#Queerly Unique

[felixwylde]

Mmm Saucy

What have you been working on? I’ve been tinkering with this thing called “bumboles,” a jolly good new bowling game, a bit like English lawn bowls, but with a dash of dogging thrown in for fun. What do you reckon, is it quirky enough for your fancy?

[protaetia]

🐞

[anneangel]

Sherlock Holmes: I'm looking for someone to share 221B Baker Street. John H. Watson: I consider myself qualified to fill this gap. Sherlock Holmes: I'm also looking for someone loyal and trustworthy, who doesn't ask stupid things, does what I say, ignores my experiments and chemicals around the apartment, doesn't mind customers showing up at any time of the day or midnight, someone helpful and who accompanies me in investigations, participates with me in police and criminal investigations even if it bring subsequent risks, praises me until I blush, doesn't try to steal the spotlight for themselves and, instead, makes me the protagonist of a investigative detective story that lasts for years and years, who understands my ego, is tolerant with my drug use, is not spiteful and forgives me whenever I'm overly practical seeming like an reasoning-machine without emotionless, someone who does not feel personally attacked every time I leave you out of my plans and understand my silence and preference for not being a sociable person, and someone that only tell stories about me when I want to disclose and give permission for it, someone who knows how to list more positives things than negatives about me naturally, be a true friend and partner in easy and difficult times, and stays by my side regardless of the circumstances and holds me in the highest esteem, proving our productive and irreverent union as a dynamic duo. John H. Watson: Hey, that's a lot of requirements. But consider myself capable. I want to try. Where do I sign? Can I test this for a month? Sherlock Holmes: my dear, if you stay for a month, it's a sign that you'll be addicted to my queerly peculiar and unique presence for the rest of your life. If gets for a month, you might even try to leave me, but you'll come back. You'll come back. John H. Watson: Interesting. Where do I sign? Sherlock Holmes: you already love my presence, you are already fascinated. John H. Watson: Is it obvious? Sherlock Holmes: don't break the clauses, my dear, no stupid questions. You haven't broken eye contact with me since we started this conversation, you've been smiling since the beginning, you've looked at my appearance and haven't been shaken by what I said, you lean towards me as I speak, showing interest, you mirror my movements. More important, you seems nervous and wants to please me. And add, you likes read mysteries romances. And have a callus on your right little finger, you like to write down your experiences and you do it often, if you are going to live with me, you 'll write about our adventures because you 'll be part of them. On the other hand, you went to war and suffered injuries, but you don't complain about the service provided, this shows altruism and subservience, and you chose medicine, not for money but because you care about others more than yourself, it is a profession which demands care for the lives of others. And you are too empathetic towards others. So it's clear that you wouldn't mind putting me first, you 're humble. More, is eager for adrenaline and is particularly curious about what I can offer to you. John H. Watson: Bless my, this is fantastic, you are incredible, brilliant. Sherlock Holmes: That's promising. John H. Watson: Couldn't agree more, bless Stamford.

[toxicanonymity]

saw a post that said “I’m gonna finger you in front of guys that check you out.” and thought of Joel…… :)

Bartending at the Speakeasy

500 words | horny!Joel x f!reader | master list

Warnings: vaginal fingering, in public, free use vibes, exhibitionism, mild dubcon, no one comes

A/N: I may have taken this to the extreme 😅. Also, at first I was taking "check you out" super literally lmaooo like in line at the liquor store type situation 👀

It’s your night to bartend at the QZ Speakeasy - everyone pitches in, so you do it every few weeks. Joel is off making a deal and there are a couple of guys sitting at the bar trying to chat you up. Joel’s boots echo down the spiral staircase and your face lights up when he steps into view. He doesn’t smile, though. He looks at the guys sitting at the bar. One of them is leaned back in his seat, holding his drink really casually, checking you out while you start drying a bunch of glasses you just washed. As Joel slowly crosses the room, you recognize the look on his face and something stirs between your legs.

He lets himself behind the bar and you keep drying the glasses. He slinks up behind you and wraps his arms around your waist, both of you facing the men at the bar just a few feet away. His hands rove the front of your body, one of them sliding up your chest, then he cups a breast and plants his lips on your neck. He kisses and inhales you and his lips brush your ear. “Havin’ a good night?”

He presses himself into you and you feel him harden against your ass, sending a tingling rush into your leggings.

“Better now,” you say. You put down the rag and start to turn toward him.

“Nah, don't stop,” he says, and looks at the men, who quickly avert their eyes. You’re too turned on to be embarrassed. Who cares about these guys, anyway. You kinda like it when he shows you off.

You pick up the rag again and dry another glass. He slips a hand up under your shirt and bra, feeling up your naked breast as he presses his growing hard-on into you. His lips lightly brush the nape of your neck. Then his other hand slithers under your shirt, across your stomach, and into your leggings. Your face gets hot, but your loins get hotter and you bite your lip as his large middle and ring finger make it to your clit. He pauses to give it a light stroke, nestling it loosely between those fingers, then his hand plunges lower and curls under you, engulfing your dripping seam.

“Mmm,” he growls into your hair and glares at the guys. Then he starts to slide his fingers just right.

You turn your head to the side and whisper, “don’t.”

“Don’t what?” he asks obtusely.

“Don’t make me come.”

He sighs. “Oh, I won’t baby. Not yet.” He keeps fingering you and one of the men clears his throat and walks away, to the bathroom. Then Joel flattens his fingers and hooks them under your soaking wet pussy for leverage to pull your ass into his crotch with a soft grunt as he pushes his hard bulge into you again.

“Seriously,” you say, breathing heavily.

“I know baby,” he says, slowly removing his hand from your leggings. “just wanted a taste.”

He brings his fingers to his mouth and licks them clean, looking at the remaining guy.

-

see also: speakeasy

more in public: movie night, picnic table

-

All joel: @ethanhoewke @silkiers @eiviea @evyiione @xdaddysprincessxx @queerly-anxious @chernayawidow @ambassadortotrilliusprime   @not-a-unique-snowflake-blog @jasminespringtime @romanarose  @fandomsfallnomore @djarinxore @lokanda

[kryptonbabe]

Today is TOS Amok Time's 57th anniversary, officially Spirk Day so I'm honoring the date by reading a paper on how the ideas behind Kirk/Spock slash fanfiction articulate queer love in a way that makes it accessible to everyone, queer or not, and it is the most romantic paper I've read! Happy Spirk Day!

