#I think gay relationships have historically been viewed by straight people as something Othered and distal from their lived experience | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

the-yuri-librarian · 8 months

Note

Can I ask, why do you love WLW romance better than Het romance? What makes them better? I did not mean anything negative, and I know everyone have their own like and dislike but I want to know your thoughts....

Also what do you think that made Asian WLW (GL manga/manhwa/manhua) romances different than western WLW romances?

This is a very good question on both fronts!

Answering the first part is easy: I prefer WLW relationships because I'm a lesbian. That's sort of all there is to it? Like, on some level, I have only been reading WLW novels for the past several years (and WLW comics since Sept '23), because hetero relationships in fiction have sort of dominated culture my whole life? I can't name a movie or a book series off hand from my childhood/teen years that did not contain a straight relationship. I would genuinely have to think about it. But, when I graduated from grad school for the first time and started to connect with reading on a level I hadn't since I was a kid-early teen, I made this very conscious decision to focus really really heavily on sapphic fiction, even more so than trans fiction even though I am trans, too. I think part of this is because I just wanted to see myself represented in the works I am reading. Another part of this is I relate more to sapphic romances. For all my life, I have only ever loved women as a woman, and that makes straight romances feel somewhat foreign to me? I think maybe it's because the way relationships are talked about in queer culture versus the way relationships are talked about in straight culture; it feels very different, though I don't have an example offhand to point to. On top of that, there is also a lot of historical precedent for lesbians feeling like their sexuality and their gender identity are somewhat meshed or intersected (if you want to know more I'd have to do like actual research lol), and I think I definitely feel that. The lesbian label is really important for me, and I think that importance draws me to WLW fiction

In terms of what makes eastern and western comics/yuri/sapphic romances different, I think that you could write an entire dissertation on this (but I'll try not to lol). Now, I am by no means an expert on Japanese or Korean cultural studies, in fact I am far from that, but I think the way the romances play out really highlights the way their cultures function differently from cultures in the west. Firstly, I think that eastern cultures place a much higher focus on cultural expectations. I would not say that eastern cultures are necessarily more conservative than western cultures (I mean, just look at any news coming out of the US, we're practically a theocracy). Instead, I would say that people living in eastern cultures are more bound by their culture. For example: in the US, or a similar western culture, it is generally ok to be gay in the 2010s and 2020s. From my understanding, this is also the case in Korea and Japan, but there is more cultural push back. I think this reality is represented in sapphic romance stories from the two places well. Look at any fiction featuring a lesbian main character coming out of America: their sexuality is never treated like some weird thing (unless the story is trying to realistically represent discrimination); instead, they just are gay. And, when a character is beginning to realize she might be a lesbian, she might have to adjust her view of herself, but it's really no big deal. On the other hand, look at Japanese yuri, especially high school stories: there is almost universally a moment where one of the characters will be like "but we're both girls!" to which the other character will be like "it's fine." I think this moment is included in those stories because the mangaka are consciously pushing back on the idea that it's wrong to be gay. A really good example of this can be seen in Rei's "it's ok to be gay monologue" in I'm in Love with the Villainess. In American fiction, something like that would likely feel unnecessary (though, for the record, I think American TV shows and movies are at the point where such a monologue is necessary, but that's a different story).

Another example can be seen in the way eastern comics treat cunnilingus. This is not a universal thing, but one trend that I've noticed in the more NSFW or smutty comics I've read is that, often, when a woman is about to go down on another woman, the one getting eaten out will protest like "no, not there" or "no, I'm not clean," and I think that this too is indicative of the ways women are entangled by cultural expectations in the east. In an America comic or novel, this would not be treated with the same hesitancy. But, in eastern cultures, there seems to almost be this expectation that the women turns down getting eaten out, only to relent and accept it when their lover insists.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense, but it's the best I got without doing real research. Also, again, I am not an expert, so take everything I just said with about a tablespoon of salt!

#long post #yuri #yuri posting #lesbians #ask #i may end up doing research on this and making a more formal post about it #sapphic #lgbtq culture

4 notes · View notes

vintage-bentley · 1 year

Note

final thoughts words opinions etc before the release in a few hours (so i have something to read before i go cold turkey on social media bc i wont be able to watch for at least 2 weeks and cannot ruin this for myself) GO:

Ahh good luck with going cold turkey! I’m sorry you have to wait 😭💕

I’m excited. At first I was really worried that this would be a classic case of the sequel being a shitty cash grab that shouldn’t exist…but from the clips we’ve seen, it looks good. So I trust that I’ll love it just as much as the first season, if not more because apparently it focuses even more on A/C.

As far as the elephant in the room goes…I really want to believe we aren’t being baited. The “leak” was directly from an Amazon pride promo, it feels weird for it to be included if it wasn’t actually romance. And the marketing is being so heavy-handed on the idea of romance, it would honestly be the stupidest corporate decision ever to do that if it was just bait. There’s also the Sheen “best buddies” comment which gives me a lot of hope, because it’s such an unusual way to put it that it feels like it’s an inside joke. And the recent reviews seem to be implying there’s romance. So, I’ve got my hopes up. As always, I’m staying cautiously optimistic, but on a scale from 0 (cautiously) to 10 (optimistic), I’m a 9.

I’m SUPER excited about there being lesbians. I’m worried about the fact that they’re written by a straight man…and I’m really hoping they’re treated normally and not either over or under sexualised. But I’m optimistic about this too, just because I love Nina so much from what we’ve seen of her. She seems well written and well acted, so I can only assume the same will go for Maggie, and hope that the same goes for their relationship.

Aside from ineffable husbands and The Lesbians (I’ve seen retro wives suggested as a ship name which is adorable), I think the thing I’m looking forward to most is more historical scenes. Season 1 episode 3’s opening is my favourite part of the series and I’ve watched it so many times, I just love seeing all the different costumes and seeing the husband’s relationship develop over time. I’m excited to see more of that. Especially the 40’s scene. I’m most excited about one particular historical scene that people talked about after the screening, I won’t say more than that, if you know you know, if you don’t you’ve probably purposefully avoided that information and I applaud your restraint lol.

Now, if the show ends up not being bait, I won’t hate Neil as much as I’ve grown to, but I still won’t love him. Because I think the way he’s handled concerns about baiting is incredibly insensitive and out of touch. He seems to think that this is the same as teasing a long awaited straight couple, so he can be as secretive and coy as he wants. This line of thinking completely ignores the fact that gaybaiting is a real problem, that viewers have been burned by before and don’t want to be burned by again. As great as it would be if gay couples could be anticipated and teased the same way straight couples are…we just aren’t there yet. We’re still at a point where LGB fans aren’t at ease watching a romance build up between two men or women, because we know there’s a chance it won’t go anywhere. Like I’ve said before, knowing that OFMD was a romance before going into it made the viewing experience much more pleasant for me than it would’ve been going in without that knowledge. Because knowing it was a romance allowed me to enjoy it as such…while not knowing would’ve had me going “I’m crazy, I’m just seeing what I want to see, that won’t happen” the whole time (and it sounds like that was the experience for many people who saw it before hearing about it from others!). That’s something OSA people don’t experience when seeing themselves on screen. So if there’s a whole crowd of LGB viewers basically begging you to save us that frustration and doubt, “wait and see if you’re being baited” isn’t exactly the best attitude to have. Especially when you’re on tumblr, and could easily put a yes or no answer under a read more prefaced with many spoiler warnings. Again, unfortunately, we just aren’t at the point yet where anticipating a gay ship is the same as anticipating a straight ship.

It just feels like Neil doesn’t have any compassion for his LGB viewers who don’t want to be baited yet again, which is really annoying considering he seems to think of himself as an amazing ally.

So, if it ends up being bait, obviously I’ll be angry. If it doesn’t end up being bait, I’ll be happy but also annoyed at how Neil made us feel crazy for even hoping for this outcome.

I think that pretty much sums up what’s going on in my head right now! 😄

#asks #anon

3 notes · View notes

fuckyeahisawthat · 4 years

Note

I'm just curious (still learning) at what point after 1100 AD would Joe and Nicky been in actual danger due to homophobia? At what point would they have to start lying to people about the nature of their amazing relationship, just to stay safe? Thanks!

(This is in reference to this post, in which I skimmed over like 900 years of sociological changes in identity formation in very very broad strokes.)

So. Here’s the thing. As “western” queer people in the modern world, I think we highly associate safety with being able to be out of the closet. Can I kiss my partner in public or walk down the street holding hands without fear of encountering hate speech or physical violence? Can I tell my friends, family and coworkers about my relationship without fear of social ostracization or economic consequences?

But that’s a very modern perspective. Between “pride parade!!” and “we will definitely be murdered if anyone finds out we are lovers,” there is...A LOT of space for different kinds of historical queer experience.

So it’s not so much that Yusuf and Nicolò could be safely “out of the closet” in 12th century Baghdad but not in 19th century London. It’s not quite as far from that as you might think. But they wouldn’t have thought about it that way.

In the first few hundred years of their existence, the Islamic world was...full of contradictions when it came to homosexuality. You had a strong taboo against adult men being the receptive partner in penetrative sex, but you also had poets--like, the most famous poets of their times--writing tons of homoerotic poetry about desiring young men and boys, and that was normal and even celebrated. (If you’re familiar with the sexual mores of ancient Greece...lots of similarities here.) You had clerics writing about how there should be harsh punishments for “sodomy,” but in practice in everyday life very, very few people were ever actually disciplined in the legal system for something like that. And other forms of sexual activity between men, like kissing and various forms of non-penetrative sex, were just...not a big deal. At the same time there was kind of an unspoken “don’t ask, don’t tell” social contract around sex between men. Like, we know this thing is definitely happening, and we’re not going to talk about it, and that’s what makes it socially acceptable to continue happening. So you can have a society that in the written, religious record looks fairly intolerant toward sex between men; in practice is actually quite tolerant; where everyone sort of knows things about certain people, but where no one is really “out” in the modern sense of the terms.

