who's attracted to trans men, they're trying to share something about themselves with you! That is a precious, unique thing you are being entrusted with. Get curious! Ask them what those words mean to them, and take the opportunity to get to know them better. Learn their story! Connect!

I can't tell you that person's story any more than you can guess it on your own, no matter how much you try to logic it out. That's exciting! The world is big, and it's full of unique stories and perspectives you couldn't even dream of inventing! That's so much better than a logic puzzle, don't you think?

[sapphicsigh]

Y'all are so weird (derogatory) for pressuring actors to confirm their sexuality for YOUR comfort. You do realize that REAL PEOPLE CANNOT QUEERBAIT RIGHT?! GET A GRIP!!! Y'ALL ARE ACTIVELY MAKING PPLS LIVES WORSE!!!*

*if you think forcing kit connor to come out of the closet was a good thing, then ur a freak (derogatory), and u need to rethink ur entire life

Queerbait is a term that was created to describe how TV SHOWS & MOVIES market their project as queer to entice queer viewers to watch and there's no follow thru/delivery. Queerbaiting can also occur unintentionally at first and then when the showrunners/writers realize the audience's reactions they can start to intentionally lean into making their characters do gay shit. The writers lean into a queer reading of the relationship to gain queer viewers and (most importantly) their money (think Supernatural and Sherlock). Cas confessed his love for Dean (duh, obviously he loves him) and then was sucked away into super hell. 😀 cool/s. When John and Mary got married, they were dancing together at the reception, and SHERLOCK LEFT BC HE WAS SO SAD. He couldn't stand to be there and feel so alone. He had to go brood elsewhere, he was brooding so hard.

Killing Eve was probably one of the gayest shows I've seen in my entire life but they (Villanelle and Eve) never got together.

Queerbaiting sucks. I understand the hatred for it. I hate it too!!! But it's not an individual issue and is not going to be solved by harassing 18yr olds on Twitter (incredibly sick & twisted (derogatory) btw). Do I find it annoying that Harry Styles is purposely vague about his sexuality? Yes! Absolutely! It's weird asf. At best, he's actually queer, just incredibly private, and at worst, he's straight but wants to maintain an air of mystery around himself to seem cooler/edgier. No matter how annoying/cringe YOU PERSONALLY find a celebrity and how they describe (or don't) their sexuality it DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO THAT (very personal) INFORMATION!!! Queerbaiting is an industry wide issue and is a product of our society's deep rooted homophobia! If you can't understand that, then you should try learning about queer history and the Hays codes.

[duckprintspress]

hi--about the new Scholarly Pursuits anthology--First, how much of the story must be set in an academic setting? ie a situation in which a journalist researching a piece goes to a college to interview a professor, goes out with him for coffee and more conversation; he, & possibly the college, then reappear later in the story. Second, acespec is included in your definition of queer, correct? (because I think the journalist in the story in my head is female, het & demisexual) Thanks

Hi!

The core of what we're looking for in these stories is the people who are pursuing knowledge and the places where they are seeking that knowledge. There's no way to draw a hard line on how much academia is "enough," especially since we're open to stories in non-academic settings that fit the criteria of "people pursuing knowledge" and "places where the knowledge is sought" (as I keep joking to people, Senshi from Dungeon Meshi would easily fit under our definition: he is systematically pursuing knowledge and the setting in which he pursues this knowledge is a dungeon).

Based on what you describe, it doesn't sound like this story about a journalist really fits under these umbrellas, but it's definitely in a gray area, I think it'd just depend on how much the focus is on the journalists academic pursuit of the research for their article? But in general, like - two students meeting up to do not-academic-things in a coffee shop definitely wouldn't count, but a barista at that same coffee shop who is approaching mixing their drinks as a scientist might, studying their mixtures and trying to find the perfect one, definitely would. So, like... it's more about how your journalist is going about things and what the focus of the story is. The story should emphasize the academia aspect, not the "getting to know the professor" part. Not that it can't be both! It's just not an exact science.

Basically, we're looking for stories where the academia aspect is front and center. People bonding over their shared love of pursuing knowledge, for example, or the inherent romanticism between a researcher and their research subject, or academic buildings that have gained a degree of sentience because of all the wild things that have happened in their halls, etc. A story about a couple people who happen to be located at a college wouldn't really fit what we have in mind, so in your case it really just depends on the characters themselves and how their relationship to their research/writing/etc. is relevant to the story and solidly grounds it in "academia."

In terms of "definition of queer," fuck yeah aces are queer and a big ole middle finger to anyone who says otherwise.

Generally, for purposes of determined what qualifies for our anthologies, when I'm asked, "does x identity fall under this umbrella?" my response is, "would that character say it does?" and if they would, then they do. Like, we did an mlm and a wlw anthology, and people asked about outside the binary characters, and like... well, if the NB character is in a relationship with a woman and would consider that relationship sapphic...then it's sapphic? And likewise for Achillean?

So like... this demi character you describe, if they would absolutely insist they are not queer? Well... I think their identities would qualify them to be queer anyway should they wish the mantle, but they think they're not queer, and that's probably not a great fit for a queer anthology? Especially if their insistence on their not-queerness will be a plot point? That's really not what we'd be looking for.

Aspec identities are absolutely queer and I always consider them such from a group perspective, but also it's worth respecting any individual who chooses personally to say "I don't want to be under the umbrella, thanks but no thanks."

A demi character who considers themselves queer 100% can be in our queer anthologies. A demi character who doesn't consider themselves queer...well, if they don't think they're queer, then that's not really a queer character in a queer anthology...

Does that make sense?

(long winded answer is long, sorry.)

-unforth

[dreamsofanenbysapphic]

arospec

a poem(?), a collection of ideas, things i have been thinking about, about relationships and the platonic/romantic binary

some citations:

arospec wiki sources, amatonormativity, instructional manifesto for relationship anarchy, my favorite poem by alok vaid-menon, aromantic manifesto, amatopunk

full text below the cut:

screenshotted text from various sources over a galaxy background, spread across two images:

arospec, is an umbrella term

People on the aromantic spectrum may feel little to no romantic attraction, or feel romantic attraction differently, more rarely or

Loveless Aro describes someone who is some way disconnected from the concept of love, rejects the idea that they need to experience love

Quoiromantic (also called WTFromantic experiences may include:

Finding the concept of romance to be inaccessible, inapplicable, or nonsensical.

the questioning itself

becomes the identity

Disidentifying with the concept of romantic attraction - either as a social construct or as something potentially applicable to oneself.

a disidentification with the romantic/nonromantic binary,

They may consider themselves relationship anarchists.

Amatonormativity

to describe the widespread assumption that everyone is better off in an exclusive, romantic, long-term coupled relationship, and that everyone is seeking such a relationship.

[elizabeth brake]

Due to the ambiguous nature of romantic attraction, sometimes defined by the actions that one takes during a relationship, such as holding hands, kissing, or cuddling. However, none of these activities alone necessarily indicate romantic attraction.

The prefix nebula- comes from the Latin word nebulous, meaning "clouded" or "unclear".

Queerplatonic relationships (QPR) and queerplatonic partnerships (QPP) are committed intimate relationshisp which are not romantic

This way of thinking is also one that places certain relationships above others, such as Romantic relationships being viewed as 'above' or 'superior' to Platonic relationships. If two people are dating they are 'more than friends'. If they aren't dating then they're 'just friends'.

Amatonormativity prompts the sacrifice of other relationships to romantic love and marriage and relegates friendship and solitudinousness to cultural invisibility.

Amatopunk!

challenges amatonormativity, and how society views aspec people, polyamorous people, and others who do not fit into the "right" mold.