An excerpt of the text:

This paper argues that what the characters of Kirk and Spock represent is an archetypal pairing that transcends gender altogether. By reading K/S queerly and broadly, these gender distinctions become irrelevant. What matters are the characters themselves, and the unique qualities that make fan authors - straight, gay, indifferent - feel the need to pair them. Specifically, the Kirk/Spock pairing represents not a bonded pair, but a divided self. Sexuality, like the mindmeld, becomes a stand-in for the reunification spoken of in Aristophanes' tale of the Children of the Sun - two humans once whole separated and ever seeking their other half. The corporate caretakers of these characters have proven themselves, to a broad readership, unwilling to realize the "particular style of the 23rd century" as one in which queer love is acceptable love. And so, for close to forty years, an active and activist readership has been doing it for them through the creation of an aberrant folklore that they believe adheres more closely to the spirit of the narrative's utopian origins. It has fallen upon the fan to become creator, the reader to become the author, and the author to become active in the reuniting of this divided self.

From The Final Frontier Is Queer: Aberrancy, Archetype and Audience Generated Folklore in K/S Slashfiction (2005) by P. J. Falzone on @jstor

[hiiragi7]

what are your thoughts/input on transandrophobia?

I think that a lot of people inappropriately view masculinity itself as synonymous with privilege, when it is far more complex than that. The presence of masculinity itself is not privilege, nor is it even seen as an inherent goodness; for individuals who do not fit societal expectations for masculinity (socially, sexually, chromosomally, hormonally, and so on), rather than being viewed as near or moving towards embodying a "perfect" male body, those with any ambiguity or cross-sex experiences are viewed as disordered and non-conforming.

Intersex people are systemically altered and mutilated for traits deemed masculine, so masculinity is not inherently seen as positive; transgender men are also often strongly discouraged from transitioning towards masculinity. In examining this, I find that while maleness is associated with privilege, it is only so as long as that maleness aligns with colonialist concepts of what maleness is and how it performs. In other words, it is conditional, and it upholds dyadic and cis binaries.

Even in the case of trans men who are "stereotypically male" in terms of their bodies and how they behave socially, who have a flat chest, testicles, a penis, and do not have a vagina, uterus, and ovaries, and whom pass, they are still viewed as queerly disordered; factors such as being born female or intersex but transitioning to manhood, being raised socially as a different gender, being on HRT for the rest of their lives, having had surgeries done in order to reaffirm their gender, these are things which fall outside of sexual and gender norms and which affect the ways in which a person can access privilege. For those who do not fit bodily or social expectations of masculinity, it is even more ambiguous.

A large discourse I have seen with regards to transandrophobia/antitransmasculinity is that it pushes the idea that misandry is a systemic issue, which I strongly disagree with; trans men and transmasculine people will experience oppression based on masculine traits and manhood, and this concept is not particularly out there or odd to me, as an intersex person which sees intersex people oppressed specifically for expressing manhood or masculinity. When masculinity or manhood is experienced outside of the rules of the enforced gender sex binary, it is repressed and exorcised.

While individual trans men may conditionally experience aspects of male privilege in some areas of life, this is not true of most trans men. I don't find it useful when people make broad statements like "transitioned trans men have male privilege" or "trans men are inherently privileged over trans women because they are men" or so on. I also find it ignores racial and cultural differences and how that impacts privilege.

So, in closing, I do find that trans men and transmasculine people experience oppression based on expressing masculinity or manhood, though similarly to transmisogyny I do not believe this oppression is inherently unique to them, and may be experienced by trans people outside of trans men and transmasculine people depending on the circumstances. I think language to describe that experience is important, as with transmisogyny. I also find that transandrophobia/antitransmasculinity and transmisogyny are not in conflict with each other, and rather are deeply intertwined expressions of overlapping oppressive systems.

[brooklynmuseum]

Bruce Lee 🤝 Tom of Finland

In the artwork shown here, Oscar yi Hou performs the role of Kato, the sidekick and valet of the protagonist in the 1960s television show “The Green Hornet.” The actor, Bruce Lee, insisted on portraying Kato as a masterful martial artist to counter his subservient role. In homage to Lee, and in reference to the homoerotic art of Tom of Finland, the artist portrays Kato as queerly hypermasculine, destabilizing our perceived notions of masculinity. 

See each of yi Hou’s 11, unique paintings as part of Oscar yi Hou: East of sun, west of moon through September 17. 

🎨 Oscar yi Hou (born Liverpool, UK, 1998). Cowboy Kato Coolie, aka: Bruce’s Bitch, 2021. Oil on canvas, 28 1/8 × 22 in. (71.4 × 55.9 cm). Private collection. © Oscar yi Hou. (Photo: Jason Mandella, courtesy of James Fuentes LLC)

[franticvampirereads]

I’ve struggled on and off for years with reading high fantasy books because they’re all so similar and get bogged down in all the high stakes drama. But Legends & Lattes really changed the game for me. This was the coziest and sweetest thing I’ve read in a while and I loved that it revolves around a little coffee shop in a fantasy/dnd-like setting. It was so much fun to see a fantasy world from this perspective! It was so different and cozy and unique. I wish there were more books like this one.

I loved Viv and the found family that she made for herself. Tandri and Cal were amazing and helpful and grounding for Viv. And Thimble! I just wanted to eat all the pastries that he made. This book made me so hungry, it’s not even funny! Another thing that I loved about this book was the quiet queerness of it. It was so soft and gentle. I also really liked that this story was about Viv finding a new place for herself after she decided to retire from adventuring. It was so nice to see her build a business from the ground up and finally be able to settle down to enjoy it.

If it’s not obvious yet, this was a really great read and I’m looking forward to whatever comes next for this series. I’m giving Legends & Lattes a solid five stars!

Reading Challenge Prompt Fills:

PopSugar 2023: written as part of NaNoWiMo

Read Queerly 2023: Fantasy

Shop Your Shelves: new to me author, bestseller

[toxicfics]

new stepdad!Joel: 🔥 tinder

Summary: After everything that happened on Thanksgiving Day, Joel tries unsuccessfully to pull back. Joel messes up and is desperate for you to forgive him. You have a date with Jacques and Joel tries to interfere.