At the same time, pretty much everywhere in the world at this time but definitely in the Middle East, casual touch between men was much more normalized. Two men holding hands or linking arms when walking down the street, sitting pressed up next to each other, falling asleep with your head on your male companion’s shoulder...a whole range of things that look decidedly snuggly to our modern gaze would have been totally acceptable between friends of the same gender, and would not have been considered sexual in any way. (This is still true in much of the Middle East today.)

So you can easily imagine a scenario where, like, Nicolò is lounging with his head on Yusuf’s shoulder, eating dates and listening to some saucy Abu Nuwas poem being recited, and then they go back to their private quarters and they have as much sex as they want. Are they “out”? Not really. Is anyone bothering them about how they’re living their lives? Not in the slightest. Do some people in that room see them and know? Probably, but that’s their private business and we’re not gonna talk about it. Frankly that sounds like a pretty sweet existence for a 12th century queer.

To be fair, they have a few advantages. They’re men, which means no one will really question them traveling together, without wives or families. They can easily say they’re friends or business partners and no one will really give it a second thought. I’m sure having to break off contact with their families was sad, but it’s also the case that there’s no one around asking when they’re going to get married to a woman and have children so we have someone to inherit the family business. It gives them a kind of freedom that a lot of other queer people around them wouldn’t have had.

I think once they meet up with Andy and Quynh, they do do things like pretending to be two married couples traveling together. But that’s more because of sexism, because two unmarried women traveling with two men who were not their husbands would turn some heads.

In Europe at the time, Christian theology is pretty not-into all kinds of non-procreative sex, but sex between men is not necessarily viewed as a worse sin than, say, masturbation, or sex between men and women out of wedlock. And it’s like, a category of sin that a lot of people are doing all the time, so if you were to confess such a thing to your local priest, you would be told to do penance but the consequences would be fairly mild. And many of the same things regarding casual touch hold true. Various rituals of kissing, including men kissing men on the mouth, are used as greetings, to seal contracts, and as part of mass.

Medieval Europe also had a concept variously called passionate, romantic, or chivalric friendship--close relationships between two people of the same gender that could be long-lasting, physically affectionate, emotionally intense in a way we would today read as romantic, and (allegedly) celibate. Were some of these passionate friendships actually queer relationships with a sexual component that just wasn’t talked about? Probably. Were some of them what we would define as queerplatonic or homoromantic asexual relationships today? Probably. Is it even useful to try to stuff these experiences into modern relationship categories? Debatable. The point is...the borders between what was defined as friendship, romance and love were different. Two men who traveled together, slept in the same bed, shared resources, were emotionally intimate with each other, and otherwise entwined their lives would not necessarily have been assumed to be sex partners in medieval Europe. And (I think this is the important part) Yusuf and Nicolò would not necessarily have seen being perceived as passionate friends as “hiding” the true nature of their relationship or as assigning some lesser value to it.

In terms of how they are perceived in public, I think things really don’t start to change until the early 20th century. It’s a gradual process, but over the first half of the 20th century, more or less, affectionate touch between men becomes defined as “gay” and a mainstream (straight) masculinity that is concerned with defining itself as “not gay” emerges. Affectionate touch, and then any show of loving emotion between men, gradually becomes less and less acceptable, to a degree that probably seems absurd to two 900-year-old Mediterraneans. (The absurdity is really well-expressed in the van scene, which is literally like “Bro is it gay to [checks notes]...express concern about the well-being of the person you were just violently kidnapped with?”)

Like, on the one hand, you have queer people talking openly about their sexuality in ways that were not an option at earlier times in their lives. But at the same time you have to be careful holding hands walking down the high street now because someone might chuck an empty beer bottle at you. Must’ve been a real wild transition for them.

#the old guard #long post #joe x nicky #nicolò di genova #yusuf al kaysani #queers through the ages #asks answered #graceundersunshine

3K notes · View notes

firelxdykatara · 3 years

Note

I’m just really confused as to where this idea that Zuko is gaycoded came from. Like people are allowed to have that headcanon but I don’t understand where people are coming from when they try and claim that he was undisputedly gaycoded and trying to deny it is homophobic when he’s only ever shown romantic interest in women.

I made a pretty long post on the topic a while back, but the ultimate gist of it is this: there are a lot of elements of Zuko's status as an abuse victim and trauma survivor that resonate with queer folks. This is understandable and completely fine! However, there are some parts of the fandom who have taken that to the other extreme and will now insist that those elements are uniquely queer, and that they can only be read as some sort of veiled gay/coming out narrative, even though that doesn't make much sense since there is no part of Zuko's narrative which is unique to any sort of queer experience.

I think the problem really does stem from two things being conflated--Zuko's history of abuse and trauma, and trauma&abuse being something a lot of queer people have experienced. I suspect it goes something like 'I see a lot of myself in Zuko, and I was abused for being gay, therefore Zuko must be gay too in order to have had similar experiences.' This can then lead to feeling dismissed or invalidated when other people point out that those experiences are not unique to being queer--but on the flip side, abuse victims and trauma survivors whose abuse&trauma do not stem from queerness (even if they are queer themselves) can feel invalidated and dismissed by the implication that their trauma must be connected to their queerness or it isn't valid.

This is also where the 'people don't actually know what gay coded means' part comes in, and I realize now that I didn't actually get into what gay coding (and queer coding in general) actually means, since I was so hung up on pointing out how Zuko doesn't really fit the mold. (And the few elements that exist which could be said to count are because of the 'villains historically get queer coded bc Hays Code era' thing and mostly occur in Book 1, not because of how he acts as an abuse&trauma survivor.)

Under a cut because I kind of go on a tangent about gay/queer coding, but I swear I get back to the point eventually.

Queer coding (and it is notable that, with respect to Zuko, it is almost always framed as 'he couldn't possibly be attracted to girls', rather than 'he could be attracted to boys as well as girls' in these discussions, for... no real discernible reason, but I'll get into that in a bit) is the practice of giving characters 'stereotypically queer' traits and characteristics to 'slide them under the radar' in an era where having explicitly queer characters on screen was not allowed, unless they were evil or otherwise narratively punished for their queerness. (See: the extant history of villains being queer-coded, because if they were Evil then it was ok to make them 'look gay', since the story wasn't going to be rewarding their queerness and making audiences think it was in any way OK.) This is thanks to the Motion Picture Production Code (colloquially and more popularly known as the Hays Code), which was a set of guidelines which movies coming out of any major studio had to adhere to in order to be slated for public release and lasted from the early 1930s until it was finally abandoned in the late 60s.

The Hays Code essentially existed to ensure that the content of major motion pictures would not 'lower the moral standards' of the viewing public. It didn't just have to do with queerness--cursing was heavily monitored, sex outside of marriage was not allowed to be seen as desirable or tittilating, miscegenation was not allowed (most specifically interracial relationships between black and white people), criminals had to be punished lest the audience think that it was ok to be gay and do crime, etc. Since same-sex relations fell under 'sexual perversion', they could not be shown unless the 'perversion' were punished in some way. (This is also the origin of the Bury Your Gays trope, another term that is widely misunderstood and misapplied today.) To get around this, queer coding became the practice by which movies and television could depict queer people but not really, and it also became customary to give villains this coding even more overtly, since they would get punished by the end of the film or series anyway and there was nothing to lose by making them flamboyant and racy/overly sexual/promiscuous.

Over time, this practice of making villains flamboyant, sexually aggressive, &etc became somewhat separated from its origins in queer coding, by which I mean that these traits and tropes became the go-to for villains even when the creator had no real intention of making them seem queer. This is how you generally get unintentional queer-coding--because these traits that have been given to villains for decades have roots in coding, but people tend to go right to them when it comes to creating their villains without considering where they came from.

Even after the Hays Code was abandoned, the sentiments and practices remained. Having queer characters who weren't punished by the narrative for being queer was exceptionally rare, and it really isn't until the last fifteen or so years that we've seen any pushback against that. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is famous for being one of the first shows on primetime television to feature an explicitly gay relationship on-screen, and that relationship ended in one of the most painful instances of Bury Your Gays that I have ever personally witnessed. (Something that, fourteen years later, The 100 would visually and textually reference with Lexa's death. Getting hit by a bullet intended for someone else after a night of finally getting to be happy and have sex with her s/o? It wasn't remotely subtle. I don't even like Clexa, but that was incredibly rough to witness.)

However, bringing this back to Zuko, he really doesn't fit the criteria for queer coding for a number of reasons. First of all, no one behind the scenes (mostly a bunch of cishet men) was at all intending to include queer rep in the show. This wasn't a case where they were like 'well, we really wanted to make Zuko gay, but we couldn't get that past the censors, so here are a few winks and a nudge', because it just wasn't on their radar at all. Which makes sense--it wasn't on most radars in that era of children's programming. This isn't really an indictment, it's just a fact of the time--in the mid/late 00s, no one was really thinking about putting queer characters in children's cartoons. People were barely beginning to include them in more teen- and adult-oriented television and movies. It just wasn't something that a couple of straight men, who were creating a fantasy series aimed at young kids, were going to think about.