Relationship Anarchy (abbreviated RA) is the belief that relationships should not be bound by set rules, aside from the rules the individuals involved mutually agree upon.

sensualarians have relationships that are often "in between" typical relationships categories, whereas relationship anarchy completely breaks down all relationship categories

Relationship anarchy questions the idea that love is a limited resource

i want a world where friendship is appreciated as a form of romance. i want a world where when people ask if we are seeing anyone we can list the names of all of our best friends

[alok vaid-menon, friendship is romance]

queer liberation must abolish romance as its long term goal aromantics aspire to:

view queer intimacies as web-like counter-publics that reinforce rather than compete with and enervate each other.

transform queer intimacy into political solidarity and action.

[aromantic manifesto]

Relationship anarchy (sometimes abbreviated RA) is the application of anarchist principles to intimate relationships. Its values include autonomy, anti-hierarchical practices, anti-normativity, and community interdependence. RA is explicitly anti-amatonormative and anti-mononormative and is commonly, but not always, non-monogamous.

With one's relationships starting as a blank slate, the act of distributing physical intimacy, sexual intimacy, emotional intimacy, etc. is according to one's desires rather than preexisting "rules"

Queerness is a longing that propels us onward, beyond romances of the negative and toiling in the present. Queerness is that thing that lets us feel that this world is not enough, that indeed something is missing.

[josé estabon muñoz, cruising utopia]

[lunarsilkscreen]

Tyler Durden [Reference Link]

I found that website in like... 2010's sometime. And I never fully understood what it was describing until much more recently. I did *often* wonder why a lot of people Idolized Durden even though he was the story's antagonist.

What makes Fight Club such a good movie is how it hits quite a few demographics simultaneously, and a lot of people can identify with the main character in the story quite easily.

On the surface, it's a story about a person who develops dissasociative identity disorder, only finding out about it from weeks of insomnia (or maybe it was caused by it.)

At its root, Fight Club is a Queer story, this is mostly because Chuck Palahniuk is Gay, and writes a lot of Queer literature. But it's quite a bit more than that, and the movie took it quite a bit further than the book did in terms of art. I'mma focus on the movie though because it's freshest in my mind.

The doctors are absolutely no help in trying to diagnose the source of the narrator's pain, and instead tell the narrator to suck it up and go to support groups for people who lost their testicles in an accident in order to "learn what real pain looks like."

This is the first reference to one of the story layers being transcoded.

Because Valerian root is used to treat PMS. The Narrator, Jack, is being treated like a woman by this doctor. Which is outside the typical interpretation, but there's scientific evidence; [NIH.GOV] [UCL Study]

Despite the Narrator being a man, he's being dismissed like a women. This is one of those things they don't tell you about being a Queer-Coded individual, sometimes people treat you like their perceptions of you, instead of neutrally.

Anecdotally, Talk Show hosts talk about how they're often treated by randos on the streets like they've had a long-term relationship, because one watched them every night. While the one being watched doesn't know who they are.

This ALSO happens as a part of stereotyping. When you see somebody, or interact with somebody for the first time, sometimes your brain will collect all the details it can and you act to that person based on how you think they act based on other people you've interacted with before.

So if your last interaction with some blue-haired they-men, was negative, you might treat another pink haired they-by as if it's the continuation of the previous conversation with the they-men.

This is what happens in racial discrimination cases. Because your brain remembers the negatives more than the positives, especially if You've not interacted with somebody like them before.

What we see next is morbid obsession with others pain as entertainment "it's cheaper than a movie and there's free coffee".

See in the days before smartbricks, people had to find things to do and places to be that they wouldn't be kicked out of for existing in. (Similar to today if you're houseless.) Usually that cost money, unless you went to a support group to watch the show.

This sparks a fascination in the narrator to seek out support groups, because it's there he can find a *real connection with other people*. And with these connections, he figure out who he *really is*.

For trans men, this is *feeling like a men* but being *treated like a women* and for trans women; it's the acceptance of self. Why? Chloe is many individuals first real introduction to the ""Queer Lifestyle"", is dying, probably has AIDs, probably got it from too many sex, has all this sexual paraphernalia at home, is obsessed with getting laid, is about to die; only cares about getting laid.

What I just typed out wasn't actually said in the movie, only implied. And so a lot of queer people are intensely afraid of being queer to begin with because that means they have to accept that stereotype which is "Chloe". They have to redefine how society sees trans people, and they have to accept that; like Chloe, they'll probably die INCELULAR.

This depiction of "Chloe" is inside many if not all queer people.

From that we spawn Jacks two Alter Ego's. Marla Singer, and Tyler Durden. One is the Feminine, the other is the Hyper Masculine. If Jack is the Ego, then Marla is the ID, and Tyler is the Super Ego.

Neither can exist *except through* Jack.

"Some times I'm fighting, and other times I'm watching Tyler Fight".

"Sometimes he speaks for me."

This is Depersonalization. Feeling like you're watching somebody else control your body. Everything happens to *that* person but you're not allowed to be involved. Not really. Kinda like Astral Projection while you're conscious. (If you believe in *that*)

"Can I be Next?" - Some guy watching another man beat himself up asking for permission to also beat himself up. (Or is it beating himself off?, is fight club an allegory for sex work?)

This is where we start to get into Disassociation territory. Because a lot of interpretations suggest nobody is real *except* for the narrator. I think, the Narrator accidentally started a group based on this morbid entertainment of watching others suffer, because they were all sick of it (because they were the ones suffering)

Children of Abuse (and later adults trapped in abusive situations) often feel like "prisoners in their own bodies". This relates to the narrator's trouble with his own father. But there's always this big [blank] ad lib as to what is actually causing the narrator's distress.

This is intentional so that audience members can fill in the blanks.

Is it Society? Is it Familial issues? Is it genetic? Am I defective? Is it the Cop? The Rich? The Poor? The concept of money and wealth itself? Is it because I pissed in that one guys soup? Or is it because some kid walked in on me in the changing room because the lock was broken?

Tyler is the Super Eggo. Everybody's inner desire to solve the issue at hand in the most extreme way. Like the Joker. And in many cases, one could argue, has solved many of the world's issues already.

But it's not a sustainable solution. At which point does Tyler become the problem, instead of just an outlet for frustration? Is it the start of Project Mayhem? Is it the end of the movie?

And what about Marla anyway? Marla just wants to enjoy a nice peaceful life. There will be interruptions, there will be pain, but we should at least enjoy the moments we can, in between the moments we can't. Just let it be man.

Some asshole posted Marla moaning on an otherwise quiet Tik Tok again.

Then they started a company turning hazardous waste into something productive. Only what do you do with all the waste product from making soap? Can't have any waste, gotta use it for something. Otherwise, that'd be wasteful. Can't have that. Waste of Space. Space of Waste. Wasting wasted space. Spacing wasted waists.

Jack knows everybody else's dreams, but he doesn't know his own. He's just doing it to do it. Producing to Produce. The opposite of what he had been doing previously: Consuming to Consume.

"Same problem; Tyler. Tyler Tyler Tyler. F* Tyler. Tyler needs to move out."

Marla made Tyler mad because she existed. Then, Tyler made Jack Jealous because Tyler wanted Marla. But now Marla is gone and Tyler is here, and Tyler is the problem.

But Tyler and Marla are both Jack, so who is really the problem?

Bob is.

Obviously.

Send him on a mission for Project Mayhem. You know he can't handle it. He hasn't wasted his waist. So we'll do it for him. Space Monkeys are Dumb, gullible, and impressionable. Now Bobs a Martyr. See that problem solved itself. That's what he gets for making me jealous of his fantastic tits.

I haven't answered the question; Why do people worship Tyler Durden?