Tinder

Stepdad Master List

tagging here since i'm shadowbanned on main. All Joel: @ethanhoewke @silkiers @eiviea @evyiione @xdaddysprincessxx @queerly-anxious @chernayawidow @ambassadortotrilliusprime @not-a-unique-snowflake-blog @jasminespringtime @romanarose  @fandomsfallnomore @djarinxore @lokanda @blackvelveteen1339   @manazo @wolvesandvampires  @taeslarityy @str84pedro @kyloispunk @filthfairy @fieryglutenfreechickennoodles @harriedandharassed @moonlightdivine @worhols @fan-fiction-floozy @cutesyscreenname @weddingfairy @pedropascal-whore @spideysimpossiblegirl @feministfanboi @gracieispunk @prettypartyfavor @am-3-thyst

[tedhead]

the uniquely springsteenian habit of performing “heterosexual songs” queerly and vice versa

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: James Lindsay

Published: Mar 13, 2024

I’m here to talk about Queer Theory. Some major points can be summarized very easily.

Queer Theory is the doctrine of a religious cult;

That religious cult is based on sex;

That sex-based religious cult primarily targets children; and

Almost none of it has anything to do with gay identity.

Let’s address the last point first because it’s the least obvious.

The term “queer” in “Queer Theory” gets its definition from David Halperin in a 1995 book called Saint Foucault. The first words of the relevant paragraph (on p. 62) are “Unlike gay identity.” There, Halperin explains that gay identities are grounded in a positive fact of homosexuality. That means homosexuality is in some way real. “Queer,” by contrast, he says, need not be based on any positive truth or in any stable reality. There’s nothing in particular to which it refers. It’s an identity without an essence. That means it’s not based in reality.

What is Queer Theory, then, if it’s not based in reality? It’s a radical political view. Halperin tells us “queer” means adopting a politics that is whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant. Just to prove I’m not making it up, here’s the relevant quote.

Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of homosexual object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.

To underscore his point, he then continues with,

“Queer,” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative—a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her or his sexual practices.

In other words, you cannot be queer. You can only do queerness. It’s an act. 

So nobody is “queer.” People feel “queer” against some standard, perhaps imagined, and people act queerly. By that, it means they act defiantly against normalcy and legitimacy while denying reality. You can only perform queerness—or, if you refuse, straightness. Performing straightness, to Queer Theory, isn’t being who you are if you’re straight; it’s just another kind of performance, one that upholds the allegedly oppressive “status quo” instead of opposing it.

Now let’s consider the Drag Queen Story Hour curriculum paper from a couple of years ago.

It explains in a section titled “from empathy to embodied kinship” that queer programs are presented as improving LGBT empathy, and that Drag Queen Story Hour makes use of such “tropes,” their word.

It then says that’s not really what Drag Queen Story Hour, queer education, or “queer worldmaking” are about, though. Instead, they use the “tropes” of empathy “strategically” as a “marketing” platform to justify getting it into schools, libraries, and in front of kids, but it’s actually about leading kids to see the world and themselves in a queer way. Here’s how they word it:

Finally, it is often assumed that the primary pedagogical goal of queer education should be to increase empathy towards LGBT people. While this premise has some merit – and underlies many sincere projects in educational and cultural work, including DQSH – the notion of empathy has also been critiqued by feminist scholars of colour and others for the ways in which empathy can enable an affective appropriation of an individual’s unique experiences and reinforce hierarchies of power. … Whether through literature or virtual reality, these tropes tend to reflect an overstated ability to understand difference, as well as empathy’s potential to preclude meaningful relationships of solidarity. It is undeniable that DQSH participates in many of these tropes of empathy, from the marketing language the programme uses to its selection of books. Much of this is strategically done in order to justify its educational value. However, we suggest that drag supports scholars’ critiques of empathy, rather than reifying the concept…This approach can support students in finding the unique or queer aspects of themselves – rather than attempting to understand what it’s like to be LGBT.

That’s what Drag Queen Story Hour is actually about. It’s not about empathy—that’s a marketing strategy that is, in fact, a bit problematic. It’s about getting kids to discover any aspects of themselves that might be considered “queer” and developing those into a queer political stance that will be conflated with who they believe they are. More than that, they’ll be told they’re not truly allowed to be who that is, even though it’s who they really are. Society will object. Their parents will object. It has to be kept secret from their parents in case it isn’t affirmed by them.

Now, I’m not supposed to use the word “grooming” to describe this grotesque set of activities. It’s part of a major controversy—one the Pitt students showed up (potentially menacingly, but in fact as clowns) to protest outside. So I’ll ask a question instead. I’m going to show you something, and then I want to know what word am I supposed to use for this. This self-characterization for the program comes up shortly thereafter in the same paper.

Drag Queen Story Hour presents itself as “family friendly” in a way that it characterizes as a “preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship.” What does that mean? 

It then says that the “family” in “family friendly” refers to a “queer code” for the “other queers [they connect with] on the street.” So they’re not just lying about the empathy but also what they mean by “family”—which is a “queer code” for a “new family” that Drag Queen Story Hour is teaching kids to be “friendly” to. 

The paper repeatedly invokes the concept of a “drag family” for the kids too, and then the paper ends with “we’ll leave a trail of glitter that will never come out of the carpet.” What’s the carpet here?

Here’s the full quote of the “family friendly” part, so you don’t think I’m lying.

Queer worldmaking, including political organizing, has long been a project driven by desire. It is, in part, enacted through art forms like fashion, theatre, and drag. We believe that DQSH offers an invitation towards deeper public engagement with queer cultural production, particularly for young children and their families. It may be that DQSH is “family friendly,” in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is “family friendly” in the sense of “family” as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.

So, I’m asking. What word am I supposed to use for that? I know which one I can’t use, and that puts me at a complete loss.

So here’s how Queer Theory works. You can’t describe it unless you support it—just like a cult, one we now see targets kids. If you criticize it, that’s “hate.” The rumor widely printed about me is that my using that word, “groomer,” to describe that, above, implicates me in some social crime called “anti-LGBTQ hate,” which is very bad, very serious, and utterly toxic. It’s not just “harmful rhetoric” but a “conspiracy theory.” I am a very bad person, apparently, for naming the obvious, not as a result of inference or guesswork but from their own proudly printed writings.