What few instances you can point to from the series where Zuko might be considered to exhibit coding largely happen in Book 1, when he was a villain, because the writers were drawing from typically villainous traits that had historically come from queer coding villains and had since passed into common usage as villainous traits. But they weren't done with any intention of making it seem like Zuko might be attracted to boys.

And, again, what people actually point to as 'evidence' of Zuko being queer-coded--his awkwardness on his date with Jin and his confrontation with Ozai being the big ones I can think of off the top of my head--are actually just... traits that come from his history of trauma and abuse.

As I said in that old post:

making [zuko’s confrontation of ozai] about zuko being gay and rejecting ozai’s homophobia, rather than zuko learning fundamental truths about the world and about his home and about how there was something deeply wrong with his nation that needed to be fixed in order for the world to heal (and, no, ‘homophobia’ is not the answer to ‘what is wrong with the fire nation’, i’m still fucking pissed at bryke about that), misses the entire point of his character arc. this is the culmination of zuko realizing that he should never have had to earn his father’s love, because that should have been unconditional from the start. this is zuko realizing that he was not at fault for his father’s abuse--that speaking out of turn in a war meeting in no way justified fighting a duel with a child.

is that first realization (that a parent’s love should be unconditional, and if it isn’t, then that is the parent’s fault and not the child’s) something that queer kids in homophobic households/families can relate to? of course it is. but it’s also something that every other abused kid, straight kids and even queer kids who were abused for other reasons before they even knew they were anything other than cishet, can relate to as well. in that respect, it is not a uniquely queer experience, nor is it a uniquely queer story, and zuko not being attracted to girls (which is what a lot of it seems to boil down to, at the end of the day--cutting down zuko’s potential ships so that only zukka and a few far more niche ships are left standing) is not necessary to his character arc. nor does it particularly make sense.

And, regarding his date with Jin:

(and before anyone brings up his date with jin--a) he enjoyed it when she kissed him, and b) he was a traumatized, abused child going out on a first date. of course he was fucking awkward. have you ever met a teenage boy????)

Zuko is socially awkward and maladjusted because he was abused by his father as a child and has trouble relating to people as a result. He was heavily traumatized and brutally physically injured as a teenager, and it took him years to begin to truly recover from the scars that left on his psyche (and it's highly likely, despite the strides he made in canon, that he has a long way to go, post series; it's such a pity that we never got any continuation comics >.>). He was not abused for being gay or queer--he was abused because his father believed he was weak, and part of Zuko's journey was realizing that his father's perception of strength was flawed at its core. That his entire nation had rotted from the inside out, and the regime needed to be changed in order for the world--including his people--to begin to heal.

That could be commingled with a coming out narrative, which is completely fine for headcanons (although I personally prefer not to, because, again, we have more than enough queer trauma already), but it simply doesn't exist in canon. Zuko was not abused or traumatized for being queer, and his confrontation with Ozai was not about him coming out or realizing any fundamental truth about himself--it was about realizing something fundamental about his father and his nation, and making the choice to leave them behind so that he could help the Avatar grow stronger and force things to change when he got back.

TL;DR: at the end of the day, none of the traits, scenes, or behavior Zuko exhibits which shippers tend to use to claim he was gay-coded are actually evidence of coding--they aren't uniquely queer experiences, as they stem from abuse that was not related in any way to his sexuality, and they are experiences that any kid who suffered similar abuse or trauma could recognize and resonate with. (Including straight kids, and queer kids who were abused for any reason other than their identity.) And, finally, Zuko can be queer without erasing or invalidating his canon attraction to girls, and it's endlessly frustrating that the 'Zuko is gay-coded' crowd refuses to acknowledge that.

#atla #zuko #on queer coding #atla fandom salt #salt for ts #asked #mudbend

135 notes · View notes

mermaidsirennikita · 3 years

Note

hope its ok to send a bridgerton comment/ask - I keep seeing people freak out about the possibility of Benedict being bi, including the possibility of him ending up with a male partner. And like...I feel like a lot of fans don't get that this show is supposed to take the essence of the books and then go beyond that?? And doing a season 3 about the AOFAG plot...is pretty regressive for Shondaland? Shondaland isn't perfect but I don't see them doing something so basic as a Cinderella plotline for s3. It's just not enough to maintain interest for a wider viewing audience. Beyond just views, they also need critical praise - and the book plot won't get them that; this is not the 1990s lol. Benedict fighting against the norms to be with a guy would take the essence of the book plot of fighting to be with someone society doesn't deem appropriate. Listen they probably wont do it and they'll be boring and do another cis-het relationship, but - ya gotta dream

It's totally fine lol--I don't publish all of them because I just published something similar ooooor I feel like I can't say anything ooooor I feel like it's about one of the things I just decided not to discuss for whatever reason (Phoebe's career, for example lol--no disses to people interested in discussing that, I just feel like I've said all I can say on it).

But I agree with you completely. The reality is that the Cinderella story is done, and it's been done over and over from a heteronormative lens. The reality, too, is that the only truly interesting aspect of Cinderella from a modern perspective is the idea that it's an interclass romance. It's much more interesting, imo, if you go even deeper as it were and examine it from the perspective of like... two queer men finding love in a world that frowns upon their union even more?

Idk, I'm also quite passionate about this on a personal level because historical romance is my favorite subgenre. And it is, almost definitely, the most heteronormative subgenre of romance. I fucking hate that. I hate that this a subgenre with a capacity for happily ever afters and amazing romances and wish fulfillment, but the wishes of LGBT+ people have been excluded from it since its inception, almost. Don't get me wrong, there are amazing authors doing important work there, but it's only very recently that that work has begun on a large scale.

So what would it say for the first adaptation of a historical romance to depict, for a whole fucking season, a queer love story? That's more important than anyone's desire to see (a cis woman) Sophie.

I don't know if they'll be smart or open-minded enough to like... get that, tbh. But it would be such a weird thing for me to see a Shondaland show just.... not have any of the Bridgertons be queer. Because when I think of Shondaland, I think of three big hit shows prior to Bridgerton: Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, and HTGAWM. Now, all of them have varying results re: queer rep, and it's not my place to say how well they did. But undoubtedly, they all normalized queer rep. Grey's, in particular, did a lot of that when other shows weren't? Calzona, as much as it got fucked up, was a major couple I remember growing up with and seeing as this representation of queer women--they got married before that was a normal thing for two women to do. And it was an EVENT. Scandal, as WILD AS THIS WAS LOL, depicted a Republican president with a chief of staff who was openly gay, married to a man, and the father of a child with that man. (..........). HTGAWM had Connor and Oliver as one of the flagship couples.

It just would be weird, but unsurprising, if every Bridgerton was straight as an arrow. And almost insulting, imo, to the work JB is doing as an out and proud gay man who's playing the leading man against a woman? Like y'all are gonna use that to promote how progressive the show is, but not depict queer people as leads? Okay.

#bridgerton

10 notes · View notes

adamsvanrhijn · 4 years

Text

Let’s Talk About Historical Homophobia! (Part I)

Part 1: Misconceptions

I’ve been meaning to make a post about historical perceptions of LGBT people, especially gay men, since like the middle of last year or earlier. Turns out that this cannot be dealt with in one (1) Tumblr post without ruining your dashboards, so it’s going to be another Series Of Posts! (Unlike times past I will not be posting these all in the same day because I have an apartment to clean.)

BIG DISCLAIMER that this is all extremely specific to Great Britain in the 1900s-1930s, with concentration on the 1920s, and I’m not going to talk about the impact of e.g. discrimination based upon race and national origin on homophobia because that is not something I know much about in Britain and also, not a factor in Thomas’s case.

The first time I wanted to make this post was probably when I ventured into the yonder (Downton Abbey fandom off of Tumblr) and found that many people, largely I’ve-presumed-straight people who are probably uncomfortable with gay men as a rule, take offense at how other characters in Downton Abbey treat Thomas (who, in case this post leaves my Tumblr circle, is the Token Gay Character for the bulk of the series, which is set from 1912-1927).

But I have also seen different but similar ideas on Tumblr, where a significant part of the fandom are LGBT/queer themselves! There's a pretty simple explanation for that: we all live in the 21st century, and our beliefs have been shaped by our modern experiences and the way we interpret this show will reflect that.

I am referring to things like:

Any servant who was known to be gay would be fired on the spot, so Robert’s sympathy for Thomas doesn't make sense

Similarly, Carson is too tolerant of Thomas, and wouldn’t have allowed him to stay after what happened in S3

Dr Clarkson’s comment to Thomas that his homosexuality is innate, cannot be changed, and is something he should learn to live with is anachronistic because all medical professionals believed that gay people chose to be gay and could be treated and changed

in addition to that, the idea that Every Other Comment About Thomas Not Choosing To Be Gay is anachronistic

Mary, or Bates, or Robert, or Mrs Hughes, or Mrs Patmore, etc, would never, ever comment upon Thomas being interested in men, because homosexuality was unspeakable

Chris picking Thomas up in a pub in the film is unrealistic and even suspect, because men did not openly express sexual interest in other men

Likewise, Richard wouldn’t have dared to ask Thomas out or express his interest, and certainly wouldn’t have tried to continue the relationship before he left, because gay relationships were doomed to fail

Bisexuality was completely unknown and even people who knew of homosexuality did not believe in its existence

It’s wrong that so many people understand that Thomas is gay, because all heterosexual people would have had to go out of their way to encounter gay people, and he would be the first gay man most if not all of them had ever met

The blackmail subplot in the first episode is contrived, as gay men would never dare to put anything incriminating in writing in the first place

A life in service without a romantic partner, or with a romantic partner he can see only rarely, is the best that Thomas could hope for, because gay men could not safely carry on long-term intimate relationships, let alone live together in the legal climate of the time

Gay men and relationships were never portrayed or referred to in media such as art, writing, drama, radio, film, etc

Literally none of this is true!