Derealization; None of this real *obviously*. nobody "worships" Tyler Durden. No sane/rational person would. So they must all just be other identities that I created. That explains why they're even here anyway. Otherwise that means I started *some* kind of cult. And I'm going to be honest with you; I hate cults. And I'm definitely not charismatic enough to lead one. So I must just be imagining the whole thing. Yep. That is the only thing that makes sense right now.

Tyler Durden is that unexpressed rage, or dissatisfaction with life. The "Final" Solution. The drunk president with his finger on the nuclear button. If all else fails, I could always destroy *something*. But I'd rather not.

Who could you become if you had need to be?

But, if you're a successful cult leader. Then who needs Tylenol anymore anyway? My autocorrect seems to think Tyler is synonymous with Tylenol and Marla is synonymous with Motrin. Both of them are painkillers in different ways. I suppose dear autocorrect. But why can't they coexist?

I reject that theory until further evidence is given.

Ultimately, Tyler is that toxic representation of "man" that every person has inside of them. Toxic Masculinity incarnate. There is nothing wrong with Tyler as a concept. But there's no denying he is a problem. That Alpha there always trying to be better than everybody else, and never in a good way. Only ever in his smug asshole way.

And then, all that's left is Jack and Marla. Or neither if you're a Tyler. Sorry Tyler; shouldn't've been obsessed with controlling *everything* and with blowing up the world. The only thing Tyler had going for him was that he accepted everybody for what they are. If only he didn't use that to manipulate and gaslight the shit out of them.

For me; Ultimately, this movie is about accepting myself as who I am, a trans women. And everything that implies.

For others, it's accepting both of their feminine and masculine bits. For some men it's the acceptance that they're always gonna be queer coded. And not the manliest manly man ever to Gaston.

But you can keep trying to Gaston until you've Gastomaxxed. As long as you don't become a Tyler.

And still others, like those with DID, it's about the acceptance that it'll almost always be a party in your head, and having somebody to rely on that accepts that part of yous, can help keep you relating to the world. Just as long as they aren't that stupid ass dismissive doctor named Tyler.

[erigold13261]

you are a wise person, and i have a question. how exactly do you describe asexuality and aromanticism? what makes it different?

I don't think I'm that wise, but I guess that is something about yourself that is hard to gauge without an outsider's perspective. (also this is probably gonna be a mess of a post and a bit all over the place because I kinda just woke up and have work soon, sorry lol)

Just by labels alone, asexuality is little to no SEXUAL attraction to others, while aromanticism is little to no ROMANTIC attraction to others. Technically you can still have some attraction (sexual or romantic) and still be aro and/or ace.

Though if you can't tell the difference from sexual and romantic attraction then those definitions don't really help all that much. I've seen plenty of posts and even heard people IRL say stuff like a marriage without sex is a loveless marriage or how once the fun in the sheets dies then the relationship is over.

Which can be a pretty big problem for aro/ace people who show love in different ways that might not be sexual (there are still aro/ace people who have sex either because of high libido, wanting to please their partners, or just liking sex without the attraction part which is another thing that other labels and non-queer people sometimes have a hard time understanding).

This is why, for me, it is hard to explain the difference between aromanticism and asexuality, because not everyone knows/cares about the difference between sex and romance.

I don't know if my lack of wanting to be touched by others is an asexual thing, an autistic thing, or a trauma response. Same with my lack of romantic interest being aromantic or autistic or an introvert thing. To me, these identities are really hard to define or even realize you are part of because it is the LACK of attraction.

I very much thought I was pansexual or bisexual for a very long time because I had that "I feel the same way to everyone" idea, only to later find out I just don't have any feelings and it's a 0+0=0 deal.

I'm pretty sure it was actually a microlabel that made me realize I was actually asexual! (which is why I am a defender of microlabels because I needed to know the specific way I felt was included under an umbrella term before I realized I was actually under that term. I still struggle calling myself trans even though genderfluid is under the trans umbrella).

But yea! I'm Aegosexual, meaning "individuals on the asexual spectrum who feel disconnected from the subject of arousal." You can have sexual desires but not related to you, or have no interest in being a part of the sexual fantasy you have yourself.

I only EVER had sexual desires for fictional characters and never had any kind of desire to be with a real life human at all (which I think is because of my touch aversion). And even with those characters, I never had fully detailed desires or fantasies. Nothing ever went all the way and it's mostly just cuddles and make out sessions.

Really I just put all these pieces together, found a microlabel that worked for me, and then worked backwards because my specific situation fit that label and got me to the Asexual label.

I basically knew by that point I was not sexually interested in others at all. So it wasn't a true surprise that I realized I was asexual. I was able to disconnect sex and romance pretty well so I thought I was homoromantic asexual (or biromantic, again, I didn't realize I was aromantic at the time so I was again doing the 0+0=0 thing but for romance this time lol).

I only recently started identifying as aromantic because I just realized I was okay in never having a relationship with another person. The only person I ever saw myself getting into a relationship with is my best friend and I think THAT was only because of heteronormitivity being pushed onto me that I very much got over.

It doesn't help that most of the time if I don't see a friend (or family member) in front of me/in my life for a while, I just sort of push them out of my mind and forget about them. It's an object permanence kind of situation I have where I just don't connect people to me unless I can see them/interact with them. Which probably helped me realize I wouldn't be good in a relationship as I would be distant and sucky as a partner.

That realization I would be a shit partner as well as only feeling compelled to be in a relationship because of heteronormitivity or because I didn't want to say no to a friend that asked really ended up sealing the deal for me later on that I was aromantic.

Okay, sorry for the personal analogies and stuff. But that is the best way I can describe aromanticism and asexuality. I know I kinda skated around the topics, but to me these labels are feelings, or lack of feelings, that I had to come to terms to and realize what they meant for me.

It also doesn't help that people have different ideas of what sex and romance are. What could be seen as a romantic dinner date between two people could end up just being a casual hang out between two friends. Or sex is just a fun past time instead of a super intimate moment between two people.

If you don't see stuff like hand holding or sex as intimate actions, or have any romance or sexual desires behind them, then you could be aromantic and/or asexual but others would think you aren't.

I know my sister thinks if you have sex you can't be asexual even though I've told her countless times that you can have a high libido, just like the action, or want to make your partner happy all without actually being sexually attracted to them and yet she still says if you have sex you can't be asexual.

It really is hard to define these labels (and other labels too honestly) because everyone has a different idea of what counts as sex or romance. But if you can disconnect sex and romance, and realize you have one or the other (or neither), then you have a better chance of realizing if you are or aren't asexual/aromantic.

For me it was thinking of my future and wondering if I would ever be okay marrying, having a relationship, having sex, doing all the stereotypical "loving" things, and I realized that no. I would not be able to do that.

I will admit, I am a selfish person. I have a hard time caring about other people, but when I do I care deeply about them. But even then, if they are not near me, or if they have something I can't relate to, I end up not actually caring. Though I do still try to be there for friends and family, and act like I do care, but I honestly don't.

I think that kind of mindset also helped me realize I was aroace. As I can't care enough to be a good partner or even try to get a partner, and I know I wouldn't care enough to put their needs over mine (or compromise on sex/romance/touching) at all.

Basically I felt an ick thinking of being in a relationship (whether it was a sexless one, a romanceless one, both, or a "normal" one, I just couldn't do it in my head) and let that help me decide if I was aromantic and asexual.

Probably not the best way to do it, and this was probably not the best explanation at all (because my two sides are highly technical definition or very personal stories when it comes to explanations apparently), but this is how I differentiate the two for others, even though to me they are a connected label of aroace.

