#am i bisexual if the only men i am attracted to are fictional

[littlematchagirlll]

just moved to provo for school and have spent more time with boys than i have in ages... i may be even more gay than i realized

[justine-the-guillotine]

I took a very long break from my beloved otome/romance/date/etc games not on purpose, just because life was Too Much (and it is still too much but I have to allow myself JOY or I will combust). Some breaks were a year or more for games I was logging into daily, religiously!!! But I have recently returned pretty full force for some games (mobile-wise, for now, at least) within the past few months and have made some interesting observations for myself. 🧐 Every love interest or character that was a favorite character of mine before my break is, for the most part, still a favorite of mine. I have such good taste y'all omg 😏🤠 BUT!!! What was very interesting to me is that LIs or characters that I hated or gave me the ick or even triggered me before my break... I like a lot of them too now !!! (There are still some I don't! Not everyone has been redeemed!!!) Some of them I love, even!! But it seems overall that I just generally at least like almost everybody. It was a change I did not expect. SO of course I had to psychoanalyze myself over it 🧐 like nothing is casual for me... why did this change for me on a deeper level 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Of course, a really plain and boring answer is simply that *tastes change*. Sure. Of course they do. But all my previous favorite guys are still my top favorite guys so I'm not going to stop at this answer.

What I think has happened is that I am so far removed from a "real" man ever touching me again in my real life, and so far removed from the last time a "real" man touched me in real life (thank god) that I'm no longer bothered by anything a fictional love interest can throw at me (with exception, still, of course). I think it used to really bother me when I would read an icky LI being so well-written that I could imagine their creepy scumbag behavior taking place IRL, or it was soooooo similar to something that happened to me IRL, that I would be really triggered by it and write the whole character off. (This is super valid when I felt this btw, and it is super valid if you are someone who feels this!!) But now that I feel pretty solid about never having to have a relationship with a man again in my real life, I can brush a lot of these things off. I can reason with the behaviors, I can rationalize them or not, and I can just say "wow that's good writing" and I'm largely not triggered by a lot of it anymore. Amazing character development on my part !!!!!!!!

[skys-archive]

I think in honor of pride month and also in general forever we should stop trying fit queer people into the identities we think they should call themselves.

And I know no one is going to see this because no one ever does but I'm going to talk about it anyway because this is important.

Bisexual doesn't mean you don't date trans people, it doesn't mean you like men and women, it doesn't mean you can't have a preference. Someone can identify as polysexual or bisexual or omnisexual and have no preference and you don't get to say that that means they're pansexual. Because no, if they don't identify as pansexual then they're not pansexual.

Transmasc doesn't mean you use he/him pronouns. It doesn't mean you identify as a man. Transfem doesn't mean you use she/her pronouns. It doesn't mean you identify as a woman. You can be nonbinary or genderqueer or agender or any gender that isn't binary and not use they/them pronouns. You can use any of those labels and still identify as a man or a woman. You can use different pronouns than is typically used for your birth sex and not consider yourself transgender. People can be gender non conforming and not he trans. People can be trans and not gender non conforming.

A trans man can be fem. A trans woman can be masc. Nonbinary people don't owe you androgyny. Intersex people don't owe you androgyny. Intersex people are people, they deserve way more attention than a way to one up transphobes. Intersex people face discrimination and body altering surgeries without their consent and then are only ever talked about to say "some cis women have penises" or "some people have an extra x chromosome" and then we never talk about the struggle they face as part of the queer community.

Asexuality and aromanticism is a spectrum. Some aces like sex, some aces are repulsed, some aces only experience sexual attraction to one person or once in their life, some aces need a deep emotional bond, some aces their attraction changes. Some aros change identities. Some aros are repulsed by romance unless it's a fictional character. Some aros have romantic feelings until they get to know someone. Some aros crave a romantic relationship but never have romantic feelings. You don't get to say someone isn't asexual or aromantic enough.

Asexuality and aromanticism is having a unique relationship with romance or sexual feelings and impulses. Someone who is transgender has a unique experience with gender. You don't get to decide that they don't have a unique experience. But guess what? You don't get to decide if they do either. Someone can have a unique experience and still not identify as asexual aromantic or transgender. You can cross dress and still fully feel like a man. You can use he/him pronouns as a cis women. You can have trauma around sex and not identify as asexual. You can never have a romantic relationship and not identify as aromantic.

You can have "contradicting" labels. I don't know as many of these because I don't personally identify as any but please fell welcome to add in reblogs. There are trans men lesbians and gay women. There are sex loving asexuals. I know there are others I just genuinely am not educated enough.