Is some of it based in truth?

Are there elements in any of these ideas that reflect aspects of real life?

Was homophobia a serious problem faced by gay men, with legal barriers and social constraints that could make life extremely difficult and demoralising?

Yes, yes, and yes!

But none of the statements above are unequivocally, absolutely true, and many of them are outright falsehoods. They are largely modern ideas rooted not only in a distorted view of the past, but in prejudiced misinformation that has flourished in the last ~40 years. Many people in the Baby Boomer, Gen X and Millennial generations were first exposed to homosexuality in the context of legal battles, public figure scandals (not that that wasn’t the case prior) and health crises, and in the age of mass information the attitudes associated with those events were able to influence people, and therefore real life events, in ways they hadn’t before.

Naturally those ideas came from somewhere, too—they didn’t spring into existence in the 1960s! But though they may have existed in some form in the Victorian, Edwardian and WWI/Interwar eras, they were not necessarily the predominant view, and they did not affect the lives of gay men in the same way that they do today.

Gay men in these eras (same as today) faced homophobia and prejudice. By no means am I saying that they didn’t. In fact, I think it’s important to acknowledge that the most horrific events in their lives would be completely unimaginable to some people today. But the world was very different then, and the factors at hand with the largest impact on their lives, positive and negative, were different, too.

Part 2 forthcoming.

#downton abbey tag #downton abbey resources #thomas barrow #community culture tag #thomas barrow posting tag

68 notes · View notes

margridarnauds · 2 years

Text

Since I didn't lose enough followers from the last time I posted a Hot Take, a further one: I feel like a LOT is made, in the proshipping community, of The Discourse. Like, "I ship this thing and I KNOW it's going to get discourse because of x, y, and z reasons" which...can't ALWAYS be helpful, because sometimes I think it prepares us for a fight that isn't necessarily going to happen. Especially with m/m ships where...and it could be that my experience with fandom is different, especially since I haven't been involved in a lot of the *massive* fandoms...the vast majority of the time, the discourse I've seen hasn't been over whether a given ship should EXIST, it's more about the manner in *which* it's shipped, usually supporting the idea of "if you file off the serial numbers and turn them into Any Two Guys, it's fine." Not to say that no one will ever say "you can't ship this thing" for m/m or f/f ships, rather that it's much less common. Specifically if it's non-sexual because, of course, if it's sexual, it means you're fetishizing or whatever the new buzz word is (though if they're ace, you're erasing gay men, so, really, who wins?) mlm ships can, historically, get away with things that other ships would be *crucified* for. Which isn't to say that discourse CAN'T be bad for mlm ships, rather that it's often a totally different manner than people usually think. Ditto for f/f ships which often are pressured to lose whatever personality they had to fit into a somehow even more saccharine box.

Where I've seen the *most* discourse for a ship EXISTING? F/m ships, where shippers are often just....slapped with a "Dumb Straights" label and dogpiled. Like, I've seen people support every kind of awful m/m or f/f ship, but, the second a m/f ship displays any level of toxicity, they make VERY AGGRESSIVE posts about how that ship is literally the devil and only a brainwashed straight would ship it, which is...massively alienating to bi shippers. You ship enemies to lovers with a m/m or f/f ship, that's just Gay Culture (unless it's like...C@tradora, in which case there WAS a significant pushback but, even then, a number of shippers of that HATED the comparison to, say, Reylo, even though they both DID involve an enemies to lovers dynamic that was actually....enemies to lovers, instead of two people being mildly impolite to one another.) I have never, when I've made content for a m/m or f/f ship, at least on here or AO3, had someone leave negative comments about the ship itself, but it happens frequently when I make content for m/f ships, especially by people who ship a m/m or f/f ship with one of the characters. There is a level of entitlement involved there. It's like we're seeing a reversal of the ff.net era when writing a m/m or f/f fic would very easily get you a nasty review reminding you that those characters are STRAIGHT.

You see much more handwringing over whether a m/f ship Sets A Bad Example, never minding that, even in cases where an abusive relationship was glorified in a mass market product, like Fifty Shades of Gray, as opposed to a bunch of fans enjoying something...those things were released with a bunch of discussion on how it would influence domestic abuse stats. meanwhile, there's a large assumption of m/m or f/f = non-toxic that is....worrying. I've seen same sex ships where one attempted to push the other into suicide as "Oh, how soft!" And it isn't to say that people can't ship those, or even that they're REQUIRED to ship m/f ships with the same dynamic, because I'm really aware of how societal dynamics can change how we view these things, but rather I'm saying that there IS some very real misogyny and biphobia present in modern fandom discourse that isn't always discussed in favor of "All ships are equally targets."

#suicide tw

2 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 3 years

Note

Hey Ruth! I noticed you've talked in the past about asexuality in quite a negative manner. As an ace-person (who has received backlash for it) I was wondering: do you still uphold these opinions?

Hey! I have in the past said I don’t really...like people popping up in my ask box asking me My Opinion On Asexuality, but I do appreciate you asking me as someone I kinda know and with your face turned on, so I’m gonna aim to answer in the macro. Though I mean it depends on what the opinions...are? I have had a lot of opinions over the time I’ve had this blog and I don’t necessarily know what all of them were or which ones have concerned you. I can give you a top-level view of how I see my views, though (however, since I have been largely holding off on answering this kind of ask for Literally A Year Now this is less an answer to your specific question and more an answer to the last year of asks)

(also if I get dogpiled in my inbox for Having Bad Asexuality Opinions which I do every time I talk about asexuality regardless of what I actually say then. my phone is broken I won’t know about it :) so I feel untouchable)

I don’t think I hold a negative opinion of asexuality as an identity (I say I don’t think bc we all have blind spots)? I have a lot of very important people in my life who are asexual, aromantic or aroace and. I mean it feels pretty condescending to say ~uwu it’s valid~ bc like. ace and aro people don’t really need my input to validate their identity. but a) it seems like a pretty accurate way to describe their experience and b) I know a lot of them have had a really huge boost from finding a name and community to fit their experience and have found that really helpful, and I’ve seen that make a huge difference in people’s lives and I’m really happy to watch my friends come to understand themselves and feel comfortable and accepted in a part of themselves they had felt really alienated or stigmatised by. In a broader sense, I think there’s huge value in decentralising romance and sex in our assumptions of What Human Happiness Means and for some people that’s not the most important thing, and for some it’s just not interesting.

So like. I find it difficult to really express these opinions in any meaningful way because my opinion on asexuals and aromantics is much like my opinion on trans people or idk like people of colour. like very obviously those people exist and very obviously those people don’t deserve to be marginalised or stigmatised but it would feel. weird and performative to just make a post saying like “Asexuality Is Good And Valid, I Am Pro It” bc again like. who needs my permission or cares about my opinion. it’s not a Good Thing To Do it’s just. a thing you are that shouldn’t be treated as a bad thing.

however. and I suspect that this is what you’re referring to. while I love and appreciate ace and aro people, I think building communities and active support for ace and aro people is valuable and needed and, as above, I think Asexuality Is Good And Valid I Am Pro It, I do take some issue with elements of how discussions around asexuality are framed online (pretty much only online, I really haven’t run into the kind of black-and-white thinking in in-person queer spaces)

and I also. think there are some issues with people extrapolating their experience of their own sexuality onto the world in a way which. I’m just going to say a lot of the time when I talk about The Ace Discourse in a negative way it’s around people assuming that the world is split into a binary between ace and allo people, or assuming that only aspec people experience a nuanced or complex or fluid relationship to their sexuality while pigeonholing allosexuality into a pretty flat image of sex and romance focus. and I have always felt like this does a massive disservice not just to people who don’t identify with aspec labels, but also to the general hope that we could work against the expectation that there’s a Standard Amount To Value Sex/Romance - I think that the assumption that there are aspec people and then Everyone Else Has The Normal Type and Level of Attraction just. reinforces the idea that there’s a “Normal” type and level of attraction. which is ultimately pretty self-defeating and also just. observably untrue.

and this division of the world into Aspec People and Allo People also has some other weird knockon effects - I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with identities like gray ace or demi or other aspec labels beyond asexual and aromantic, but I do think that the way those labels are used is often. unhelpful. and they’re defined in such personal, subjective ways that you get weirdnesses sometimes like people Diagnosing Each Other With Demisexual or people saying ‘you can’t talk about this experience you share because it’s an Aspec Experience’ and again. there isn’t a concrete material experience there because the whole experience of romantic and sexual attraction, what that feels like and how sharply divisible it is is very, very personal and subjective. and everyone has different experiences of those and will name those experiences differently.