[bashsbooks]

No Way, They Were Gay?: Hidden Lives and Secret Loves Book Review

★★☆☆☆ ~ 2 out of 5 stars

One of my favorite pastimes is wandering through the nonfiction section of my local libraries to see what we’re passing off as the truth these days. This is how I stumbled upon No Way, They Were Gay?: Hidden Lives and Secret Loves by Lee Wind, a book that immediately intrigued and exasperated me in equal measure when I saw pictures of Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln on the cover. Further compelled by the back blurb that makes the (in my opinion, accurate, but sorely misused in this instance) claim that history is not as simple as a rote statement of facts but more like a series of events and circumstances interpreted and reinterpreted by various people over time, each coming from their own specific contexts and biases and contributing those to their interpretations, I checked it out. 

No Way, They Were Gay? is broken into three broad sections: men who loved men, women who loved women, and people who lived outside the gender binary. It also contains a short introduction to terms and explains some of the choices that the author made when describing historical people - such as the wildly questionable choice to refer to Charley Pankhurst (who was assigned female at birth (AFAB) but lived as a man) and Anne Lister (who is a well-known and well-documented woman who loved women but had a butch gender presentation) with they/them pronouns. I was so taken aback by this particular choice that I kept track of the pronouns used for everyone mentioned in this book and was uncomfortable to find that they were only used for masculine-leaning people who were assigned female at birth - despite the presence of a nonbinary assigned male individual. 

I understand the complexities of trying to figure out what historical figures would have identified as and what they language they would’ve used if they lived in the modern world, but I find it uncomfortable to make assumptions that are clearly rooted in a combination of assigned sex and gender presentation; nonbinary people come in all combinations of these characteristics, and they use all kinds of pronouns. I am of the opinion that it is usually most respectful to use the pronouns for people that they used for themselves, if known. And I feel that we know what Pankhurst and Lister used for themselves. 

I go in-depth about this pronoun issue not just because I care about this on a personal level (though, obviously, I do), but because it is indicative of just how pervasive and stark Wind’s biases are throughout the course of this book. Clearly, he thinks they/them pronouns are for masc AFABs. He also presents very cherry-picked evidence for his arguments about a few famous and well-documented individuals being gay - such as Abraham Lincoln. I don’t have a strong opinion on Lincoln’s sexuality, but what I do have a strong opinion on is the choice to present a friendship between two men that met the platonic standard of the time as inherently “gay” (with the strong implication here of “gay” being synonymous with a romantic relationship) while simultaneously being dismissive of/barely getting into the men’s relationships to their wives. 

This is extremely frustrating because this book covers actual historically important queer people, too, so you have to weed through the author’s fringe theories about Lincoln alongside actual facts about Bayard Rustin and Christine Jorgensen’s lives. And I want children to learn about Rustin and Jorgensen and dozens of other important queer people, but I don’t want them to learn about someone who is incredibly biased at best and incredibly sloppy and rude to certain portions of the community at worst. And additionally, because I can't trust this book, I don't know how accurate portions of it that cover individuals and topics I'm less familiar with (such as two-spirit identities or the nature of relationships between Mosotho women) are.

That is why, although I found most of the book more or less surface-level accurate, I cannot recommend it in good faith. I give it 2 out of 5 stars. Yes, it could be a basic starting point, but it’s misleading and not fully-fleshed out - look, the intended audience is children, not idiots. You can explain more complexity than this to fifth graders, and frankly, you should. This book is an attempt at validating historical queer existence that falls so embarrassingly flat because it was trying to do too much with too little information. Don’t do that. Don’t do that. There is no need to feed into this conspiracy theory that historians are hiding queer people from us when the truth is more complicated than that. There is no need to claim someone so well-known and studied is queer, when we really don’t know, just so kids recognize the name and pick up the book. They can learn a new name. In my experience, they’re generally more interested in learning about new people than adults are. 

[sapphicriv]

Welcome!

Hi! I'm Remi! I'm 20 and I decided to restart my queer tiktok account and with that decided to make a Tumblr account. I have a very complicated identity with a lot of uncommon labels that aren't very well known, so I'm going to explain them. Source links will be in my next post

Firstly, my pronouns, as well as they/them, I also use:

ae/aer/aer/aers/aerself

ve/vem/ver/vers/verself

ve/vem/ver/vers/vemself

shey/sher/sheir/sheirs/sheirself

shey/shem/sher/shers/sherself

shey/shem/sher/shers/shemself

shey/sher/sheir/sheirs/sheirself

xe/xem/xer/xers/xerself

xey/xem/xer/xers/xerself

xhey/xhem/xher/xhers/xherself

GENDER:

This is very much still a work in progress, but recently there've been some major developments. I started using xenogenders!

The xenos I currently use are:

messgender: a gender in which someone has almost no idea of what their gender could be, or keeps finding terms that almost fit, but not quite, causing them to jump from label to label. They can’t tell if their gender is fluid or not, how many genders they have, or if they have a gender at all.

keysmashgender: a xenogender that one can only describe through a keyboard smash, such as afkjbdfvbkxfd. It feels chaotic, confusing, and unable to be described by normal words.

chaosgender: a gender identity where one's gender does a lot of confusing things and doesn't make sense to anyone, even to the person themselves. It could be thought of as a very complex gender, a very fluid gender, a gender which is difficult to understand or a gender which is hard to describe in one word.

staticgender: like TV static; fuzzy and incomprehensible. This gender may feel complicated or confusing. It may also feel fluid and everchanging.

blurian: a xenogender identity where one's gender feels blurry. One knows that the gender exists. but cannot figure out what it is

(QUESTIONING) blurgender: a type of genderfluid where one doesn't know what gender they are, because all the genders they are fluid between blur together and become indistinguishable from one another. Someone who is blurgender sort of knows what genders they are fluid between, but cannot tell the gender they are feeling at the moment.

The non-xenos I use are:

(QUESTIONING) Abinary:  refers to genders that are completely unrelated to maleness, masculinity, femaleness, or femininity, and is nowhere in between, being completely away from the binary, whilst still not always being genderless. Abinary genders may describe feeling any strength of gender whilst still being unrelated to the binary genders. The term abinary can be summarised as any gender that is unrelated to the binary.

Genderfade: a gender characterized by an individual's gender only being present when they are thinking about it, and their gender fades or melts away when they are not thinking about it.

aegogender: is the feeling of disconnection or separation of gender from an individual. This term can be combined with another gender, or it can be used on its own. My personal aegogender experiences are

Being genderless but having a vague or abstract connection to some gender.

Having a gender, but feeling disconnected or disassociated from it.

Quoigender:

a gender identity and umbrella term for those who do not fully understand, or want to define, their gender. My personal experiences with quoigender are:

Finding one's gender too confusing

One questioning their gender for so long that their questioning starts to become part of their identity

Not understanding gender at all

AROACE SPEC:

Aegosexual: a disconnection between oneself and a sexual target/object of arousal, I don't wanna get banned right off the bat, so I'm just gonna say I relate to all 3 points in the source

Bellusromantic: having interest in traditionally romantic things, such as kissing or cuddling, but not feeling romantic attraction, and not wanting a romantic relationship. A bellusromantic individual may enjoy or desire these activities in non-romantic contexts, but does not enjoy them in the context of a romantic relationship.

(QUESTIONING) Mutoicaro: a  term for when my aromantic orientation changes in response to a situation. For me, I'm primarily bellusromantic, however, if I were to meet a cupioromantic person, and I wished to be in a relationship with said person, I would, this therefore means I am:

arofluid: when one is fluid between aro-spec orientations. for me this is bellus and cupio

cupioromantic: an individual who may desire a romantic relationship, but may experience no romantic attraction.l

Quoiaroace: being both quoiromantic and quoisexual, meaning I don't understand what romantic attraction nor sexual attraction is

I relate to the following experiences:

Being unsure if you experience romantic or sexual attraction or not

Being unable to understand romantic and sexual attraction as a concept or feeling

Being unable to pin down a clear understanding of romantic and sexual attraction, so being unable to say whether or not you experience it

Struggling with romanticism and sexuality because it feels too complicated

Alterous attraction: for me this is a middle ground between platonic and romantic attraction

Omnialterous: experiencing alterous attraction to all genders with a preference

And that's it!