YOU DONT GET TO CHOOSE SOMEONES LABELS

ANYONE CAN EITHER IDENTIFY OR NOT IDENTIFY AS QUEER

Please feel welcome to add anything in reblogs. I'm sure there's things I've missed. I haven't talked about neopronouns I haven't talked enough about "contradicting" labels. I haven't talked about queer platonic relationships or kink or polyamory or enough about intersex people or pronouns vs gender. There's so much important things but at the end of the day it's just so important to not choose other people's labels.

[inawickedlittletown]

No Queerbaiting Here

A long time ago…I’m talking May of 2021, I wrote a meta post about queerbaiting. Essentially an essay. I wrote it right before the S4 finale of 9-1-1 aired because I was frustrated by Buddie fans calling Queerbait entirely like the boy that cried wolf. I still stand by it. Sort of. 

Now, even back then I was pretty clear about how 50/50 I was on Buddie ever going canon. (Maybe not in that post but certainly elsewhere) But, I shipped Buddie then and wrote a lot of fic and meta and participated in fandom. I never said it couldn’t happen…I just would never be bothered if it didn’t.

Where we stand now: It’s not going to happen. 

And where I stand now: fully immersed in Bucktommy. And what’s more, I am more than perfectly happy about Buck and Tommy staying together and going the long-run. Although I can still look at Buddie and think it’s a cute ship, I just don’t want it in canon. I would not be satisfied if the show went that way. But what’s more if Buck and Tommy don’t work out, that would be disappointing, but I’d be okay as long as they got to be happy. There is, after all, always fanfiction. 

So, I wanted to revisit this concept a bit now that Buck has been confirmed as Bisexual and now that he is in a relationship with a man. Not Eddie. Tommy. And somehow, some Buddie fans are still crying queerbait because their ship is not canon. That’s not how it works. Also…shipping works outside of canon, that’s the whole point of shipping. 

To reiterate from my original post on queerbaiting, here’s the definition from wikipedia:

“Queerbaiting is a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment in which creators hint at, but then do not actually depict, same-sex romance or other LGBTQ representation. They do so to attract a queer or straight ally audience with the suggestion of relationships or characters that appeal to them, while at the same time attempting to avoid alienating other consumers.” 

Here’s where I stand: Buddie was abandoned a long time ago. If it was ever a real possibility, we won’t ever know. What we do know is that Oliver was aware that at one point he had given them the go-ahead to make Buck Bi. Whether this was by putting Buck and Eddie together or having Buck realize this another way, we just don’t know that. We don’t have that information and nor will it probably ever be provided to us. Narratively, I know that a lot of fans figured the timing of it fit with S4 and that particular finale but we really just don’t know despite what happened in the finale.

I found that interesting looking back at my own post from back then and the discussion that followed where some fans felt that the way the finale went would determine if Buddie would be another queerbait ship. (I think most people agreed after the will scene that it wasn’t queerbait because it did leave a kernel of hope that Buddie might still happen). 

And yeah, I guess you could argue that the network deciding not to go the route of a queer storyline points to missed opportunity. That doesn’t then mean that any queerbaiting occurred or that any fans are owed anything just because something that was set up or that the writers were writing towards was then scrapped by the network. Is it a shame that it didn’t happen in whatever way they wanted to play it out, sure, but only because Buck would have been confirmed queer earlier. In the same vein isn’t it nice that we have a confirmed Bisexual Buck now? That the show managed to bring it back to that.

A Buck that is happy and free and that has realized something so monumental about himself? Isn’t it nice that all the queer coding that Buck as a character has received since the start of the show is actually finally not just queer coding but full on character development? That we can look back at the show and see all the things Buck did around other men for exactly what they were. 

When Tommy first returned to 9-1-1 in S7, I think a lot of us were excited by the spoilers about Buck and Tommy because of Bi Buck, but also because this was the thing that could lead to Buddie. 

And then…then Tommy was actually on my screen and I doubted it. I actually thought maybe the spoilers were wrong and this was about Eddie and Tommy? That episode flipped things in such an expertly way that by the time Tommy and Buck were sharing a kiss for the first time I was right there with Buck. On a second watch, it is all there. Buck was never jealous because his friend was ignoring him. He was jealous because his best friend had the attention of the guy whose attention he wanted for himself. The writing on that was perfect and no amount of twisting it can change what happened on screen. 

Buck was not jealous because of Eddie. Tommy was never interested in more than friendship with Eddie. And Buck and Tommy have nothing to do with Buddie. Tommy is not a stepping stone, a way for Buck to be ready to then embark on a relationship with Eddie. That’s both disrespectful to Tommy and Buck, but just not what the story being told on the show is doing. 