there’s also. historically a minority of Big Ace Blogs that kind of sneer at allosexuality or who would hijack posts about other issues to derail them to asexuality. but I don’t think they were ever representative of the community as a whole and I certainly think that inasmuch as those blogs remain around they’re a legacy of the Long-Ago (and a lot of them are trolls imo)

but there is. an issue I take that does seem to be more currently live which is the question of allo privilege. I think personally that framing all allosexuals/alloromantics as privileged over all aspec people on the basis of feeling sexual/romantic attraction is provably untrue in a world where people, particularly queer people, are actively oppressed and marginalised for expressing non-normative sexuality. it isn’t that I don’t think asexuality and aromanticism isn’t marginalised and stigmatised, because it visibly is, but it seems pretty reductive to boil it down to a binary yes/no privilege when both sexualisation and desexualisation are so actively tied into other forms of marginalisation (this is what I was trying to express in the argument about Martin a while ago - sex and sexuality are so often disincentivised for fat, queer, disabled and neuroatypical people that it doesn’t...feel like a reclamation that those tend to be the characters that get fanonised as ace where slim, straight, able-bodied and neurotypical characters aren’t. like it’s more complex than a binary privilege equation; sex and romance are incentivised and stigmatised differently at the intersection of oppressions and. for example. in a world where gay conversion therapy and religious oppression of gay and SGA people is so often focused specifically on celibacy and on punishing the act of sexual attraction, I don’t think it’s a reasonable framing to say that a gay allosexual man has privilege over an aroace man on the basis of his attraction)

so those are like. things I would consider myself to feel actively negative about in online discourse (and again. in online discourse. not in how I relate to asexuality or aromanticism or aspec identities in general but in the framing and approaches people take towards discussing it in a very specific bubble).

but also. um. the main criticism I have of the online discourse culture of asexuality is that there are things I don’t have experience of that I have mentioned, when asked, that I don’t personally understand the meaning of but I don’t need to understand them to appreciate that they’re useful/meaningful to others. things like

the difference between QPRs, asexual romantic relationships and close friendships

how you know the difference between romantic attraction and friendship

the distinction between sexual attraction and a desire to have sex with someone for another reason

and I hope I’ve generally been clear that this is. honest lack of understanding and not condemnation. I personally have a very muddled sense of attraction and often have difficulty identifying the specifics of any of my own emotional needs so like. it’s a closed book for me at the moment, how you would identify the fine distinctions between types of want when I’m still at step 1: identify That You Want Something Of Some Sort, Eventually, Through Trial And Error. but I think I’ve always been explicit that this isn’t a value judgement it’s just a gap in my own knowledge and yet. every single time I’ve said anything other than enthusiastic “yes I understand this and I love it and it’s good and valid” (and again. I have not gone out of my way to talk about it I have mostly only mentioned it because people keep asking me to talk about it) I have got a massive rush of anger and accusations of aphobia and “just shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about but also answer my 30 questions to prove you think Correct Things about asexuality” and. I understand that this comes from a place of really unpleasant and aggressive backlash towards the ace community so it’s a sensitivity with a lot of people but like. it doesn’t seem proportional.

also I feel like ever since I hit like 700 followers my Tumblr life has been a constant cycle of people asking me Are You An Ace Inclusionist Are You An Exclus Are You An Aphobe Justify Your Opinion On Asexuality which. eventually yeah I’ve got pretty snippy about the whole thing. but you know. fuck it I’m just gonna lay it out and if you or anyone else is uncomfortable following me based on those opinions then I’m sorry to hear that and I will be sad to see you not want to engage with me any more but I also think that’s absolutely your prerogative. however I will not be taking questions at this time (and not just bc my phone’s broken) - demands for an argument about this Are Going To Be Ignored so if you want to go then go.

so like the big question I reckon is Do You Think Asexuality Is Queer and

yes. no. maybe. I don’t understand the question what does it mean for an identity to be queer?

there are spaces and conversations where any form of aromanticism or asexuality makes sense as a relevant identity. talking about hegemonic expectations of normative romance. building community. combatting the idea that heterosexual missionary married sex between a man and a woman is the only rewarding or valuable form of relationship or intimacy.

there are spaces where I think heterosexual aros/heteromantic cis aces don’t. have a more meaningful or direct experience of the issues than allo cishets. because while being aro or ace or aspec has a direct impact on those people on a personal and relational level, disclosure is largely a choice, and the world at large sees them as straight. they don’t have the lived experience of being visibly nonconforming that SGA people and aroace people do. they may still be queer but there’s a lot of conversations where they bring a lot of the baggage of being Straight People (because. even if you’re ace or aro you can still be straight in your romantic or sexual attraction and if your relationships are all outwardly straight then you don’t necessarily have an intimate personal understanding of being marginalised from mainstream society by dint of your sexuality). this doesn’t make you Not Queer in the same way that being a bi person who’s only ever been in m/f relationships is still queer, but in both cases a) you don’t magically have a personal experience of societal oppression through the transitive properties of Being Queer and b) it’s really obnoxious to talk as if you’re The Most Oppressed when other people are trying to have a conversation about their lived experience of societal oppression. and they’re within their rights to say ‘we’re talking about the experience of being marginalised for same gender/non-heterosexual attraction and you’re straight, could you butt out?’)

(I very much object to the assumption coming from a lot of exclus that “cishet ace” is a term that can reasonably be applied to non-orientated aroace people though. het is not a default it really extremely doesn’t make sense to treat people who feel no attraction as Straight By Default. when I were a lad I feel like we mostly understood “asexual” to mean that identity - non-orientated aroace - and while I think it’s obvious that a lot of people do find value in using a more split-model because. well. some people are both gay/straight/bi and aro/ace, and it’s good that language reflects that. but I do think it’s left a gap in the language to simply refer to non-attracted people. this isn’t a criticism of anything in particular - there’s a constant balancing act in language between specificity and adaptability and sometimes a gain for one is a loss for the other)

some queer conversations and spaces just. aren’t built with aces in mind. and that isn’t a flaw. some spaces aren’t built with men in mind, but that doesn’t mean men can’t be queer. some conversations are about Black experiences of queerness but that doesn’t mean non-Black people can’t be queer. not all queer spaces will focus on ace needs but that doesn’t mean asexuality isn’t queer, or that queerness is opposed to aceness - sex, sexuality, romance and dating are all really important things to a lot of queer people, especially those whose sexuality and romantic relationships are often stigmatised or violently suppressed in wider society. there should be gay bars, hookup apps, gay and trans friendly sex education, making out at Pride, leather parades and topless dyke marches and porn made by and for queer people, romantic representation in media of young and old gay, bi and trans couples kissing and snuggling and getting married and saying sloppy romantic things. and there should be non-sexual queer spaces, there should be discussions around queerness that don’t suppose that a monogamous romantic relationship is what everyone’s fighting for, sex ed should be ace inclusive, etc.

I think the whole question of inclusionism vs exclusionism is based on a weird underlying assumption that If An Identity Is Queer All Queer Spaces Should Directly Cater To That. like. aspec identities can be queer and it can be totally reasonable for there to be queer spaces that revolve around being sexual and romantic and there can be conversations it’s not appropriate or productive to centre asexuality and aspec experiences in and we can recognise that not all queer people do prioritise or have any interest in sex or romance. in the same way that there’s value in centring binary trans experiences sometimes and nonbinary experiences at other times but both of those conversations should recognise that neither binary or nonbinary gender identity is a Universal Queer Experience.

anyway that one probably isn’t one of the opinions you were asking about but I have been wanting to find a way to express it for a while so you’re getting it: the Ruth Thedreadvampy Inclusionism Take.

uh. it’s 1:30 on a work night so I have been typing too long. if there was an opinion you were specifically thinking of that I haven’t mentioned, chuck me another ask specifically pointing to what you want me to clarify my thinking on. sometimes I gotta be honest I’ve just been kind of careless in my framing (thinking of the Martin Fucks debacle where I spent ages insisting I didn’t say Martin couldn’t be aroace then read back like two days later and realised that I had said “he’s not aroace” bc I had written the post at 2am without proofreading and had meant to say “unless you think he’s aroace”) so I May Well Not Stand By Some Posts or might Stand By Them With Clarification

28 notes · View notes

hellomynameisbisexual · 4 years

Text

Most people know to anticipate some degree of change when they’re in a committed, long-term romantic relationship: a desire for more nights in with Netflix instead of drunken ragers on the dance floor; the inevitable shift of physical appearances; the unexpected transformation of a side gig into a career. But many people assume sexual orientation is fairly stable—that whether you’re gay or straight, you’re “born this way,” and that’s what you’ll be forever.

That definitely isn’t always the case. But even though coming out as queer or bisexual in a committed straight relationship isn’t unheard of, a change in sexual identity is not something that many people anticipate happening within a long-term partnership, nor is it widely discussed. Despite the advancements in broader social understanding of LGBTQ issues made in the past decade, therapists Jared Anderson and Tamala Poljak told VICE that many of their patients fear that being bi or queer when straight-partnered could doom their relationship. There’s also a pervasive idea that a person in a hetero relationship can’t be LGBTQ because they have chosen to commit, and are presumably attracted to, a member of the opposite sex. But bisexuality is a valid orientation, and while it may feel intimidating to embrace this discovery and stay hetero-partnered, it’s by no means impossible.

“I believe both gender and sexuality [are] fluid, meaning we change throughout a lifespan,” Poljak said, adding that recent cultural shifts have likely led to light bulb moments for some individuals who has been denying or simply not recognizing their queer feelings.

Sexuality doula Isabella Frappier, whose work includes helping clients own and define their sexual expression, said that a person doesn’t need to have acted on any same-sex-attracted feelings in order to label themselves as queer or bisexual, and that bisexuality can be explored while still honoring an extant relationship, especially since everyone has different definitions of what it means to explore.