[arceespinkgun]

I'm glad someone brought up IDW1's relationship with queer relationships!!! Personally, a few relationships seem "imbalanced" is how I could best describe it, the relationships seem to be significantly one-sided— not in terms of reciprocation, but of meaning/depth?

The relationships (both canon and fanon) feel like it's FOR one character's development and/or characterisation, rather than the both of them. In canon, it doesn't affect the relationship or characters TOO significantly but the implications make some of the relationships seem slightly shallow in my opinion

I prefer for relationships to be significant to both parties involved, they don't necessarily have to be important in the SAME way but even then I feel like IDW1 didn't tackle that aspect of a relationship being significant to both individuals. And when they did people viewed it from a restricting lens, feeling the urge to conform the relationship into something more simpler and erasing the complexity of it

I mean, maybe? I haven't thought about any of them like that before. I do definitely think something like LL's last-minute Brainstorm/Perceptor (which I genuinely forgot was a thing until just now), which I found bizarre, is unbalanced in regards to how meaningful it is to each character. But I think it has other issues too. Like my interpretation of Brainstorm's story until that point was that it was trying to convey that he was going to stop chasing people he's shallowly infatuated with because that ends up hurting himself and everyone around him, and that instead he'd start by finding joy and closeness with people like his Amica, Nautica? And that for Nautica, she'd be able to have closeness with him after she lost so many of the people closest to her and had to suffer through toxic friendships in the past? So the sudden confirmation that Brainstorm and Perceptor are into each other seemed to undercut the narrative.

My issues with IDW1's representation tend to be… way more basic than this though, like the way a queer character like Overlord was not only stripped of the few good qualities he had in his original incarnation, but also is depicted literally stealing a woman's skin in order to deceive people, or the fact that Ratchet and Drift were hinted to have romantic feelings for each other in comics since 2012, finally were confirmed as a couple six years later in 2018… only for them to be together for literally one (1) issue before Ratchet is dead lol

[merulanoir]

I've spent this week listening to Joonas Konstig's book A Year As A Gentleman and it's making me think about so many things that I have known of but which have never warranted proper inspection.

The book's premise is basically Konstig, a self-proclaimed punk author, spending a full year learning how to be a real gentleman. He takes a really fresh look at the history of the term, all the aspects he associates with it, and commits to becoming a gentleman himself. Obviously, there's a lot of talk about appearance, clothing, and manners, but Konstig is a low-income person with three young kids, a wife, and a mean temperament. I really like how open he is about the financial aspect of his project, as well as the sometimes slightly brutal way he talks about himself as a husband and father.

As someone whose own relationship with manhood and manliness isn't clear-cut or easy, reading this book is making me feel like I finally found a new door in my apartment. I knew it was there, but it took me this long to figure out where exactly it was, how the doorknob works, and whether to pull or push. It's not a ready-made set of instructions, but Konstig's descriptions about this inherently masculine, historical concept is giving me some much needed new perspective. I love it.

I'm not sure I fully agree with his definition of what being a gentleman means (sure, fencing is cool but necessary? Debatable!), but something about the aspect of I vs. We, individualism vs. community, and modern habits vs. tradition really speaks to me. It had simply never occurred to me that the truest purpose of etiquette, meaning good manners and formal behavior, is to make sure everyone feels good and included. It's a skill that low-key demands you to shed a little bit of your personality in favor of ensuring others are taken into consideration.

And I know that saying this simplified version of what the book takes 18+ hours to describe is just that, a simplification. Hearing the point I just made caused me to bristle at first because as a typical liberal leftist 30-something, I have been indoctrinated to believe that individualism always trumps tradition. I took for granted the idea that self-expression is the highest virtue, and now I'm adjusting this idea to fit a side that's not even the opposite, more like an aspect of responsibility. Like Konstig says (quoting professor Matti Klinge), sometimes self-expression becomes destructive. Many people Konstig interviewed raised the point that the past wasn't just sheer misery until the modern people invented Fun.

Listening to this book is also making me understand a lot more why traditional values as a term is pretty much an alt-right dog whistle these days, and it makes me a little furious. There's so much good in this kind of tradition, and neofascist losers are working overtime to claim that as their domain. I fully subscribe to the modern ideas about raising children gently and as individuals, but at the same time I'm feeling more certain that this whole "building character" thing is extremely valuable. The difficulty is finding a responsible way to introduce a kid to harsher things and balancing being demanding with compassion.

What I'm trying to say is that I have really struggled with finding a balance with being a queer, liberal man and embracing the parts of my life that are more formal and traditional. I spent two years in the army, and while as a job it's nothing I miss, learning that kind of behavior was valuable. The easiest example is probable saying that yeah, I believe I do owe respect to people who are older and/or more experienced than me, and I'm glad I know how to behave in a way that shows it unambiguously*. I also believe that it's none of my business to dictate how others behave because all I am responsible for is my own behavior. And behaving respectfully is still not the same thing as actually, genuinely respecting someone, which is a distinction that is increasingly vanishing IMO.

Anyway, it's a good book. I'm also a huge fan of understated fashion and sustainable design, and it's a delight to revisit and revise what I know about them. I'm really looking forward to continuing to read more about all this.

* Adding this as a footnote: Finnish as a language has the aspect of a T-V distinction, meaning the way you switch pronouns based on whether you're addressing someone you respect (exactly like the French tu/vous; in written Finnish it is sinä/te). It's something I have done automatically for many years for people who are older than me or otherwise in a position of authority, and which others consider a complete dinosaur-level linguistic fossil. I love it completely unironically.

[the-alan-price-combo]

Before I get into the (Affectionate) Stuff:

A handful of “disclaimers” about this analysis, so you know what to expect.

All Sections | Next Section

There will be citations for all of the general information I will be sharing, alongside some scans and images where I see them fit. While a handful of this information has been collected from biographies about the Animals and more recent interviews, most of the most affectionate content will be pulled from snippets of old music magazines. Funnily enough, most of those old articles are way less biased than the information circling around now.

While the cited-stuff will be pretty obvious, I’ll also be adding a lot of my personal thoughts to each “fun fact”. …Yes, quite a bit of this is going to be extrapolation, but anything additional I have to add will not extend beyond whatever is presented and the context preceding/following it. Relative to other homoerotic-songwriting-duos of this era of music, these two haven’t been nearly as well-documented… which is both a blessing and a curse. It’s a shame there isn’t more out there and what information we do have doesn’t have much detail, but that just leaves room for speculation during any gaps in time.

I will do my very best to not let anything skew beyond the parameters of pure friendship. I… have my thoughts on the more intimate aspects of their relationship, and, if I’m being honest, a good amount of Alan’s behavior would make a lot of sense if he had some form of deep feelings for Eric - whatever that entails. A queer analysis of Alan’s behavior and especially his music might be something I do in the future... However, those theories are very speculatory and I won’t go into them here. I want to give a very objective, relatively platonic view of their relationship, though there will be some unavoidable hints of homoeroticism. Hashtag Not My Fault. 😔

If you know me at all, then you know that I have a massive amount of sympathy towards Alan. Yes, I think his alleged taking-of-the-royalties-without-sharing-a-cent is a bad look, and the way he left in May of ‘65 was very unceremonious - both of these decisions deserve all of the criticism they get. However, with just a bit of digging and careful listening to his more autobiographical songs, you’ll find out that Alan had and still has many issues. Many, many undiagnosed issues, revolving around depression and anxiety, in particular. Again, some of this is just speculation… but this is a guy who literally describes his mental state as “many times I feel like running through a brick wall. But it’s few and far between now, ‘cause I ain’t got the strength anymore.” So… yeah. I don’t see Alan as some sort of malicious aggressor who was constantly pushing Eric’s buttons on purpose. I see him as a very depressed and manipulated individual who never got to properly work through his issues and made some mistakes because of them.