The accusation and resulting social dynamic, which is always hostile, is straight out of Maoist China. I am alleged to be engaging in a crime called “anti-LGBTQ hate,” and “the right side of” society is to judge me and hold me to account for that crime by whatever means it can manage. This bullying is to continue until I learn to recognize from the “queer position” (that is, standpoint) how what I said was socially criminal and pledge to reform my thought, adopt Queer Theory, and not only do better but also become an activist on behalf of Queer Theory. This is identical to the thought reform of Maoist China with a slightly different ideology.

The accusation is obviously nonsense, but that’s not the point. The point is to initiate the social struggle session on me to “transform” my views. The accusation is of an old Marxist standard form, though. It’s a truth married to a lie.

Here’s the truth: Gays and lesbians fought for decades to break the public perception that they are predators and groomers of children. Here’s the lie: That’s who and what I’m talking about when I criticize their theory and activism, which is the very groomery thing I just described previously, in their own words.

As we saw from Halperin and from the “marketing” admission in the Drag Queen Story Hour curriculum paper, Queer Theory doesn’t represent gay identities. It hides behind them and uses them. 

The truth is that “queer” used to be a slur for gay people, one many activists took to describe themselves in defiance of prejudice and bigotry. The lie is that Queer Theory ever represented a civil rights movement for anyone. It’s a destructive form of radical activism that actually historically opposed gay civil rights and equality. Why would it do that? Because gay equality and acceptance would normalize being gay within society and legitimize gay people as fully equal members of society, and Queer Theory is, by definition, radically opposed on principle to anything normal and legitimate. They even have a word for it, homonormativity, which is also very bad.

Gay activists from the 1990s will readily attest that the Queer Activists were often strongly opposed to their ambitions: civil and legal equality, marriage, and social acceptance. Queer Theory needs radical activists, not stable citizens who can go about their lives in a society that doesn’t discriminate meaningfully against them. Those activists fought hard for decades to overcome stereotypes of predatory behavior and the idea that they’re intrinsically groomers. That’s why the Queer Activists can claim that calling out their blatant grooming is an “anti-LGBTQ” theme. Those were stereotypes that good people fought like hell to overcome.

The fact is that Queer Activism, exactly as described here, puts the appearance of glaring truth back into those stereotypes, and then the Queer Activists hide behind gay people and say, “see, they’re attacking you; see, everyone hates you.” Of course, everyday gay people who are good citizens lose the most from this little trick, and the Queer Activists gain the most. Queer activism is strictly parasitic behavior.

On the theme of grooming, specifically into a cult, I want to direct you to another scholar, Kevin Kumashiro, who wrote a paper in 2002 called “Against Repetition.” In that paper, he describes the purpose of queer education of children. Kumashiro explicitly says that teaching children about social justice, including about ideas from Queer Theory, induces emotional and identity-based crises in them.

He then says that’s why it’s important to have queer educators who can guide the vulnerable students who are experiencing their crises to resolve them in favor of social justice and Queer Theory beliefs and actions. The relevant quotes are these:

Repeating what is already learned can be comforting and therefore desirable; students’ learning things that question their knowledge and identities can be emotionally upsetting. For example, suppose students think society is meritocratic but learn that it is racist, or think that they themselves are not contributing to homophobia but learn that in fact they are. In such situations, students learn that the ways they think and act are not only limited but also oppressive. Learning about oppression and about the ways they often unknowingly comply with oppression can lead students to feel paralyzed with anger, sadness, anxiety, and guilt; it can lead to a form of emotional crisis. (p. 74) Once in a crisis, a student can go in many directions, some that may lead to anti-oppressive change, others that may lead to more entrenched resistance. Therefore, educators have a responsibility not only to draw students into a possible crisis, but also to structure experiences that can help them work through their crises productively. (pp. 74–75)

This practice is indoctrination, and it is knowingly willful and deliberate. In a 2019 paper, Torres and Ferry say explicitly that what their model of education represents is indoctrination. Here’s how they said it.

For all the criticism teachers receive for ‘indoctrinating’ students, turning them into liberal-minded cry-babies, not much has been said in defense. At the very least, a shy denial is made. It is time for educators to own this criticism and admit that is exactly what we do. (“Not everyone gets a seat at the table!” p. 33)

What Kevin Kumashiro is describing, though, is worse than indoctrination. The cycle of inducing crisis and then resolving it toward a doctrine, though, isn’t indoctrination. It’s a technique called trauma bonding, which is a practice of cult grooming and ideological transformation—that is, thought reform or brainwashing.

It can be said plainly, then. Queer Theory practices thought reform because Queer Theory is the doctrine of a religious cult. That cult is based on sex and primarily targets children, and it has little or nothing to do with being gay.

Nobody joins a cult to join a cult. People join a cult because they are suffering in some way, and the cult offers them a resolution to their suffering. Virtually everyone who has escaped a cult tells the same story: they wanted to belong, they wanted a social circle, they wanted understanding, and they wanted purpose. The cult preys upon these people and slowly locks them in.

Trauma bonding is as harmful and manipulative as it sounds. It is a technique of cult initiation and abuse. It’s like a kind of hazing. The basic formula is simple. First you traumatize your targets until you’ve harmed them enough for the process to work, and then you celebrate them when they do what you want.

In Queer Theory, you tell them the world isn’t at all the way it seems. It isn’t the way they’ve been led to believe. If they’re different, it’s because they’re oppressed. If not, it’s because they’re hurting other people. If they’re interested in exploring, even though they’re young, they should. If they’re uncomfortable with their bodies for any reason, perhaps their body is wrong for who they really are. If their parents might disagree, they shouldn’t be included in the decisions. Queer Theory is then offered as the lens that resolves all of the confusion, shock, dissonance, and pain. 

Then you affirm and celebrate them when they show interest. You lead them to believe they’re making brave decisions that are worthy of interest and respect. You coerce their social groups to participate in this ritual and tacitly threaten anyone who doesn’t want to go along with it. You make them feel like they belong and that they—just for being who they are—are special and have a special purpose to fulfill. You teach them special words that describe the very small but growing number of people who identify just like them.

This cult programming—or grooming—takes predictable paths. First, it leads people into emotional vulnerability followed by resolution. This generates personal and social interest, then psychological and social commitment. This is then deepened into an increasingly deep social and emotional commitment achieved largely through trauma bonding techniques, among others, detailed below.