Bisexuality is often dismissed as a phase, and the idea that bisexual people are "just confused" persists. This is especially true for men; while bisexuality among women is slightly more socially acceptable (albeit because it’s fetishized and often viewed as an "experiment"), men often have to contend with the belief that bisexuality, as Carrie once put it on Sex and the City, is “a pit stop on the way to gay town.”

These myths stem from our society’s historically rigid approach to sexual expression. Experts are adamant that a person's bisexuality does not invalidate the love they have for their opposite-sex partner. According to Poljak, an associate marriage and family therapist, the idea that a person needs to “pick a side” is a rooted in heteronormative expectations.

The question, “Am I queer or bi enough?” can also weigh heavily on people who think they might not be all the way straight, as though there is a certain amount of "proof" that could confirm their sexuality. As much as those questioning might like to think there’s a litmus test that will tell them whether or not they’re truly bi, that’s simply not the case.

“For queer folks, it just isn’t so cut and dry,” Poljak said. “The hope to ‘figure it out’ and/or find ‘an answer’ is a pretty rigid idea steeped in heteronormative expectations. It also puts a lot of pressure on a person to have to declare one thing and stick to it. If you know you are attracted to one or more genders, then it’s really that simple.”

A journey into one’s queerness doesn’t have to involve sex outside of the relationship, or even sex in general. Just noticing that you’re attracted to other genders can be the extent of this exploration. The act of coming out to yourself, or maybe saying, “I’m bi. I don’t know what that looks like yet, and that’s OK,” has the potential to be extremely affirming.

You might find comfort in connecting with other queer folks, especially since identifying as queer might otherwise make you feel vulnerable or isolated. Some people are validated by coming out to friends and family, or by getting involved with the queer community. Frappier encouraged people exploring their bi/queer identity to go to LGBTQ events, read books about sexuality or written by queer authors, support bisexual artists and musicians, or join queer groups. Online, Reddit’s r/bisexual subreddit is a funny and informative space for bi folks to ask questions or simply discuss their experiences, while the Fluid Arizona resource page and Autostraddle's events and meet-ups can help queer folks build an IRL community.

If you decide you want to connect more physically with your queer sexual desires, but aren’t sure where to begin, start small. “I’d first encourage a person in this situation to start by considering the multiple ways they can explore their queerness on their own,” Frappier said. “That can be through watching ethical same-sex porn, or writing your own erotica.”

Experts strongly encouraged discussing your queerness with your partner eventually, as the secrecy can ultimately strain the relationship. (It can also contribute to the harmful idea that your queerness is somehow scandalous, or something to be ashamed of.) If you’re worried that your partner will react poorly, or you aren’t ready to share your feelings with them yet, consider talking to a professional, a trusted friend or loved one, or a queer friend who may relate a bit to what you are going through. Poljak, who is trained as an LGBTQ-affirmative therapist, said it’s crucial for people questioning their sexuality to have a solid support system. Studies show that bisexual people are at a higher risk of depression, anxiety, and experiencing violence than their gay, lesbian, and heterosexual counterparts. While staying in the closet can be a necessary choice for a myriad of reasons, research shows that the stress of concealment contributes to disrupted relationships, feelings of shame and guilt, and symptoms of anxiety and depression.

If you feel ready to talk with your significant other, avoid starting the conversation when either of you are tired or distracted, in the middle of a fight, or in any situation where tensions are high. Instead, choose a time when you both feel relaxed and won’t be rushed, like over coffee on a Saturday morning.

You don’t have to have everything figured out before you talk to your partner. Frappier said that it’s perfectly fine to tell them you’re in a questioning, exploratory phase, and then communicate what you’d like that to look like. There’s no need to choose a label unless you’d like to.

“Explain to [your partner] how you’ve been feeling, what you’re desiring to explore, and how you imagine that could look within your relationship,” Frappier said. She advised that it’s wise to let your partner know that your sexual expression is not a reflection of the relationship, but more about exploring a new part of yourself.

“Once you’re finished speaking, it’s important to give them space to share, and to really listen to how they are feeling,” Frappier said. “They may take it in stride, or need a little time to process it.”

Don’t stress if the first conversation doesn’t go as well as you’d hoped; this will likely be the first of many discussions. Anderson, who specializes in trauma and relationships, said that if any of these conversations get heated or overly emotional, it’s a good idea to press pause and revisit the topic once both partners have had a chance to cool off.

Couples therapy can also be extremely beneficial. “Ideally, both the person coming out and the partner of that person would be in individual therapy with a therapist who is trained in LGBTQ-affirmative therapy,” Poljak said. “The same is true if [you're] deciding to open your marriage, explore polyamory or emotional monogamy, and/or redefine your marital contract. The therapist needs to have more than just general knowledge of alternative, queer lifestyles, and understand the multiple systems at play.”

Psychology Today is the most thorough national network for finding mental health professionals, and allows users to search using various classifications, including sexuality and type of therapy (the “compassion-based” and “culturally sensitive” filters are good options for LGTBQ folks). Some health insurance plans allow users to filter for therapists who specialize in LGBTQ issues when searching for in-network providers. For POC-specific options, the National Queer and and Trans Therapists of Color Network is a good resource. For those struggling to find an in-person therapist, Pride Counseling offers digital therapy sessions via phone, messaging, and video call.

After your initial conversations and once you've sought any additional support you might find helpful, you and your partner may want to formulate an action plan. If you want to include your partner in your sexual exploration (and they are comfortable with that), the plan might include attending queer events, watching queer porn together, role-playing, engaging in threesomes, and/or swinging. If you’d prefer to explore your sexuality without your partner, but with other people, you may need to discuss opening up your relationship.

“Some folks find it exciting or even sexy, and perhaps a discussion unfolds about opening up the marriage or exploring poly or engaging in new kinds of play and fantasy with their partners,” Poljak said. “Maybe it even inspires their partner to share with honesty some queerness of their own that is emerging. Ideally, there is space for people’s differences and otherness to be expressed without having to lose the relationship, or having to abandon or sacrifice yourself.”

This sort of exploration is not one-size-fits-all. Regardless of the route you take, Frappier stresses the importance of discussing boundaries and safety throughout. If the two of you are struggling to find some sort of consensus when it comes to boundaries, that doesn’t mean the discussion regarding exploration is over forever. It’s very common for couples to have multiple conversations surrounding this topic, especially if one partner is asking to renegotiate the marital contract in some way.

Just as it’s reasonable for a person to want to explore their burgeoning sexuality outside of the relationship, it’s also reasonable for the other partner to say, “I’m not cool with that.” In some instances, it might be in the interest of both individuals to go their separate ways… and that’s OK, too.

“A marriage is a partnership that lasts as long as it’s right,” writer Nadia Rawls said after coming out to, and, later, ending things with her now–ex-husband. Rawls said she tried to make it work with her husband for six months, but ultimately realized that separating was the best option. “It takes a hell of a partner to help their spouse grow into the person they really are,” Rawls wrote. “Even if that means losing them.”

Rawls’s story is just one of many—Frappier and Poljak said that many couples make it work, too. It’s hard to predict how your partner might react, or how you’ll feel or what you’ll want, once you start exploring your queerness or bisexuality. That uncertainty is part of what makes the process of coming out in a straight relationship so intimidating. But the reward of being honest—both with yourself and with your partner—is the gift of a more authentic life. Regardless of the outcome, that is worth pursuing.

29 notes · View notes

horrifically · 3 years

Note

(different anon) I completely understand that gender and sexuality can be messy, and I completely understand that there are similarities in experiences between trans men and lesbians and that trans men who are exclusively attracted to women might not identify with straightness because of the way they experience gender/attraction/etc and the way being straight is usually linked pretty tightly with being cis but, as a lesbian, I really do not believe that a trans man can BE a lesbian. Of course there are transmasc lesbians, but that's different because they aren't men, and of course trans men and lesbians should connect and share resources and the like, but the exclusion of men is a pretty big defining factor of lesbianism separating it from bisexuality. If a trans man can be a lesbian, then it kind of implies that people who are exclusively wlw would pursue relationships with someone they know is a man just because they don't attempt to appear to be a cis man. In my own experience, when I find out someone's a man, I lose interest in them because I'm not attracted to men (and the opposite happens as well, where I won't have much interest in someone, then find out they're a woman, or woman-aligned, and become very interest!). I definitely think that saying trans men and lesbians are entirely different and have no shared experiences is wrong and only serves to put unnecessary divisions in the lgbt community, but there are some necessary divisions, not in the sense of separation, because there's overlap among every identity, some more than others, but if a man can be a lesbian it kind of renders the term meaningless and historical examples of trans men being referred to as lesbians by themselves and other lesbians doesn't convince me much otherwise because language changes, understandings of gender and sexuality change, the context and use for these labels change. I do fully support lesbian organizations supporting, welcoming and uplifting trans men and vice versa because we do have similar experiences, etc, and it's definitely something that requires a lot of nuance and is very complex, but that doesn't mean that trans men can be lesbians. I know this is kind of rambly, but I hope it's understandable at least?

so you basically said everything i said but came to the conclusion that trans men are exactly the same as cis men and operate the same way therefore they can not interact with women in queer/gay ways... firstly, one trans man feeling comfortable with the lesbian label does not change what it means bc thats not how lesbianism works. there are multiple situations where a lesbian would be comfortable being with a trans man and vice versa and that doesnt make them less of a man and that doesnt make the lesbian less of a lesbian bc again not every trans man is the same. my whole point is that queer people are going to be queer and we need to more lax when we are approached by a new situation we don't understand. that doesn't mean i believe that lesbianism is fluid or that lesbians sleep with men in general with genuine attraction. im saying that labels are not boxes and sometimes people step out of them depending on their comfort zone. every time trans men (or women) explain their experiences with lesbianism they are sent death threats bc "lesbians dont sleep with men". like maybe instead of doing that, listen to the trans people talking and absorb that the way you view labels and the way queer people interact with each other is wrong.

also NO ONE is saying trans men and lesbians should be combined in a community ?? all i said is that trans men who like the label or need shelter have been historically accepted. it is quite obvious that i am not advocating for no divisions between the lesbian and trans men communitites.