The storyline is monumental. Having a big strong guy, a firefighter, figure out his sexuality in his thirties is such good storytelling and add to that Tommy. Someone that we already know, who already works as a first responder, and who can show up and wow Buck in such a way that he realizes something about himself? This is what I’ve always wanted. Because guess what, Buck never questioned his sexuality before this. Not when he met Eddie and not when he met anyone else, not until Tommy. 

Going into the new season we know a few things and one of those is that Buck and Tommy are thriving. The media coverage talks about them as a solid couple, it talks about Buck having someone to turn to and complain to. It talks about how they are still in the getting to know each other phase and I love that for them. I love how they are being treated and described and I can’t wait to see what plays out for them and how much of the build up of their relationship we may get to actually see. 

Do you know what the media and the show never talked about outwardly like this? Buddie. Whenever it came up it was always brushed aside in a way that was respectful to fans and what they saw, but without ever confirming or hinting that the show would ever go there. They never queerbaited anyone with Buddie, what they have done is say “yeah…we know what you see” and then turned around and given us a Buck and Eddie friendship and Buck kissing Tommy, going on a date with Tommy, and thriving with Tommy. 

So, no queerbaiting here on the show where half of the major canon pairings are queer. It’s actually more like some fans baiting other fans with theories and headcanons that just don’t fit.

[thenightling]

Dear newbie queer kids, We appreciate the sentiment but stop "correcting" the older LGBTQ+ community. And by "correcting" I mean trying to force them to adopt your language. "Actually, it's pansexual if you're attracted to any gender. Bisexual means only men and women." (I really was told that one today.) "Actually if they're attracted to anyone despite gender and even to non-human entities in works of fiction that's omnisexual." Guys, you may not know it but what you are doing is what we'd once call bi-erasure. A little LGBTQ+ history: The word bisexual is still relatively new for a lot of people. In 1973 when David Bowie came out as bisexual, a reporter misunderstood that to mean he had both male and female reproductive organs. Even today I've stumbled upon people who think bisexual means "nonbinary." meaning "I don't identify as a man or a woman." The only connection the words have is the "bi" part so this one is painfully stupid. In the 1990s there were older queer folk who didn't even know bisexual is what they were. When Roddy McDowall was confronted by Vincent Price's daughter and asked "Why didn't you tell me my father was bisexual?" He said "We didn't know the word." In the 90s most bisexual people used the term to mean attraction despite gender. I'm fine with the use of the word "Pansexual" but it IS actually gatekeeping to tell older bisexuals that the word bisexual means "disincluding trans and nonbinary" and "attraction to the gender instead of despite the gender." I can't think of very many people who identify as bisexual who are okay with those added restrictions that they didn't agree to. For most of the older queer community bisexual means their own gender and everything else. That's the two for bi. I am certain there are some people today who don't mind the new restrictions added to the word bisexual and use it to self-identify but those that were identifying a bisexual in the 90s and early 2000s didn't have such restrictions because the options of pansexual and omnisexual were not in use yet. Pansexual was a term invented by Freud to mean "attraction to anything" (this included furniture). It's modern meaning of "consenting adults without consideration of gender" is relatively new and frustratingly this was originally how most of us were using the word bisexual. When you "Correct" someone who self-identifies as bisexual that they are actually pansexual because you want them to use the more modern language, THAT is gatekeeping. Ironically this just happened to me and when I corrected the person that was "correcting me" by explaining that older people who identify as bisexual tend to use it with the same meaning as the modern pansexual, I was suddenly accused of "Gatekeeping." So now, ironically, they're misusing the term gatekeeping while gatekeeping. Please stop doing this. The new terms are okay but don't tell us how we can use the older terms, especially when bisexual isn't that old of a term in the grand scheme of things. I sometimes use the term pansexual just to make things easier for the younger folk since they adapted to the restrictive version of the term bisexual we never asked for. Also I like its connection to mythology. But please don't "Correct" people for using the term they had for themselves since the 90s because they never added those new restrictions to it. This is rude. And that is the gatekeeping. Them telling you what the word meant decades ago is not "gatekeeping." You telling them how they have to us it now- that is gatekeeping. Sincerely, Most queer folk over the age of thirty.

[moeitsu]

Since it's pride month I wanna talk about something I've noticed in the Red Dead Redemption fandom:

The Bisexual erasure of Sadie Adler and Arthur Morgan.

I apologize if this comes across as harsh, but it's something that's been on my mind since I started interacting w/ this media. And as a bisexual, I wanted to discuss it further.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with shipping these characters with the same sex. Personally, I am a Charthur shipper till the day I die. I don't ship Sadie with anyone but her husband, but I still enjoy seeing the fanart and headcanons of the women she's shipped with.

That being said, these characters are not lesbian or gay. That's literally a fact, and if you think otherwise it is bisexual erasure.