This process creates emotionally and socially bonded members who populate the wide majority of any cult’s membership: those who are socially and emotionally locked in even without necessarily understanding the doctrine. This is sometimes called the “outer school” of the cult. The social, psychological, and emotional cues are steadily deepened over time, particularly increasingly playing upon themes of guilt, shame, isolation, alienation, and confusion on the one hand and hope, excitement, inclusion, and belonging on the other. Shunning “haters” who don’t support and affirm them, even within their own families, is also increased to make sure the cult environment is the predominant influence in the victims’ lives.

When commitment is high enough, a process of “study” begins, where the more committed outer school members start learning the cult doctrine. Here, they’d be studying Queer Theory. They’re not just learning how to use pronouns, present themselves, denounce everything against Queer Theory, and shut people out of their lives for disagreeing with what the cult thinks is good. They’re learning to defend it with pseudo-intellectual arguments based in Queer Theory. They’re also doing a lot of Queer Activism, which in turn deepens commitment. Why would you do this stuff, which is unpopular and difficult, when you have other and better things to do unless you are really committed? These people, who are socially and emotionally dependent on the cult and intellectually committed to it form an “inner school.” They are the “adepts” of the cult, where the “outer school” are its initiates. Most of the scholars and community organizers in the Queer Theory cult are in this tier.

There’s another tier, of course. The so-called “inner circle.” The members of the inner circle of a cult direct it and profit from it. They might or might not believe its doctrine, depending on their motivations. With Queer Theory, undoubtedly some of the biggest organizers and financiers of the movement, which primarily targets our children, do not believe it in itself but fully believe in its destructive and disruptive potential. Others believe in the enormous amount of profit that’s available from destroying lives and turning them into permanent, complicated medical or psychiatric patients. Others see the political utility of a permanently disaffected group with partially legitimate demands against a system they hate. Others see getting millions of people participating in the cult and its affirmations as a way to affirm themselves in their own “journeys,” and they just so happen to have the money to finance a campaign for mass affirmation.

The most important thing to remember about these tiers is the basic structure and the guiding principle behind each. The “outer school” initiates are seeing psychological and social reward through the cult’s manipulative offering, and they’re the overwhelming majority of captured cultists. The “inner school” seeks the same with existential fervor and some degree of intellectual and moral superiority. The “inner circle” is very small in number and ultimately is using the whole cult to their own twisted purposes. In the case of Marxist cults, the inner circle always uses the revolutionary cult of the era and then disposes of it when it’s time to move on to the next “phase of the revolution.”

The environment in which cults transform their victims is worth understanding in greater depth. According to Robert Jay Lifton, who studied the Maoist cult in detail as it was happening, cults effectively take advantage of up to eight qualities. Queer Theory very obviously utilizes all of them in sophisticated ways. I’ll touch upon them briefly.

Milieu control: Cults control the environment and make sure it only reflects cult doctrine. This is why they cut people off from friends, family, and outside information and views. This is your inclusion policies to ensure institutions and people only present cult-agreeable views and affirmation and remove anything that might cause doubt in the cult. This is cancel culture. This is immersive media and messaging from all levels.

Mystical manipulation: Cults create an appearance of total agreement (silencing all disagreement), inevitability (“there’s a change coming and there’s nothing you can do about it but get on the right side of it”), planned spontaneity (organized protests that look organic), and a higher purpose (like being on “the right side of history”) in order to convince their victims of their power and influence. It makes the cult appear more “right” and righteous to those captured within its spells. Think of the film The Truman Show. Jim Carrey’s character, Truman, was at the center of a huge operation of mystical manipulation within a fully controlled milieu.

Demand for purity: Cults are almost always puritanical in their values systems. They present their victims with stark contrasts of good and evil, right and wrong, on virtually every issue, and they demand purity with being on the “right” side of every issue. These dynamics manifest in dichotomies like pure vs. impure, absolutely good vs. absolutely evil, sacred vs. profane, or, specifically in the “social justice” cults like Queer Theory, affirmation vs. existential denial and care vs. “hate.” They are also interested, if not obsessed, with the binary of innocence vs. initiation to various levels of standing within the cult, including inclusion in the cult itself. In the extreme, this demand for purity sets up a dichotomy as stark as “the people” versus “the enemies of the people,” who must be destroyed in the name of “the people.”

Cult of Confession: The demand for purity leads the cult’s victims to readily identify how they fall short of cult perfection, leading them to both fear and desire to confess their failures and evil ways. Cults often encourage this behavior to facilitate the trauma bonding process. The trauma bonding wheel-of-pain is turned through pressuring people to confess—say to homophobia or transphobia or being a made-up gender or sexuality, and then rewarding them when they do—only to later indicate the confession wasn’t sufficiently total or sincere enough, initiating another round.

The milieu control and demand for purity come together to create a uniquely exquisite psychological environment. In this environment, almost everyone believes everyone else is pure while they, themselves, are not. You are the one falling short, even though you see your “classmates” confess to their own failures. You alone have the deepest, darkest failures. The guilt and shame are overwhelming, and they fuel even more accusation (criticism) and confession (self-criticism). This is the part of the environment that does the bulk of the thought-reforming work.

A “Sacred Science”: At the heart of the cult is what Lifton refers to as a “sacred science” that is infallible—though people can and do fail it all the time—into which people are being brainwashed. The point of the cult of confession dynamic is to force people to confess their failure to understand, internalize, enact, and even embody the “sacred science,” while accusing others of their failings as much and often as possible. The point of the confession is to get people to willingly adopt the lens of the sacred science so they can “recognize their crimes” against it and pledge to “do better.” “Do better” means “ideological remolding.” Here, Queer Theory is the correct understanding of sex, gender, sexuality, and all “normal” features of society. 

Doctrine over person: Cults place doctrine over people (“History uses people and then discards them.” -Hegel) The person isn’t even a person if they don’t hold and enact the doctrine. “Not to have correct political opinions is like not having a soul.” -Mao)

Loading the language: This is painfully obvious at this point, isn’t it?

Dispensing of existence: At the deepest level, the cult decides whose existence counts and who doesn’t. The punchline is that those who accept the cult doctrine (the “sacred science”) and its application are people, and no one else is. Only the doctrinally legitimate are allowed to exist. Others are “haters,” effectively enemies and non-people, justifying their abuse, disenfranchisement, silencing, etc.