#idk how else to explain. once again. trans man does not mean cis man

3 notes · View notes

multicolouredbeanbag · 4 years

Text

pt 3 sorting characters into hogwarts houses

Part 1 Part 2

Tl;dr: April Stevens is a Hufflepuff who projects Slytherin; at her core she is a loyalist and she values community, even though her definition of a community has become GREATLY limited due to… reasons.

so here’s the thing. April looks like a Slytherin. She talks like a Slytherin. She walks like a Slytherin. But I don’t think she actually IS a Slytherin.

Today I defend the idea that April Stevens is actually a Hufflepuff (primary, ie. her motivations/values) and a Ravenclaw secondary (methods/tactics). I absolutely love this character even tho she is a lil mean, and I think that viewing her through this framework does justice to her complexities/core of who she is.

I mention the primary/secondary sorting hats system in Part 1 so feel free to google that or read my other analyses first.

Spoilers below:

Let’s talk about April’s secondary first, which addresses the HOW of person. How they approach situations, how they problem solve.

HP canon often posits Ravenclaws as the “intelligent” character, and while April IS very smart, that’s not why I consider her a Ravenclaw.

April is a HUGE planner and collector of information. She likes to be prepared because it gives her control over a situation. She’s an excellent strategizer. She’s less comfortable with improvising without having some tools/contingency plans to draw from, so when she’s stressed, she has a tendency to fall back on the tools that she’s brought with her (in contrast to Sterling, who absolutely thrives in improvisation)

My first example is the debate tournament - as team captain, she’s in it to win it. Her strategy of choice is to prepare detailed dossiers on all the other team captains. This works well enough for her, until opponent debater Craig pulls a move she couldn’t anticipate (using his own research against her), and she falls to pieces. Still, she takes some time, gathers herself again, and pressures Sterling to use the dossier on Craig to take him down (contingency plan).

Other examples:

Asked Sterling to debate her when deciding whether to come out or not - girl RUNS on logic

April’s approach to school is very organized/planning based, she’s also kind of a major nerd OBVIOUSLY, so this is a more conventional representation of her Ravenclaw-ness

S1E1, she snatches the condom wrapper but retreats with the information probably for processing purposes. She makes a plan - use threat of exposure to blackmail Sterling into giving her the fellowship position, and doesn’t deviate from it, even when the plan fails. Sterling has to save her from that situation ultimately.

This is a little more vague, but I’m thinking about how April comes off as a rigid, somewhat inflexible character. She’s not very easily persuaded to change her behavior (this, of course, makes so much sense! When you think about being gay in the south like? Her reluctance to come out is completely understandable) which contrasts very severely against Sterling’s expressive fluidity. April is a lot more static, and part of that is because it’s difficult for her to thrive when it’s an area that she hasn’t had the opportunity to prepare/plan/study.

Now for the much more interesting and complicated part, April’s PRIMARY.

Again, the Primary is all about WHY someone does something. Their motivations and values. I argue that April Stevens is a true Hufflepuff because she places utmost importance on community.

The HP canon defining qualities of being Hufflepuff are patience and loyalty. It’s the fair and inclusive house. However, it would be reductive to suggest that all Hufflepuffs are friendly, warm individuals. They are bonded together not by their shared amity, but by their value of people and groups—community.

April’s “community” on the show is unfortunately tied to her family and the Christian community. She fears not belonging (bc homophobia) so she overcompensates by conforming aggressively (see, Straight-Straight alliance S1E1).

The episode that really sold this analysis for me was S1E7, when April and Sterling had a number of conversations about April’s dad.

April: “My dad used to call my family a team. And I worked so hard to be the very best version of myself because Team Stevens wins. Teams Stevens is perfect, except that it’s not.”

With these words, we get some insight into why she’s so intense and high-achieving and obsessive all the time. It’s not so much because she wants to win for herself, it’s more the fact that she’s part of a team. She does her part for the team by excelling everywhere she thinks it counts, and of course her underlying gayness contributes to her NEED to be perfect. In practice, it comes off as personal ambition, which is why April seems, at least on the surface, pretty slytherin-y. In reality, it must be more about compensating for something she feels she lacks. Team Stevens can’t be perfect if they’re ostracized by the community due to their (only?) child being gay, so of course she has to keep it to herself, and she has to be the best on all other counts so no one can ever touch them.

Another example, S1E6, at the tournament April says, “You know what’s going on with my family right now; we have become the black sheep of the entire community. I needed a win!” She projects her personal problems onto external academic goals.

This framework of achievement as a prerequisite of community, flawed as it is, seemed to be working for her, at least up until her dad was arrested for attacking a prostitute. In a conversation with Sterl, back when April was trying to steal the fellowship title:

S: Why are you doing this? Is it because of what’s going on with your family?

A: What John did is his problem.

S: He’s still your dad.

A: I don’t care. He beat up a prostitute! I’m not a fan of sex workers but they deserve to be safe!

She obviously feels confused and hurt that her dad lied to her and was violent to women, which is something she cannot stand. For a while, she drops her father like a hot potato, throwing away his letters from jail and ignoring his calls. Hufflepuffs value people—fair is fair.

But she kind of still supports him at the end anyway, when he comes home (s1E10). She must be feeling so conflicted when this happens. Dad is a part of family (established community) therefore she has to support him. Dad possibly hurt someone, but then he did get cleared of his charges. April is essentially making a choice between Dad and Sterling, established community vs. possible (in fact PROBABLE) community alienation.

Hufflepuff and Slytherins are both loyalists because they both care about people—Hufflepuff because they’re people, Slytherin because they’re THEIR people. For all intents and purposes, by S1E10, Sterling is one of April’s “people.” So how does April choose? She goes with the established community, which is really to say she chooses culture and tradition.

April has spent her entire life locking away a significant part of herself for the sake of her family and more generally, her religious community. In S1E8/S1E9, April is almost convinced to come out—FOR Sterling. She probably would have gone through with it were it not for her dad showing up the next episode. April obviously has (justified) reservations about coming out because it’s honestly pretty dangerous to be out in the south, and these circumstances haven’t changed just because she found a girl that she likes. But she is reluctantly on board because Sterling would have been there to take the leap with her… at this point, April had expanded her definition of community to include Sterling, and for a moment Sterling’s optimism had broken past April’s defenses. Then her dad comes back, and April realizes that she has to make a choice even though this choice hurts them both terribly—Sterling is after all, one person, and what is one person in the face of boundless historical tradition and family values?

Hufflepuff morality tends to be influenced by external inputs, while Slytherin morality tends to come from the internal, the gut. Hufflepuffs can and will ignore their internal feelings when they contradict with the needs of the community. Slytherins are less easily swayed by external influences if they are sure they are right.

April has shrunk down her loyalties to a more manageable level (truly, a very LIMITED circle), but still prioritizes fairness and loyalty and of course, second chances. It’s partly why she’s open to reconnecting with her father. Maintaining these loyalties comes at the cost of her relationship with Sterling, but this is something April is willing to do: self-sacrifice for (greater) community.

Just to take a step back, April and Sterling’s relationship back in 5th grade is just… fascinating. In S1E6, we find out that April’s whole grudge against Sterling comes from when Sterling “gave her away” to another group at recess. An odd event that they both remember differently, and who can say what really happened? All we know is that April’s animosity comes from this perceived slight— the abandonment by someone she once trusted and considered part of her community. It’s very telling that their rivalry stems from this particular moment, the fracturing of a loyalty, as opposed anything else.

April: “the past is the past, we’re all adults here” but alsooo April, >:’(

Another example: at the tournament, when April is trying to convince Sterling to use the dirt on Craig to secure their win.

S: I don’t know if I can stoop that low.

A: He did it to me!

April’s first instinct was a quid pro quo, you attack me, my group will attack you. Which is why she is so offended that Sterling refuses to take the shot, because in April’s mind, it’s only fair. This exchange supports the idea that April considers community first, ambition second.

I like to think that April hides her vulnerable side, her honest hopes and dreams, behind her external perfectionism and ambition. I like to think that she cares a lot, that she’s a prickly, distrustful, kind of Hufflepuff who craves validation because she thinks it’s a substitute for connection. And I would like to see her find that type of community, that she and EVERYBODY deserves: love that doesn’t contain (in her words) “a post condition that we follow their rules for love.”

#teenage bounty hunters #tbh #april stevens #sterling wesley #stepril #devon hales #character analysis #hp houses #ok but if the tbh characters actually did go to hogwarts april would HUNDO P be in slytherin #it's alllll about the choice #gotta live up to the clearly elite pureblood upbringing that she would have #an abrasive intense gal trying her best #I LOVE APRIL STEVENS and devon if ur reading this? love u too #y'all i'm not religious but is it obvious who I project onto?#if u read the tags #thank u

75 notes · View notes

clare-with-no-i · 3 years

Note

the thing about wolfstar is that they were not even hinted in the slightest in canon. In the Marauder flashbacks there is always James and Sirius´ special bond hinted, as in Sirius only having eyes for James during the OWL exams, but not Remus. And in the present time there was also never any lingering touches/ looks. In fact, the only time they hug its described as a brotherly hug. So, I´m really curious why so many people seem to think that they were ever more than platonic friends.