Let's start with Sadie Adler. Her entire character arc is getting revenge on the O'Driscolls for killing her husband. Whom she mourns for years, and talks about frequently with Arthur/other camp members. Now, if you want to ship her w/ Abigail or Molly or whomever, go for it!! But she has loved and still loves her husband. She is not a lesbian, and she didn't just magically turn into a lesbian after Jake's death. If she had any love interests other than Jake, this would make her bisexual. (even Sapphic is still a more appropriate term than lesbian)

The same goes for women in real life who have dated men first, then dated a woman. Just because their current partner is the same sex doesn't mean we can assume they are suddenly lesbian. Calling characters lesbians even if they have been in a relationship with men before is bisexual erasure.

This same concept is applied to Arthur Morgan. He had previous relationships with women. (one of whom he still has strong feelings for) and he is attracted to women. We see this with his greeting dialogue and when he compliments people. I believe Arthur's character is more likely to be bisexual than Sadie's, given his interactions w/ some of the men in the game. But that doesn't erase the fact that he's still attracted to the opposite sex. Arthur is not a gay man. Disregarding his past relationships w/ women is a form of bisexual erasure.

There is a huge double standard here because if these character's were actually lesbian/gay and the fandom decided to ship them with people of the opposite sex (i.e headcanon they are bi), there would be a major discourse.

Whenever bisexual women and men are presented in the media I always notice a few things:

Bi women are "secretly straight"

Bi women "don't know their lesbian yet"

Bi men are "secretly gay"

As well as this funny little graphic below ↓

Like I said before, I am bisexual. And if I'm being honest this years pride month has been exhausting and mildly infuriating with how the community seems to disregard bisexuals in a hetero relationship.

I stopped talking about my bisexuality with people because once they know I have been in a committed relationship with a man for seven years, I am suddenly excluded from the conversation.

I've had ex-friends tell me that I only identify as bisexual to "fit in" with the queer community. I've had people in college assume I was lesbian bc of the way I dressed, and then try to tell me that I must be secretly lesbian when I tell them I'm Bi. (Ppl also assumed I was non-binary bc of the way I presented but that's another story)

This stuff doesn't just happen to fictional characters, it happens to real people every single day. I'm honestly tired of ppl saying "well my headcanon doesn't hurt anybody, they're not real." Yes it does!! You are supporting Bi erasure!!

That's all I'm gonna say on this topic for now. I'd love to leave it open for discussion, but please be nice. This isn't a call-out or me trying to antagonize the queer rdr community. I just wanted to get it off my mind.

[tenderpreyy]

​I’m thinking again about Astarions sexuality and how I've seen some people (to be fair, just a few) talk about it. Mainly, people pointing out his flamboyant behavior, and that us as players are learning more about his past male lovers than female ones and basically all these things for some people pointing to him being gay or at least not interested in women in the same way he is in men. And him only being a romance option regardless of gender, because, well, all companions are and he is therefore just "playersexual", only showing interest in female player characters because he has to, because of the game mechanics.

I think what really rubs me the wrong way about this topic is that it echoes the kind of things bi/pan people (speaking as a bisexual woman myself) find themselves dealing with irl. Whether through some form of internalized biphobia or from the outside through other people's comments. Of course this is about a fictional character so it’s not like he has any feelings that could be hurt. But when i see people tallying up how often he mentions men vs. how often he mentions women it really reminds me of a way of thinking I sometimes fall into in regards to my own sexuality. This is definitely just an internalized response and not something I actually believe when I truly think about it for a second, but I know these patterns of thought very well. Of observing my own behavior. How often do I find which gender attractive? Am I attracted "enough" to women? Do I talk about men's attractiveness too often? Is it the other way around? Am I only saying this woman is attractive to prove something to myself? I literally have a girlfriend and my attitude towards mine or other's sexual orientation is generally a huge big "whatever, I don't care". And I still have a passing thought like that from time to time.

So seeing people talk about a fictional character in this way really sends home how many people (whether consciously or unconsciously) see attraction as some sort of equation, you can solve, where in the end you get a result of either gay or straight.