I won’t be making any direct comparisons between this pair and any other homoerotic-songwriting-duos if I can help it, since these two can really stand on their own. Back when I was first researching them in September of 2020, even I fell into the trap of thinking “Oh, so they’re just a failed Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards, and there was a lot of tension because they couldn’t be them? Hmm...” Honestly, the songwriting portion of their relationship is relatively miniscule to the musical partnership they shared - Alan’s keys combined with Eric’s voice - as well as their general friendship. The songwriting was very artificial, all things considered; rushed and coaxed out of them by an anxious record producer and manager. I’ll go more into detail about their songwriting later, but I just wanted to make it clear that I’m not trying to pit any duos against each other, in terms of how effective they were or how healthy their relationship was, or whatever. Alan and Eric’s relationship wasn’t perfect and I love them for that.

Please take breaks while you read this; drink a beverage of some sort, eat a cookie, fold some laundry, then come back to this. I don’t mean to be trite, I’m just being very honest. All of this information has been gathered over almost two years, and believe me, having gaps in time to process everything was appreciated. Or, who knows, maybe I was just overwhelmed by all of the (affection). In any case, prepare yourself for a long, homoerotic read ahead!

Also, additions will be made to this if I find new, relevant information about their relationship! I’ll be sure to add dates of when I found this information so it’s clear as to what was originally written here and what was a later discovery.

Asks are always welcome, if you’d like clarification, have any questions, or to see an article in print/any footage! I have basically all of the receipts for the quoted stuff, there’s just a handful of dates I need to iron out.

Lastly, I want to give a huge shout-out to my buddy @tealightwhimsy​. Legit, about half of what you are about to read was found thanks to her own digging. I’ve only been able to afford so many issues of imported, obscure UK music magazines, so her finding of some of these magazine scans and interviews was a lifesaver. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE HELP AND LETTING ME TALK YOU EAR OFF ABOUT THEM TO YOU!!

Alright, Burdon/Price time.

The Animal Squad (names that will come up a lot):

Eric Burdon - lead vocalist of the Animals, through all of its iterations that I’ll be mentioning here

Alan Price - keyboardist of the Animals until May of ‘65, as well as for their ‘77 reunion album and ‘83 reunion tour

Hilton Valentine - lead guitarist of the Animals until September of ‘66, as well as for their ‘77 reunion album and ‘83 reunion tour

Bryan “Chas” Chandler - bass guitarist of the Animals until September of ‘66, as well as for their ‘77 reunion album and ‘83 reunion tour

John Steel - drummer of the Animals until February of ‘66, as well as for their ‘77 reunion album and ‘83 reunion tour

Mickey Gallagher - replaced Alan Price on keyboard initially following his departure in early May of ‘65, for the Animals’ tour in Sweden

Dave Rowberry - replaced Alan Price on keyboard in late May of ‘65, stayed with the Animals until their break-up in September of ‘66

Barry Jenkins - replaced John Steel on drums in February of ‘66, stayed with the Animals through their September ‘66 break-up and reformation into Eric Burdon and Animals, until their break-up in December of ‘68

Mickie Most - the Animals’ record producer until late-‘65

Michael Jefferies - the Animals’ manager until their break-up in September of ‘66, and later the manager of Eric Burdon and the Animals until mid-‘68

“The Bob Squad” - what I affectionately call Bob Dylan and his entourage when they visited England in May of 1965

…It’s mostly going to be these five, though. Especially the first two. Also, same, John.

All Sections | Next Section

[idkimnotreal]

all throughout high school i was like, “why haven’t i fallen in love yet”, and i attributed that to the fact that i didn’t know of any other queer boy in any of my years (in brazil students used to have one individual class until some years ago, now it’s after the u.s. model, but that’s irrelevant), until i found out one of my straight crushes from sophomore year was actually gay, and in senior year i forced myself to fall for him. (because i wanted to experience love, everyone was talking about it and i had no idea what it was besides descriptive notions)

well, my theory from back then is proven wrong: i forced myself to fall for a straight guy this time, just because i wanted the feeling, and not at all a romantic relationship. i find that i can force myself to fall for any guy quite easily, provide they’re not a plain “normie” - like they have to have some unique stuff going on about them, but even if i don’t agree with parts of their personality, i can still fall in love.

it’s curious to me that i can choose when to fall and also pretty much when to fall out of love, and the people (provided correct gender) i can fall for as well. i guess that’s a pretty aromantic thing when you look at it. falling in love for me doesn’t take into account the possibility of a romantic relationship, it never has, i never imagined myself in a relationship with any of the people i’ve fallen for or came close to falling for; it’s always some sort of prerequisite they have to fill first (in the case of the straight guy now, it’s his softness compared to other straight guys. being soft/warm was the prerequisite).

anyway, i love living in the 21st century because we actually have terms to describe stuff.

[crowaes]

reader response theory is not generally a theory that i apply to media since its usually not the best fit. my analyses tend to be on things that arent exactly niche but arent blockbusters either. i wouldnt describe a lot of what i like as pop culture but subculture. typically lenses like feminist theory, queer theory, or marxist theory are more applicable

that said, i do find the concept of an affective experience present in pop culture theories that ive encountered, and as an element of reader response theory, to be incredibly interesting and key to how i approach reviews.

when i watch video essays and reviews, i notice my favorite ones trend towards an especially subjective analysis. its not so much an evaluation of the work, but a persuasion to the viewer to love or hate the work as much as the reviewer themself. not to say that it lacks grounded or objective analysis, of course. its just that individual and affective response gets centered in that discussion

a key part of what i want to do with reviewing is express not just why i think a piece of media is worth examining in terms of quality, academic value, or profundity. its also about how it produced an affective response and the detail of what that response was.

like a really good example of what im talking about is tim rogers boku no natsuyasumi review. so much of that video is about the specific emotional response he had and his own complicated feelings about nostalgia, aging, memory, and childhood. a large section of that review is about what the game made him feel and why, including the experiences of his life.

i dont think im an exceptionally interesting person. but i do think people, and by extent the deeply personal relationships we form with media, are interesting. its something i want to hear about more and something i always find myself coming back to in reviews. in many ways, its what i feel distinguishes my academic writing from reviews. its the difference between trying to keep something at arms length and pick it apart versus holding it at every step and picking apart how and why it impacted you.

[qqueenofhades]

granny hilary, tell us about gay porn in monasteries

Oh, I KNEW that someone was going to ask for this as soon as I reblogged that post with those tags (from you, even!). So yes, Kristen, the pervert tumblr hordes thank you for your service.

As was the case in most medieval single-sex environments, the precise balance of gender politics/constant suspicion of possible queerness was a major concern for monasteries. I've written about this before in the context of military chivalry/knighthood, and how medieval society both encouraged knights to love each other more than anything (battlefield brotherhood etc etc) and worried about whether they would love each other SO much that they would then have, y'know, actual sex. This was also a prominent worry in monasteries, which shut a bunch of often-young men up together and told them to be holy and focus on prayers and not the OTHER things that young men like to think about. My esteemed colleague @oldshrewsburyian has previously written about lesbian nuns, who often formed intense emotional/romantic bonds with other nuns. Hildegard of Bingen herself is a famous example of this, and she wrote many love letters to and about another nun, Richardis von Stade, who is often described as her "intimate friend." Regardless of whether this relationship was physical or not, Hildegard also wrote about "ecstasies" experienced in spiritual union with the Virgin Mary, and other medieval female mystics did the same.