Under the standard Iron Law of Woke Projection, the dispensing of existence aspect of cult environments is why Woke activists say everything is “denying their existence” or a “genocide.” They’re projecting. You don’t have a right to exist if your beliefs “deny their right to exist.” In Queer Theory, this means if you don’t affirm their embodied political activism against the legitimate and the normal, you’re denying their existence. You are therefore beyond the pale of humanity and do not deserve to exist. All totalitarian genocides come from this darkest piece of cult logic.

Frankly, we could go a lot deeper into the cult nature of Queer Theory than this. We could talk about how it’s ultimately a Gnostic and Hermetic conception of the world with “normal society” acting as an evil spirit that imprisons everyone into performing a fake persona for the world so they can never be liberated to be who they truly are. I’ve done that at length elsewhere.

That would require us to talk in depth about one of Queer Theory’s progenitors, Judith Butler, and her belief that gender and sex aren’t actually real but are performances we learn and repeat to satisfy normal society. Her whole body of work could be summarized in six words and a little explanation: “Drag is life; life is drag.” Everyone, always is doing drag in everything they do, whether they realize it or not. Society writes the scripts for how their drag (usually “cishetero”) is to be performed, and that imprisons their souls, which they then have to script physically onto and through their bodies. Becoming aware of the “doingness” of gender and even sex and sexuality opens a door to a “queer horizon” of possibilities beyond the norm.

Judy got those ideas in turn from people like the postmodern philosopher, sadomasochist, and pedophile Michel Foucault, from whose work David Halperin derived his definition from Queer. Foucault was asking what it means to be a homosexual absent society’s definition of the term, absent the homosexual versus heterosexual binary and privileged status of being straight within it, and absent the patterns of discipline and punishment that enforce these definitions on people through society, most frequently through themselves. The idea that it is the soul that imprisons the body, exactly in this way, didn’t originate with Judith Butler. She got it from Foucault.

Interlaced into aspects of Queer Theory from the broader milieu of the sexuality studies and sex-positive radical feminism from which it was born are the ideas of people like John Money and Alfred Kinsey, among others, who sought to divorce sex and “gender identity” completely and to liberate sexuality to the greatest possible extent.

Most of the inspiration, outside of the sexual aspects of Queer Theory, however, derive from gender-critical feminism, as it evolved eventually into the sex-positive branch, which went to war with its prudish sisters primarily through the 1980s and eventually won. That, in turn, means to understand this cult deeply, we’d have to start with the first truly gender-critical feminist, Simone de Beauvoir, who initiated the pressing question of our day way back in 1949: What is a woman? Her point was the same as Foucault’s: what does it mean to be a woman when no one else—and particularly society and patriarchy—are defining it for the people who actually are women?

In short, we are imprisoned by the features of our social reality but can escape with the right hidden insights about who we really are and into what we have been thrown. The thinkers above derived this transformative Sociological Gnosticism from earlier mystics of greater fame. We don’t have time for that now, but it’s not a hard legacy to trace from characters such as Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx through Beauvoir, Foucault, and Butler to arrive at the conclusion that we’re dealing not with social science but social alchemy here. One of its primary laboratories is our children.

Why children? Four reasons, mainly. First, children in schools and even with their entertainment are a captive audience. Second, children have not achieved the necessary cortical development to distinguish reality from fantasy, so the mystifications of Queer Theory can be considered plausible to them where adults would be less interested. Third, children are going through the developmental process of identity formation, which needs to be hijacked for this ideology to take firm root. Finally, children become a gateway and a wedge to other targets, like their families, faiths, and other institutions in which they take part.

So that is Queer Theory. It’s the doctrine of a religious cult. That cult is primarily sex-based. It predominantly targets our children. And it has little to nothing to do with being gay. But what can we do? 

Normally, we would turn to our institutions and ask them to see the light and step in. That isn’t working. We face a problem of captured institutions. Our institutions accept and promote Queer Theory. We therefore cannot count on our institutions—educational, psychological, medical, or governmental—to help us here. They are all captured. They are all part of the controlled milieu, creating the mystical manipulation, and peddling the sacred science of Queer Theory.

We find ourselves in the position of a pilot who has lost all of his instrumentation on his aircraft and has to fly it safely to a runway and land. No navigation computer, no altimeter, nothing—just him and his wits and hopefully his ability to see what’s in front of him and do the right thing. Our institutions are like the instruments in the cockpit but for society. Right now, they’re putting out all the wrong information. They cannot help us find the runway or land the plane safely, upon which our lives and the lives of others depend. What would we do? We would use our senses directly to find the runway, line up and lower the plane, and land it. We wouldn’t look to the broken instruments at all. We’d look at reality and navigate without the intermediary. That’s what we need to start finding ways to do at the societal level now—one individual at a time.

What, individually, though? What we must do is start with the truth. Not the mediated “truth” peddled by the corrupt institutions. The plain, simple truth. There are two sexes. Most people are straight. Gay happens. Queer isn’t an identity; it’s a defiant political stance we don’t have to tolerate or accommodate. If someone claims to have an identity or sexuality that requires an explanation, it’s fake and doesn’t demand our respect. Predatory behavior of any kind in any place and perversion outside of the confines of consenting adults acting in private do not deserve our tolerance and shouldn’t be given it. Pornography doesn’t need to exist in children’s libraries, and children do not benefit from its presence there. Enough.

Regarding the truth, though, I want to make a point. It’s important to say the truth, but you actually have to do more. You have to love the truth. You have to love the truth with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength, and then you have to love your neighbor enough as you would yourself to tell him the truth that you love. These are basic commandments.

But you have to love the truth. If you love the truth, you’ll say it. You’ll also seek it and defend it. You’ll defend other people saying it. You have to love the truth because if you don’t, when the pressure mounts, you’ll eventually buckle. You’ll be asked to care and affirm, but there’s no caring and no affirmation that isn’t built upon the truth first. So you must love the truth. Every time you tell a lie to be nice or to fit in, you’re selling a piece of your soul. You have to stop doing that. That takes loving the truth.

When you do this—which is what it means to be based—you break the milieu control. You break the mystical manipulation. You call doubt upon the sacred science. You break the cycles of abuse and confession. You tell people that it is okay to trust their eyes and ears and even their gut intuition that what they’re experiencing from Queer Theory is abusive and manipulative.