[biracy]

As a dyke i once joked that a fictional character who was male was experiencing comphet and someone told me off for using it because "its a lesbian only term" No the fuck it isnt... Really putting the L in lgbt... Also. Imo comphet can apply to anyone, even het people. Yes even cishet people. Its like a mosquito it gets Everyone

So true honestly like I think a reexaminining of heterosexuality as a social system and approaching "compulsory heterosexuality" theory through that lens would be a lot more productive than "comphet is when only lesbians feel pressure to date men, no one else can experience it". Like I said in my post, as a bisexual person I have an experience that falls explicitly outside of mainstream standards of heterosexuality, and I also feel social pressure to date "acceptable" heterosexual men in an "acceptable" heterosexual woman fashion (i.e. not be the freako that I am). I've also read about how straight trans people inherently cannot perform "heterosexuality" as a social system, which inherently excludes trans people. That's not to say that trans people cannot be straight, as in "attracted to/only interested in dating people of different genders (trans women who date men, trans men who date women)", but to say that all trans people cannot fit into heterosexuality as it is defined by patriarchy, religious hegemony, etc. I think too many people discuss "comphet" while operating under a definition of "heterosexuality" as "when a woman dates a man", which I think, when examined through both bisexual and transgender lenses, falls through. It disregards the existence of heterosexuality and heteronormativity as systems that can negatively affect and control everyone, especially all women, in favor of paying lipservice to what is essentially an "am I gay" quiz written like five years ago. I think the ways comphet affects lesbians, bi women, and straight women are all different, but I also think a multifaceted approach to comphet theory is important lol

[nekropsii]

Hi! I've recently gotten into homestuck and I've read quite a bit of it, as well as other people's blogs analyzing and criticizing the media. I've heard a Lot about Dave's arc being centered around internal homophobia and toxic masculinity, so it surprised me to hear taht you disagreed! I was wondering why you think that, and what are your thoughts on what his arc actually is? I know you don't like writing about the alpha/beta kids, so feel free to ignore this ask completely if you want. Thank you, I hope you have a great day!

Hello, Anon! I'm glad you've been having fun with Homestuck lately!! Despite its many flaws, it is a deeply compelling piece of fiction, and I'm always glad to see new eyes on it and new voices being added to the analytical sphere. To answer your question...

Personally, I have never seen what people are talking about with regards to Dave's whole character arc surrounding overcoming Internalized Homophobia and Toxic Masculinity. These are fundamentally not what his arc is about, and this is never what his arc has ever been about. I'd honestly never seen that analytical lens until after DaveKat rose into prominence (mostly due to Post-Canon's heavy featuring of the pairing), and I feel as if these things are related. It is easier to make easy-to-stomach, shippy angst out of addressing your own personal shortcomings than what Dave's arc is actually about. No shade intended. This is because...

Dave's character arc is, and always has been, about Recovering from Childhood Abuse.

This is the conflict we are made aware of in his introduction, and it's a theme that persists all throughout the story. We meet Dave as a 13 year old boy suffering some pretty extreme abuse at the hands of Bro- Physically, Mentally, Emotionally, and Sexually. Dave's home life is such an active threat that he struggles to even admit to himself that it is abuse in the first place- that's an admission that takes a level of vulnerability that he just could not afford, and it's something he's only left to truly unpack during the Meteor Arc.

I have a couple major problems with the "Toxic Masculinity and Internalized Homophobia" takes. Firstly, Toxic Masculinity is not inherent to any expression of Masculinity. The only Toxically Masculine trait we see that's applicable to Dave is that he struggles deeply with vulnerability and sincerity in his emotions. However... These don't really have anything to do with what his views on what a man is or should be. They have everything to do with the fact that he was abused by someone who punishes any display of weakness, because Bro excused his abuse with it being "Training". Secondly... Dave is Bisexual. Even if the process of Dave struggling to accept being attracted to men was a major point in the story, it would not be called Internalized Homophobia. It would be called Internalized Biphobia, because Dave is canonically Bisexual, not Gay. We have seen Dave be attracted to more women than men, and attraction to both genders was present simultaneously. It was not Compulsory Heterosexuality. If it was, it'd be actually written into the story. Bisexual people exist. This is not a Homophobic argument to make; I am literally a Gay man.

It's anthropologically fascinating how this take arose... Basically out of nowhere from my perspective, especially considering how all of Dave's most iconic dramatic lines have something to do with him having to sort through his own abuse. Does no one remember the rooftop scene between Dave and Dirk, where Dave starts telling Dirk all about the horrible way that Bro raised him, and how deeply it affected him?

If not, I'm posting the most striking part of it here.

[Homestuck, page 7749.]

... So, yeah, no. Dave's character arc is not about "Overcoming Toxic Masculinity and Internalized Homophobia". It's about Abuse. Dave is an Abuse Victim. Point blank period. Any trait even loosely attributable to the ideas of Toxic Masculinity and Internalized Homophobia are a consequence of how he was raised, and how he was abused. This does not mean that this is what his character arc is about. That just means that's included within his character arc. It's a way to show growth, not a way to define his arc in its entirety. That is legitimately not how character writing works. To claim such would be to express a remarkable amount of Tunnel Vision.

Inclusion does not equate to Totality. There is a bigger picture, and that bigger picture is Abuse Recovery.

[twobruhsinahottub]

Folks is fictosexual a real thing? Cause im thinking i may be fictosexual and aegosexual....