I read a really compelling post one time about how JKR made both Sirius and Remus’s stories allegorical for the struggles of gay youth in the 1970s and 1980s - the AIDS crisis, and being kicked out of your home for being inherently, irreversibly ‘different’ - but did not make either of them gay, which was arguably yet another way that she took the struggle of a marginalized group and attempted to make it ‘more palatable’; which, by extension, also renders it completely baseless in historical narrative. So while there was never any overt mention, it can be argued that there is subtext to both of their characters that makes a viable argument that they could have been queer youth.

(And James and Sirius’s bond was emphasized as inherently platonic; they were brothers above all else, and this is emphasized so much more by the fact that we view the story through Harry’s eyes. He has no immediate loving family, so of course there’s going to be a focus on establishing a positive and grounded relationship with his long-lost godfather.)

Also - fanfiction is a place to extend, modify, and subvert the canon entirely. The idea that something has to be mentioned in canon in order for people to ship it is, uhhh, NOT really something that I’ve ever seen fandom abide by. This is especially true when there is such a critical lack of representation for LGBTQ+ characters and POC characters within canon - if someone wants to feel represented in the story and sees two characters with such an open ended past as Sirius and Remus, why not? Straight relationships get SO much rep in HP canon. Even ones that people have questions about, like Remadora and whoever Draco ends up with (I cba to remember).

I mean, I write pretty exclusively for a couple that got no more than 5 pages of mention across a 7 book series lmao. Almost none of what happens in Bond and Free, or any of my other stories, has ever been hinted at in canon. It’s really one of those things where you just have to lean back on the tenets of fandom, which is: don’t like, don’t read

Hope this helps! I am not an expert on Wolfstar, so I’m sure there are many people in the blog-o-sphere with much more fully formed opinions.

#ask #anon #discourse

6 notes · View notes

door · 3 years

Text

CHRISTMAS EFFECTS

by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

from Tendencies (1993)

What’s “queer”? Here’s one tram of thought about it. The depressing thing about the Christmas season—isn’t it? —is that it’s the time when all the institutions are speaking with one voice. The Church says what the Church says. But the State says the same thing: maybe not (in some ways it hardly matters) in the language of theology, but in the language the State talks: legal holidays, long school hiatus, special postage stamps, and all. And the language of commerce more than chimes in, as consumer purchasing is organized ever more narrowly around the final weeks of the calendar year, the Dow Jones aquiver over Americans’ “holiday mood.” The media, in turn, fall in triumphally behind the Christmas phalanx: ad-swollen magazines have oozing turkeys on the cover, while for the news industry every question turns into the Christmas question—Will hostages be free for Christmas? What did that flash flood or mass murder (umpty-ump people killed and maimed) do to those families’ Christmas? And meanwhile, the pairing “families/Christmas” becomes increasingly tautological, as families more and more constitute themselves according to the schedule, and in the endlessly iterated image, of the holiday itself constituted in the image of “the” family.

The thing hasn’t, finally, so much to do with propaganda for Christianity as with propaganda for Christmas itself. They all—religion, state, capital, ideology, domesticity, the discourses of power and legitimacy—line up with each other so neatly once a year, and the monolith so created is a thing one can come to view with unhappy eyes. What if instead there were a practice of valuing the ways in which meanings and institutions can be at loose ends with each other? What if the richest junctures weren’t the ones where everything means the same thing? Think of that entity “the family,” an impacted social space in which all of the following are meant to line up perfectly with each other:

a surname a sexual dyad a legal unit based on state-regulated marriage a circuit of blood relationships a system of companionship and succor a building a proscenium between “private” and “public” an economic unit of earning and taxation the prime site of economic consumption the prime site of cultural consumption a mechanism to produce, care for, and acculturate children a mechanism for accumulating material goods over several generations a daily routine a unit in a community of worship a site of patriotic formation

and of course the list could go on. Looking at my own life, I see that— probably like most people—I have valued and pursued these various elements of family identity to quite differing degrees (e.g., no use at all for worship, much need of companionship). But what’s been consistent in this particular life is an interest in not letting very many of these dimensions line up directly with each other at one time. I see it’s been a ruling intuition for me that the most productive strategy (intellectually, emotionally) might be, whenever possible, to disarticulate them one from another, to disengage them—the bonds of blood, of law, of habitation, of privacy, of companionship and succor—from the lockstep of their unanimity in the system called “family.”

Or think of all the elements that are condensed in the notion of sexual identity, something that the common sense of our time presents as a unitary category. Yet, exerting any pressure at all on “sexual identity,” you see that its elements include

your biological (e.g., chromosomal) sex, male or female; your self-perceived gender assignment, male or female (supposed to be the same as your biological sex); the preponderance of your traits of personality and appearance, masculine or feminine (supposed to correspond to your sex and gender); the biological sex of your preferred partner; the gender assignment of your preferred partner (supposed to be the same as her/his biological sex); the masculinity or femininity of your preferred partner (supposed to be the opposite of your own); your self-perception as gay or straight (supposed to correspond to whether your preferred partner is your sex or the opposite); your preferred partner’s self-perception as gay or straight (supposed to be the same as yours); your procreative choice (supposed to be yes if straight, no if gay); your preferred sexual act(s) (supposed to be insertive if you are male or masculine, receptive if you are female or feminine); your most eroticized sexual organs (supposed to correspond to the procreative capabilities of your sex, and to your insertive/receptive assignment); your sexual fantasies (supposed to be highly congruent with your sexual practice, but stronger in intensity); your main locus of emotional bonds (supposed to reside in your preferred sexual partner); your enjoyment of power in sexual relations (supposed to be low if you are female or feminine, high if male or masculine); the people from whom you learn about your own gender and sex (supposed to correspond to yourself in both respects); your community of cultural and political identification (supposed to correspond to your own identity);

and—again—many more. Even this list is remarkable for the silent presumptions it has to make about a given person’s sexuality, presumptions that are true only to varying degrees, and for many people not true at all: that everyone “has a sexuality,” for instance, and that it is implicated with each person’s sense of overall identity in similar ways; that each person’s most characteristic erotic expression will be oriented toward another person and not autoerotic; that if it is alloerotic, it will be oriented toward a single partner or kind of partner at a time; that its orientation will not change over time. Normatively, as the parenthetical prescriptions in the list above suggest, it should be possible to deduce anybody’s entire set of specs from the initial datum of biological sex alone—if one adds only the normative assumption that “the biological sex of your preferred partner” will be the opposite of one’s own. With or without that heterosexist assumption, though, what’s striking is the number and difference of the dimensions that “sexual identity” is supposed to organize into a seamless and univocal whole.

And if it doesn’t?

That’s one of the things that “queer” can refer to: the open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone’s gender, of anyone’s sexuality aren’t made (or can’t be made) to signify monolithically. The experimental linguistic, epistemological, representational, political adventures attaching to the very many of us who may at times be moved to describe ourselves as (among many other possibilities) pushy femmes, radical faeries, fantasists, drags, clones, leatherfolk, ladies in tuxedoes, feminist women or feminist men, masturbators, bulldaggers, divas, Snap! queens, butch bottoms, storytellers, transsexuals, aunties, wannabes, lesbian-identified men or lesbians who sleep with men, or…people able to relish, learn from, or identify with such.

Again, “queer” can mean something different: a lot of the way I have used it so far in this dossier is to denote, almost simply, same-sex sexual object choice, lesbian or gay, whether or not it is organized around multiple criss-crossings of definitional lines. And given the historical and contemporary force of the prohibitions against every same-sex sexual expression, for anyone to disavow those meanings, or to displace them from the term’s definitional center, would be to dematerialize any possibility of queerness itself.

At the same time, a lot of the most exciting recent work around “queer” spins the term outward along dimensions that can’t be subsumed under gender and sexuality at all: the ways that race, ethnicity, postcolonial nationality criss-cross with these and other identity-constituting, identityfracturing discourses, for example. Intellectuals and artists of color whose sexual self-definition includes “queer”—I think of an Isaac Julien, a Gloria Anzaldúa, a Richard Fung—are using the leverage of “queer” to do a new kind of justice to the fractal intricacies of language, skin, migration, state. Thereby, the gravity (I mean the gravitas, the meaning, but also the center of gravity) of the term “queer” itself deepens and shifts.

Another telling representational effect. A word so fraught as “queer” is— fraught with so many social and personal histories of exclusion, violence, defiance, excitement—never can only denote; nor even can it only connote; a part of its experimental force as a speech act is the way in which it dramatizes locutionary position itself. Anyone’s use of “queer” about themselves means differently from their use of it about someone else. This is true (as it might also be true of “lesbian” or “gay”) because of the violently different connotative evaluations that seem to cluster around the category. But “gay” and “lesbian” still present themselves (however delusively) as objective, empirical categories governed by empirical rules of evidence (however contested). “Queer” seems to hinge much more radically and explicitly on a person’s undertaking particular, performative acts of experimental self-perception and filiation. A hypothesis worth making explicit: that there are important senses in which “queer” can signify only when attached to the first person. One possible corollary: that what it takes —all it takes—to make the description “queer” a true one is the impulsion to use it in the first person.

#eve kosofsky sedgwick #thinking about about queer space and queer spaces

5 notes · View notes