Queer Theory is the doctrine of a cult religion based on sex that primarily targets our children. It is our necessary responsibility to learn about it and to oppose it. If you are so inclined, I’m releasing a new book, primarily written by Logan Lancing with my contributions, called The Queering of the American Child. I recommend you pick it up and get in the fight.

[fallowhearth]

Over the past week I've been consuming probably dangerous amounts of Reddit relationships, advice, and aita posts. In my defence I've been very sick and needed the content equivalent of pablum to keep me entertained. I've approached it both as a drama hog and as voyeurism into 'normie' culture. Some of my best friends are straight (:P) but they're also people who are a bit outside of the typical norms of straight society. So my view into the lives of the average Joe and Jane Suburban is fairly limited.

One interesting thing I noticed is the consensus about cheating on reddit is completely alien to my own intuitions and also to my life as a queer person. They as a group have settled on a bunch of baseline assumptions that are strange.

They seem to be in agreement that cheating is about opportunity: This one usually rears it's head as lukewarm justification for socially acceptable levels for controlling behaviour. It seems they agree its reasonable to ask your partner to scrub evidence of previous partners from their life: this indicates respect apparently. So, no exes in the Facebook friend list. They also agree its dangerous for people in relationships to have close friends of their preferred gender, to go to parties, to travel without their partner, etc.

The main thing I don't really get about this is that people who want to cheat are very good at creating their own opportunities and seem to have no trouble doing this, without their partner knowing. The flipside, is that all these opportunity-creating activities seem very normal and like things people do all the time without inadvertently having extramarital sex with each other. It seems to be implicitly accepting the cheaters' narrative; that they slipped and fell genitals-first onto another person and it spiralled from there. Obviously in this logic, if you keep your partner indoors and away from tripping hazards and nearby randos, they won't cheat. I don't think it works like that.

The exes thing is also weird. My intuition is that exes are the people least appealing as affair partners. Those two people have already discovered all the things they hate about each other. They are exes. A ban on exes would also be socially untenable as a queer person.

The actual roots of this assumption seem pretty clear. It sounds like an exhausting way to live. Moving on.

Redditors have largely adopted the party line that cheating is about trust rather than sex per se. But then they really seem to fixate on the sex. It seems accepted as normal to be having intrusive thoughts about your cheating partner engaging in sex acts with other people, to feel disgusted at the idea of the parts of your partner you 'own' being viewed by someone else, etc. Lots of ideas about sex being uniquely shameful or sacred. Not too out there culturally but somewhat in opposition to redditors' self-image as rational, enlightened and progressive.

This one is weird to me on a personal level but is maybe normal on a social level. I mean, I've been cheated on, and the actual details didn't really bother me. It seemed very much the same category of experience as platonic trust breaking from friends, family, colleagues, etc. To me the sex did not signify. (I'd also argue that the drama and life-ruination potential of a queerly platonic female friendship breakdown is far in excess of anything that can be achieved by people who are actually fucking.) It also didn't really leave me with trust issues or specific hangups. (On the other hand, previous parenthetical aside.)

But reddit has normalised talking about cheating like it's inherently life ruining and traumatic. Like there's no recovery. It's a bit weird to see 22 year olds posting about how their girlfriend cheating ruined their life forever. Sorry man but that doesn't seem like a sentiment that should be reinforced by a thousand other 22 year olds on reddit. What do I know though.

Anyway that was my week on reddit. I'm still sick but really hoping I find another way to pass the time.

[nelsonbeauchejason]

P🪩P PUSH PULL INTENTIONALLY PUBLIC YET QUEERLY UNIQUE & DISTINCT 👀;💀

@@@

..

@

💀🌐💀

@

🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞🪞_&LOTUNIT[2]@

[maimndevour]

actually, i think it’s freeing to learn about new stuff about being queer. before i got on tumblr- i had like one track mindset and way of thinking about sexuality (not even that firmly tho) but - seeing how many elder queers and intersex people and individuals with fluctuating gender and sexuality has really made me feel a sense of community. i’ve learned a lot- and we don’t have to agree on the colors of a flag or what label trans people with fluctuating or concrete idea of gender use for their sexuality.

i think we all deserve to be happy- and sometimes queerness is confusing. but we don’t have to understand. if someone tells you what they are and their pronouns- you respect it. you don’t have to understand or agree. and yes, this is in reference to the post i reblogged.

i love queer people. and the way it’s changed from non-women or non-men to “whoever” because trans and GNC people are a big part of this community!!!!! neurodivergence and disability and race and gender and sexuality all make these experiences; so nitpicking things you don’t agree on is really not worth it. learn to think uniquely- learn to think of queer as it is [QUEERLY!!!!]

[toxicanonymity]

imagine joel showing u off to his friends like “look at her, can u believe these titties and this fat ass?” and just groping u and pulling up ur shirt and objectifying u like ur just his little toy as his friends watch like its nothing and they’re agreeing with him.

if this is too far i understand 💀

Ugh, I just love horny!Joel. . . I simp. ❤️‍🔥

Speakeasy Teddy

500 | horny!Joel x reader | master list

Warnings: NSFW, consensual objectification, groping, in public

The whole smuggling trip, Joel couldn't stop thinking about you in those fishnets, so he picked up some lingerie from the abandoned mall on his way home.  He asked you to wear a black lace teddy out tonight which you were more than happy to do under a skirt and jacket.  Now, once again, he's all over you at the QZ speakeasy while the guys drink and play darts. The guys are ordering drinks and you and Joel are at a booth in full view.  He pulls you into his lap straddling him.  You fucked less than an hour ago -- as soon as he saw you in this outfit  -- but he's hard as a rock and can hardly contain himself.  His hands slide under your skirt and he kneads your ass cheeks as he grinds you into the thick rod in his jeans. 

"You dunno how much I missed these titties," he says and slips his hands into your jacket, running his fingers over your bare shoulders.  Your arms go limp as he slides the jacket off you, then he puts it aside.  Now the whole bar can see the black lace.  His large hand between your shoulder blades braces you while he aggressively gropes one of your tits and wets his lips.  The lace leaves little to the imagination when your nipples harden obscenely. “Mmm,” he says, then kisses the swell of your breast through the garment.  You softly moan at the feeling of his  wet lips through the lace.  He pulls back to admire you and you’re turned all the way on by how desperate his eyes are as they slowly dance from your tits to your face and back.  His thick hard cock is nestled right where you throb for him.  