I am attracted to fictional characters and people i view as "fictional" aka completely impossible to attain (like celebs and a random person ill never see again) but not to actual people i view as ever being attainable. I fantasise about romantic/sexual relationships with these people but am entirely repulsed by fantasies around attainable people.

Im also completely confused with the split attraction thing...cause i thought i was a lesbian for the longest time cause i feel alterous attraction mostly exclusively towards women, but now i think i feel sexual attraction towards men, and sometimes women, and no romantic attraction towards anyone except fictional characters.....

And is it awful if my only sexual experiences have been with trans women and im now realising i may only be attracted sexually to men? Like i fully thought i only liked women when i was with them but now....idk.

And the most confusing part is i only like men when the attraction is seen as gay. Like im only into men in a man way. And i like women in both a man and a woman way. Im concerned i just fetishise gay men or something.

Idk i guess im just aro acespec bisexual to put it simply but i am CONFUSED

[butchabouttown]

how can you be a lesbian who’s attracted to/fucks all genders? genuine question no hate just doesn’t align with my understanding

hi!! thanks for asking I LOVE this subject and am so happy to talk about it!! This reply might get kind of long so I apologize in advance hehe <3

I assume you're sending this in response to the ask I got the other day asking about if bisexual women can say dyke, to which I said that I am bisexual & also a dyke (woman is debatable). That's the first place I want to start—that bisexuality does not necessarily equal attraction to all genders. It can! And I have no problem with someone who is attracted to all variations of all genders identifying with the lesbian label if that's what makes sense for them. But for me, I am attracted to women, and men, and people who fall outside of that binary—but I am not necessarily attracted to gendered expressions.

Personally, someone's gender identity really doesn't impact whether or not I might be attracted to them. I am specifically attracted to people who's gender expressions align with or reflect my own in some way—so as a butch, as someone who moves through the world as a lesbian, as someone who identified as trans masculine for several years, who has been on T and may go on T again—that is pretty expansive. For me, I am attracted to queer versions of masculinity—in all its shapes & variations. I don't think that experience precludes me from using the lesbian label! There is not one person that sees me move through the world that does not immediately clock me as a butch lesbian. I cannot change that (and nor do I want to). Does the fact that sometimes I fuck & fall in love with men mean that they're wrong? Or that I am for feeling comfortable with that label?

And that really isn't a new experience!! I am absolutely not alone in that kind of attraction model, and I am not the only person who gets clocked as a lesbian that is attracted to people who aren't women.

I can think of many significant figures & authors & activists in lesbian history who have really traversed what has been coined the "butch/FTM borderlands" by author C. Jacob Hale in 1998. Identity categories do not have hard borders—there's a liminal space that exists between them, and it's impossible to draw a distinct line between them. Hell—even the poet & lesbian icon Sappho wrote about both same-sex and different-sex relationships.

I think of communist, activist & author Leslie Feinberg & the exploration of being a leftist, working class butch in the 60's & 70s in Stone Butch Blues. That novel in particular, although fictionalized, is very much a reflection of their own life and details relationships with many different kinds of people while being very much rooted in lesbian culture.

I think of Jen Manion's article in Transgender Studies Quarterly titled "Transbutch," (article begins on page 213 of the linked pfd) where they write the following:

‘‘Transbutch’’ signifies a gendered embodiment that is both butch and trans, not tied to any singular definition of butch or trans but rather falling somewhere in between. Transbutch marks a liminal space that embraces both the historical legacies of the category of butch and the more expansive possibilities created by the transgender rights movement for recognition, community, and empowerment."

(italics my own) In other words, transbutch is about that sticky place between two identities. Someone can have ties to both of these identities at once—particularly since they have been so historically tied in terms of community.

And the argument being made by Manion I think really connects to the discussion here - being a lesbian is about more than who you sleep with. It's a political identity, it is a gender in of itself, it's about your community and how you connect to it.

Many of the lesbian icons that the community holds dear trouble the "woman loving woman" definition of the identity. And besides—it's not like lesbian is a finite resource. We have infinite space to welcome all kinds of people, anyone who wants to be in community together. There are so many ways to move through the world and so many ways to come to this identity.

Anyway! I don't know how to end this! I hope it was helpful <3

[samble-moved]

Sayaka is Biyaka (or, a Lesbian Tries to Disprove the "Sayaka is a Lesbian With Comphet" Bi Erasure Theory)

For some reason, there's a loooot of belief in the PMMM fandom (this was especially bad in the mid 2010s) that Sayaka isn't bi (despite her canon, on screen romantic interested in both Kyosuke, a guy, and Kyoko, a girl), she's "just" a lesbian struggling with compulsive heterosexuality.