In regard to gay monks, The Name of the Rose by famed medievalist Umberto Eco presents a fictionalized version of this, where one of the monks is something of a local monastery gay playboy and has several other monk lovers who are all presumed to be jealous of each other and possibly willing to commit murder on his behalf. This was also because a large number of monks, especially at wealthier abbeys, weren't there because they had a specific or personal religious calling. It was a common career path for younger sons, getting them out of the way of their elder brother's inheritance of their father's lands and titles, and plenty of career churchmen were relatively secular and interested in worldly pleasure, no matter how hard the Cluniacs and similar reform movements tried to outlaw clergy marriage, concubinage, and other sexual sins. Clergymen were, as is also the case today, often suspected of committing sodomy on the sly or otherwise hypocritically engaging in gay sex, and monastic authors such as Peter Damian, Odo of Cluny, and others wrote endless polemical tracts insisting that priests and monks refrain from having sex with each other, and otherwise bewailing the so-called dismal state of moral relations in the church. Of course, the bulk of concern was over male monks committing sexual sins with women, but the worry over clerical sodomy was never insignificant either. The 12th-century Cistercian monk Aelred of Rievaulx also produced various writings that have been read as homosocial, homoerotic, or otherwise exalting religious same-sex male love.

We also see this gender tension a lot in terms of the accounts of women dressing up as men to enter all-male monasteries and have a male-coded religious experience. Some of them get accused of impregnating local women, which is obviously biologically impossible but may hint at an intimate relationship with said woman, and other monks often note their "attractiveness" or other physical qualities which is then used as proof in discovering their "real gender." This likewise reflects the concern that monks were finding each other attractive even when they WEREN'T secretly women (and the scholarly literature also argues over whether we should consider these women as wearing "male disguise" or as proto-transgender individuals adopting clothing and life experiences that matched their identified gender rather than their gender assigned at birth). As noted above re: Hildegard, intensely "queer" mystical religious experiences involving physical and passionate adoration of the body of Jesus Christ were also common to both genders. Men were encouraged to visualize themselves as the "bride of Christ," transcending the ordinary limits of gender and joining in mystical (and possibly sexual) union with Jesus, and women did the same thing with both Jesus and the Virgin Mary. So yes, the medieval church was a LOT more queer than all the stereotypes would have it. In many ways.

The 14th-century Lollards in England also positioned themselves as reacting against clerical/monastic sodomy and sexual sins, and the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII also used the argument that those degenerate monks were all just in there screwing each other at all times, which was obviously rhetorical, but reflected a deeper real-world anxiety that this was in fact actually the case. So in other words: gay monks, like gay knights, absolutely did exist and deeply shaped the social rules, cultural environments, canon law, and everyday experience of their surroundings, even despite the wild unsexiness that is the tonsure haircut. Diversity win.

[flightlessnightingale]

On Lesbianism

I’ll state it at the top here, because many have not understood my stance. The purpose of this essay is not to say that Lesbian cannot mean “Female homosexual.” Rather, my objective is to show that Lesbian means more than that single definition suggests. Female Homosexuals are lesbians, unless they personally do not want to use that label. Now, on with the show: Lesbianism is not about gatekeeping, and I don’t want to have to keep convincing people that the movement popularized by someone who wrote a book full of lies and hate speech then immediately worked with Ronald Reagan is a bad movement. In the early ’70s, groups of what would now be called “gender critical” feminists threatened violence against many trans women who dared exist in women’s and lesbian spaces. For example, trans woman Beth Elliott, who was at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference to perform with her lesbian band, was ridiculed onstage and had her existence protested. In 1979, radical feminist Janice Raymond, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, wrote the defining work of the TERF movement, “Transsexual Empire: The Making of the Shemale,” in which she argued that “transsexualism” should be “morally mandating it out of existence”—mainly by restricting access to transition care (a political position shared by the Trump administration). Soon after she wrote another paper, published for the government-funded, National Center for Healthcare Technology — and the Reagan administration cut off Medicare and private health insurance coverage for transition-related care.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism is a fundamentally unsustainable ideology. Lesbianism is a fundamentally sustainable existence.

There used to be a lesbian bar or queer bar or gay bar in practically every small town — sometimes one of each. After surviving constant police raids, these queer spaces began closing even Before the AIDS epidemic. Because TERFs would take them over, kick out transfems and their friends. Suddenly, there weren’t enough local patrons to keep the bars open, because the majority had been kicked out. With America’s lack of public transportation, not enough people were coming from out of town either.

TERFs, even beyond that, were a fundamental part of the state apparatus that let AIDS kill millions.

For those who don’t know, Lesbian, from the time of Sappho of Lesbos to the about 1970′s, referred to someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. It was not only a sexuality, but almost akin to a gender spectrum.

That changed in the 1970′s when TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, working with Ronald fucking Reagan to ban insurance for trans healthcare.

TERFs took over the narrative, the bars, the movement, and changed Lesbian from the most revolutionary and integral queer communal identity of 2 fucking THOUSAND years, from “Someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy” to “A woman with a vagina who’s sexually attracted to other women with vaginas”

How does this fit into the bi lesbian debate? As I said, Lesbian is more of a Gender Spectrum than anything else, it was used much in the same way that we use queer or genderqueer today.

And it’s intersectional too.

See, if you were to try to ascribe a rigid, biological, or localized model of an identity across multiple cultures, it will fail. It will exclude people who should not be excluded. ESPECIALLY Intersex people. That’s why “Two Spirit” isn’t something rigid- it is an umbrella term for the identities within over a dozen different cultures. In the next two sections, I have excerpts on Two-Spirit and Butch identity, to give a better idea of the linguistics of queer culture: This section on Two-Spirit comes from wikipedia, as it has the most links to further sources, I have linked all sources directly, though you can also access them from the Wikipedia page’s bibliography: Two-Spirit is a pan-Indian, umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people who fulfill a traditional ceremonial and social role that does not correlate to the western binary. [1] [2] [3] Created at the 1990 Indigenous lesbian and gay international gathering in Winnipeg, it was "specifically chosen to distinguish and distance Native American/First Nations people from non-Native peoples." [4] Criticism of Two-Spirit arises from 2 major points, 1. That it can exasperate the erasure of the traditional terms and identities of specific cultures.           a. Notice how this parallels criticisms of Gay being used as the umbrella           term for queer culture in general. 2. That it implies adherence to the Western binary; that Natives believe these individuals are "both male and female" [4]          a. Again, you’ll notice that this parallels my criticisms of the TERF definition of Lesbian, that tying LGBT+ identities to a rigid western gender binary does a disservice to LGBT+ people,—especially across cultures. “Two Spirit" wasn’t intended to be interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"; [2] nor was it meant to replace traditional terms in Indigenous languages.  Rather, it was created to serve as a pan-Indian unifier. [1] [2] [4] —The term and identity of two-spirit "does not make sense" unless it is contextualized within a Native American or First Nations framework and traditional cultural understanding. [3] [10] [11] The ceremonial roles intended to be under the modern umbrella of two-spirit can vary widely, even among the Indigenous people who accept the English-language term. No one Native American/First Nations' culture's gender or sexuality categories apply to all, or even a majority of, these cultures. [4] [8] Butch: At the turn of the 20th century, the word “butch” meant “tough kid” or referred to a men’s haircut. It surfaced as a term used among women who identified as lesbians in the 1940s, but historians and scholars have struggled to identify exactly how or when it entered the queer lexicon. However it happened, "Butch” has come to mean a “lesbian of masculine appearance or behavior.” (I have heard that, though the words originate from French, Femme & Butch came into Lesbian culture from Latina lesbian culture, and if I find a good source for that I will share. If I had to guess, there may be some wonderful history to find of it in New Orleans—or somewhere similar.) Before “butch” became a term used by lesbians, there were other terms in the 1920s that described masculinity among queer women. According to the historian Lillian Faderman,“bull dagger” and “bull dyke” came out of the Black lesbian subculture of Harlem, where there were “mama” and “papa” relationships that looked like butch-femme partnerships. Performer Gladys Bentley epitomized this style with her men’s hats, ties and jackets. Women in same-sex relationships at this time didn’t yet use the word “lesbian” to describe themselves. Prison slang introduced the terms “daddy,” “husband,” and “top sargeant” into the working class lesbian subculture of the 1930s.  This lesbian history happened alongside Trans history, and often intersected, just as the Harlem renaissance had music at the forefront of black and lesbian (and trans!) culture, so too can trans musicians, actresses, and more be found all across history, and all across the US. Some of the earliest known trans musicians are Billy Tipton and Willmer “Little Ax” Broadnax—Both transmasculine musicians who hold an important place in not just queer history, but music history.