The guys walk by the booth on their way to the darts and Joel says "I'm gonna sit this one out, fellas," without taking his horny eyes off you.  His hands squeeze your ass again and pull you into his swollen package with a soft grunt.

They give him a hard time, then Joel says, "can you blame me?" 

He pulls your skirt up, exposing the cheeky bottom of the teddy and he says, "look at this ass."  He kneads your nearly bare ass, then lifts your round cheeks and watches them jiggle when he lets go. He gives it a light slap. "Turn around, baby."  You lower your feet to the floor, then he turns you around and pulls you back down on his lap, facing away from him.  Your face burns, you bite your lip and try not to look at them, but it turns you on.

Joel hooks his arms under yours and takes a tit in each hand.  "You seein' all this?"  He looks at them and raises his eyebrows.  

"Yeah, we're seein' it. . . "

"Would you be playin' darts?"

He turns you side-saddle and runs his hand up your inner thigh, under your skirt.  

"You're a lucky man," one of the guys says.  

"Luck's got nothin' to do with it," you say, and reach for the bulge in Joel's pants.

-

Continues here: under the table

See Also

Speakeasy (PDA/Semi-public sex)

Bartending at the Speakeasy

-

All joel: @ethanhoewke @silkiers @eiviea @evyiione @xdaddysprincessxx @queerly-anxious @chernayawidow @ambassadortotrilliusprime   @not-a-unique-snowflake-blog @jasminespringtime @romanarose  @fandomsfallnomore @djarinxore @lokanda

[mypridematters13]

Top 10 Gay T-Shirt Brands That Are Making a Difference in the LGBTQ+ Community

The LGBTQ+ community has seen significant advancements in acceptance and representation over the years. As part of this progress, various brands have emerged that not only celebrate the community but also contribute to it through advocacy, donations, and visibility.

Here, we highlight the Top 10 Gay T-Shirt Brands that are making a substantial impact in the LGBTQ+ community.

1. My Pride Matters

My Pride Matters stands out as a beacon of hope and empowerment for the LGBTQ+ community. Their t-shirts are not just about fashion; they are about making a statement. Each design is crafted with care, reflecting the diverse experiences and identities within the community.

2. Rainbow Threads

Rainbow Threads is a vibrant brand dedicated to creating inclusive and empowering apparel for the LGBTQ+ community. Their t-shirts are known for bold, colorful designs that celebrate pride and solidarity.

Rainbow Threads partners with various LGBTQ+ charities, ensuring that their contributions make a meaningful impact.

3. Pride Tees

Pride Tees offers a wide range of t-shirts that celebrate every facet of the LGBTQ+ spectrum. Their designs are both stylish and powerful, often featuring inclusive messages and symbols.

Pride Tees is committed to sustainability and ethical production, ensuring that their products are made with care for both people and the planet.

4. Equality Wear

Equality Wear is a brand that believes in fashion as a force for change. Their t-shirts are designed to promote equality and acceptance, featuring messages that challenge stereotypes and promote understanding.

Equality Wear donates a significant portion of their profits to LGBTQ+ causes, making each purchase a step towards a more inclusive world.

5. Love is Love Apparel

Love is Love Apparel embraces the simple yet powerful message that love transcends all boundaries. Their t-shirts are a celebration of love in all its forms, featuring designs that promote acceptance and joy.

Love is Love Apparel actively supports LGBTQ+ organizations through donations and partnerships, ensuring that their impact extends beyond fashion.

6. Out and Proud Clothing

Out and Proud Clothing is dedicated to creating apparel that empowers individuals to express their true selves. Their t-shirts are bold and unapologetic, reflecting the strength and resilience of the LGBTQ+ community.

Out and Proud Clothing supports a variety of LGBTQ+ initiatives, from youth programs to advocacy groups, making them a brand with a mission.

7. Proudly Queer

Proudly Queer is a brand that celebrates the diversity and uniqueness of the LGBTQ+ community. Their t-shirts feature creative designs that highlight different aspects of queer identity, from gender fluidity to intersectionality. Proudly Queer partners with LGBTQ+ artists and activists, ensuring that their work is both authentic and impactful.

8. Queerly Beloved

Queerly Beloved is a brand that combines fashion with activism. Their t-shirts are designed to spark conversations and challenge norms, featuring provocative and thought-provoking messages.

Queerly Beloved donates a portion of their sales to LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, making each purchase a contribution to the fight for equality.

9. Inclusivity Threads

Inclusivity Threads is all about celebrating the beauty of diversity. Their t-shirts are designed to be inclusive and empowering, featuring designs that reflect a wide range of identities and experiences. Inclusivity Threads is committed to ethical production and donates to LGBTQ+ charities, making them a brand that stands for both quality and equality.

10. Proud and Free

Proud and Free is a brand that believes in the power of self-expression. Their t-shirts are vibrant and bold, celebrating the freedom to be oneself.

Proud and Free supports various LGBTQ+ causes, from mental health initiatives to community centers, ensuring that their impact is both wide-reaching and profound.

Why These Brands Matter

These top 10 gay t-shirt brands are more than just fashion labels; they are advocates for change, visibility, and equality.

By supporting these brands, consumers are not only making a fashion statement but also contributing to the ongoing fight for LGBTQ+ rights and representation.

The Impact of LGBTQ+ T-Shirt Brands

The rise of LGBTQ+ t-shirt brands has had a significant impact on both the fashion industry and the community. These brands provide visibility and representation, allowing individuals to express their identities proudly. Moreover, by donating a portion of their profits to LGBTQ+ causes, these brands play a crucial role in supporting advocacy, education, and community-building efforts.

How to Support These Brands

Supporting these brands is a powerful way to contribute to the LGBTQ+ community. Here are a few ways to show your support:

Purchase their products: Every purchase supports LGBTQ+ causes.

Share on social media: Spread the word about these brands and their mission.

Engage with their content: Follow them on social media, like, comment, and share their posts.

Participate in their events: Many of these brands host events and fundraisers that you can attend or support.

Conclusion

The top 10 gay t-shirt brands listed above are making a tangible difference in the LGBTQ+ community through their advocacy, donations, and inclusive designs. By supporting these brands, you are not only enhancing your wardrobe but also contributing to a broader movement for equality and acceptance.