While many lesbians do struggle with comphet, erasing Sayaka's status as bi/pan/omni/mspec to claim she's a lesbian is...not great!

Usual signs of comphet include, but are not limited to:

Only attraction to guys involves ones who are entirely unobtainable (ex. a celebrity, fictional, etc)

Any man you fantasize about is faceless/nameless

Interest in men in theory, but not practice

"Choosing" a man to have a crush on to seem "normal", or because it's expected

Attraction based on logic, not actual emotion (ex. because your parents would approve)

Liking a guy until they return the interest

Being attracted to certain guys just because of something like a talent

(...and more examples here!)

However, Sayaka's attraction to Kyosuke doesn't seem based on any of these, but seems more to be genuine attraction/interest.

For one, Sayaka has been close to Kyosuke ever since she was a child. They're described and shown as childhood friends, and he isn't a guy Sayaka "just met" and "chose" to be into.

Sayaka also just isn't into Kyosuke at a surface level. If she held no true attraction towards him, why would she willingly trade her relatively safe, happy life for his happiness? Her wish was to heal his hand. While this was the stated wish, it's outright shown that Sayaka didn't just want that. It's outright shown canonically that, while not fully said, Sayaka wants Kyosuke's appreciation and recognition for this. She wants him to know the miracle was her doing, and wants him to love her for doing it.

The various interpretions of this won't be majorly touched here, as whether or not Sayaka's thinking there is "selfish" isn't important. What is important is that Sayaka shows a true level of attraction to Kyosuke, and wishes it was reciprocated.

It's not that she "just" likes him for his skills (she still visits him in the hospital, even during a time where it's implied that he won't be able to play his violin again). It's not that he's a guy out of reach — he's a childhood friend. She's not being pressured into liking guys. She literally jokes about Madoka being her wife in front of Hitomi, publicly.

Her feelings are obvious and genuine enough that Hitomi tells Sayaka that, if she wants, she will give Sayaka a day to confess to Kyosuke before Hitomi does.

A bisexual person who ends up later liking someone of the same gender later on isn't "actually gay" instead. A bisexual person with a preference isn't "choosing a side". Erasing a canon bisexual character's identity to claim "ummm, akshully, 🤓 they're Really X sexuality instead" is biphobic!

I'm probably not the best person to make this post, as I am a lesbian, not bisexual. However, people erasing a bi character's sexuality to call them a lesbian instead is not okay, and it wouldn't be okay the other way around either. It's not "progressive" to insist a bi character can't possibly be bi, they have to be gay. Sayaka shows no sign of comphet, no sign of "just" likely Kyosuke because she feels it's "right". She shows actual, real interest in him and Kyoko, and that doesn't make her "actually a lesbian". She's bisexual. A character being bi isn't some stepping stone to them being "really" gay later on, and it isn't a dirty word to call them bi! It's an identity like any other.

Most fans ignore Kyosuke. This isn't something I think is a major issue, as Sayaka seems to lose interest in him after Rebellion (saying Hitomi deserves better). He's probably not the best guy. But that's not an excuse to erase Sayaka's identity, because she liked a not-so-great dude. A lesbian with a shitty ex isn't suddenly not a lesbian, and a bisexual person with a less than stellar former crush isn't suddenly not bisexual due to it.

Tl;dr:

[our-bisexual-experience]

I'm going to tell my story with the lesbian masterdoc, which I read after hooking up with a man, having a bad experience, and losing my attraction to men. I googled. Am I a lesbian? The first thing that popped up on google was something called lesbian masterdoc, which had the same name as what I googled. It says that if you are attracted to fictional guys or unattainable men, you are a lesbian and that what you are experiencing is called comphet. I was 23 at the time, and I believed it, and so did many other sapphics who ended up following the masterdoc as if it was an infallible bible. Because of what happened to me, I was looking for community, and I found it with some lesbians online who had also read the masterdoc. This happened 5 years ago and I was still wondering why I wasn't like other lesbians and I started chatting with more lesbians about my doubts, about why my attraction to fictional guys or unattainable men didn't disappear like it did for them and they told me that I have comphet, that many lesbians like unattainable men like fictional men, men much older than you or famous men, that if you hate men you are a lesbian, that if you have a trauma with men you are a lesbian, that if you are not able to maintain a stable and lasting relationship with a man you are a lesbian, That if you like lots of fictional men then you are a political lesbian... I remember once reading a lesbian complaining about how sexuality is fluid and that hers is as solid as a brick and I thought "but I am a lesbian and my sexuality is fluid" so I thought then all lesbians felt little sexual attraction to men and that what they did was ignore it. The funny thing is that they were all transfiendly with trans women and not with trans men. For them, all men were equal to cishet men, including queer men. I ended up believing that radfem = lesbian, that comphet = single lesbian experience and they made me believe that my attraction to men was fake attraction, because if it's only to unattainable men it doesn't count as real or genuine attraction, not wanting to marry a man = lesbian. After a spiral of self-doubt and self-deprecation, I accepted that I was bisexual all along and that my attraction to men returned some time later, but I was conditioned to deny it, to write it off as fake and so on.