Lesbian isn’t rigid & biological, it’s social and personal, built up of community and self-determination.

And it has been for millennia.

So when people say that nonbinary lesbians aren’t lesbian, or asexual lesboromantics aren’t lesbian, or bisexual lesbians aren’t lesbian, it’s not if those things are technically true within the framework — It’s that those statements are working off a fundamentally claustrophobic, regressive, reductionist, Incorrect definition You’ll notice that whilst I have been able to give citations for TERFs, for Butch, and especially for Two-Spirit, there is little to say for Lesbianism. The chief reason for this is that lesbian history has been quite effectively erased-but it is not forgotten, and the anthropological work to recover what was lost is still ongoing. One of the primary issues is that so many who know or remember the history have so much trauma connected to "Lesbian” that they feel unable to reclaim it. Despite this trauma, just like the anthropological work, reclamation is ongoing.

Since Sappho, lesbian was someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. For centuries, esbian wasn’t just a sexuality, it was intersectional community, kin to a gender spectrum, like today’s “queer”. When TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, they redefined Lesbian to “woman w/ a vag attracted to other women w/ vags”. So when you say “bi lesbians aren’t lesbian” it’s not whether that’s true within the framework, it’s that you’re working off a claustrophobic, regressive, and reductionist definition.

I want Feminism, Queerness, Lesbianism, to be fucking sustainable.

I wanna see happy trans and lesbian and queer kids in a green and blue fucking world some day.

I want them to be able to grow old in a world we made good.

[rainbowsky]

Do we really need to always look back to CQL everytime we talk about Web & XZ? CQL is an old news. We have more interesting and much better contents now. Why bother to always go back to it?

Web has Louyang to look forward to. It looks great. The costumes, the visual, the detective-libe story looks so promising Let's not forget Being A Hero, a very challenging role for him. And of course SDOC4 where we can see Web looks so relax and happy aside from DDU.

XZ has Oath of Love and The Longest Promise to look forward to. These two are FAR FAR SUPERIOR and more recognized literature works than CQL. Read the novels and you'll see how amazing the romance in these 2 are. Easily the best romance stories (perfect) for XZ. Then ADLD which shows his amazing range as an actor. Very challenging since it's a stage play with a very long running time. We still have Ace of Troops too which we have no news about it.

Do we really need to go back when they themselves have move on? We need to move on too.

It's funny, I was just saying a lot of similar things to someone earlier today.

Although I'm not convinced that the novel of OOL is so much better than MDZS. Tastes are pretty subjective and it's hard to make claims like that in such a broad way. I've heard very mixed reviews of the book OOL is based on. A lot of people describe it as a very het, very cheezy melodramatic story. True, that sort of thing has a broad appeal, but I'm not the target market.

I haven't heard much about the story The Longest Promise is based on, but the same applies. These things are a matter of personal taste.

Having said that, I'm really looking forward to all of their new dramas and projects, and while I will likely skip some of the overtly propagandistic ones, I can't wait to see them perform in other roles. OOL is near the top of that list for me. I can't wait to see GG in that role.

To me, The Untamed is great not only because of GGDD, but also because it's just an excellent, excellent drama with an outstanding cast. I've watched it, in its entirety, 4 or 5 times, plus I watched the Special Edition (which I did not enjoy as much - it felt hacked apart). I am a fan of the show, make no mistake about it. I even own the official photo book. I know I will watch it again. I love the show.

But when it comes to fandom about the show - all the meta and gifs and fanart and discussions and, to a lesser degree, the BTS - my eyes glaze over a bit, I can't lie. I feel like I've seen it all before a thousand times - the fandom is oversaturated with all of this - and I'm just more interested in what GG and DD are up to now. They both have exciting things happening in the here and now.

The Untamed will always be special to GG and DD, and to BXG. I mean, that's a given. It's where all of this started for a lot of people, it's where GGDD had a chance to work together. It's a great show, and they both gave outstanding performances. It launched both of their careers into the stratosphere - no one can deny it (although some solos certainly try). As queer actors, this might very well be the only queer role they ever get a chance to play.

But it's also been 2 years since it aired. In the world of entertainment, 2 years might as well be 2 decades, and that's only a slight exaggeration. It's old news for a lot of people who saw it around the time it originally aired.

Of course, there are always new people discovering it and new people coming to the fandom, so there will always be turtles in particular for whom all of this is brand new and exciting. We are probably always going to see people bringing it up as though it's new. Because it's new for them.

I hope we can all try to empathize with their enthusiasm and try not to put too much of a damper on it. I do my best in this regard. I'm still happy to take asks about the show and the BTS (although my memory of some of those things is going to be rusty).

At the same time, I hope turtles - old or new - will at least try to branch out and experience some of the other material GG and DD have created, and try to support 'the whole, individual man' and not just the relationship between GGDD. There's a lot of content out there. If you can't find it in your region try some of the unofficial sites like Dramacool.

If you haven't seen The Wolf yet, you're missing out. If you haven't been watching SDOC, you're missing out. etc. etc.

However, as I've said many times - everyone gets to be a fan in whatever way works for them. If The Untamed is new for you and you want to enjoy it, enjoy! If it's old to you but you're still attached and don't want to move on from it, enjoy! If it's the only thing that interests you about GGDD, enjoy!

But please recognize as turtles that GG and DD will be moving forward in their careers, and they will talk about/feature the show less and less in their posts over time. They will emphasize new content and move on from The Untamed, at least in terms of what they highlight in interviews and social media. This isn't a 'suppression of the show', it's just time marching forward.

Recognize that a lot of the fans will be moving forward as well. There will inevitably be some people who are sick of talking about it, who find it old news, or who are more interested in other things. This isn't a 'conspiracy of silence', it's just time marching forward.

Don't let yourself feel threatened by any of that and behave in ways that disrupt the fandom when the show isn't highlighted in the way you expect it to be. Don't make up scary stories in your mind about what you fear might be 'the real' motive behind this. The simple truth is, not everything about them is going to be about that show, and that will only become more true as time marches forward.

And that applies both ways. Like I said, I hope those of us who have mostly moved on will try to be empathetic to those for whom the show is new. I hope we can all try to respect each other's approaches and not be warlike about it.

In the end, we all just love these two fools, and if we focus on what we have in common we might find any friction melts away.

Important note

Please don't take this as an invitation to hit up my inbox with anti-BXG hate, messages denigrating The Untamed or BXG, etc. etc. Anyone sending me such garbage will be insta-blocked. If you are anti-BXG and hate The Untamed, please don't follow my blog or engage with my inbox. Stay in your own lane.