I’m glad that you figured out your identity :)

[twinklemylittlestar]

Okay guys, I'm a little confused about my sexual orientation.

I considered myself as bisexual, but now I realize that I fall in love with men only if they're fictional characters (like Tendou Satori fom Haikyuu or Leonidas from Record of Ragnarok), but in real life I feel attracted only by girls.

So, am I bisexual? Or fictional characters don't count and so I'm lesbian??

[sapphic-sundry]

I HAD A THOUGHT

so I'm abrosexual.

today I was feeling bisexual for the first time IN AGES. like you don't understand how rare that is for me. I messaged this to my friend, who was busy at the time.

then, I had to go out into the real world to do an errand. sad, I know.

when I got home, I messaged my friend again. "home safe. feeling less bisexual by the minute."

my friend then answered back, saying "what does that even mean?"

and I was like, oh my gosh, people won't understand what that means. BUT THEN I HAD A THOUGHT. A METAPHOR THOUGHT.

this is how people usually explain abrosexual:

it's similar to being bisexual, in that it's fluid. but sometimes you can be pan, or ace, or only attracted to one gender, etc. it's like genderfluid but for sexuality.

which is a good explanation! it is! but I thought of a better one.

imagine you've been cursed. (by an evil wizard or fae trickster or old god, whichever you prefer. the origin of the curse is not the point.) (i am not at all saying being abrosexual is a curse, this is just a metaphor to explain it.)

imagine that the curse is that your tastebuds are ever-changing. y'know how like when you get older, you enjoy new things, or maybe hate things you used to love? imagine that's what's happening to your tastebuds, on a daily basis.

you crave different things. sometimes you crave ice cream, or vegetables, or both, or nothing at all.

it's infuriating, because you can't control it.

imagine you have a favorite food. one from before the curse, something you've loved since you were young. let's say it's Reese's peanut butter cups.

HOWEVER. this spell has ruined your tastebuds. for a while now, you've only been craving peanut butter. you stare longingly at chocolate, for you love it. but when you try to eat it, it just doesn't taste right. the joy isn't there. in the past, it has been the opposite. you crave chocolate, but not peanut butter. or even sometimes, you crave nothing at all.

but one shining morning, you wake up craving both. it's a euphoric moment. you say to yourself, I'm going to have a peanut butter cup today. I'm going to enjoy it so much.

but before you can, you get busy. have stuff to do. before you know it, when you're finally done, you think about that peanut butter cup again. you head to a vending machine. then, as you punch in the numbers, you realize something. your craving is dwindling. your stomach drops. you know if you don't hurry, it won't taste good. it will simply be bland. you put the food to your mouth, and - it's too late. you've stopped enjoying chocolate the way you could have. you die inside, a little.

in this metaphor, craving chocolate is attraction to women. craving peanut butter is attraction to men. craving reese's is attraction to both (feeling bisexual.) craving nothing is attraction to no one (feeling asexual.)

this is a horrible metaphor as it equates being asexual/aromantic to not having taste, which is simply untrue. aspec ppl have great taste! they can still have attraction in many ways, and can enjoy things like food, fashion, dragons, and unicorns.

BUT I think it gets the point across.

being abrosexual is like craving different things in an unpredictable way. sometimes it can be really frustrating, and complicated, and downright confusing. a lot of internalized phobia and imposter syndrome is involved.

for me, I consider myself Sapphic, as I love women very much. they're incredible. however, I don't always feel attraction to them the way I'd like to. usually, I find myself drawn more to men, even though I could never really see myself dating one (that isn't fictional.)

so yeah, for anyone wondering, I hope this helps.

[lotus-duckies]

the queerness of 2012 is really weird because it straddles the line of plausible deniability so well and the fact it's so obviously edgy teenage boy coded, so when something kinda queer happens you're like "wait was that intentional or" as opposed to Rise, where the queer coding is blatant, especially with its usage of gender nonconformity and literally putting a rainbow flag into the show

so anyway here's an essay about leo's bisexuality. yes this will be covering his crush on karai in a romantic context even though everyone hates it and wants to rephrase it as gender envy, i'm sorry but someone has to do it

The first question we must ask, does Leo have some kind of indication of having attraction to more than one gender?

There was a tumblr post recounting canon tmnt facts, one of which says the art book states that Leo has a 'man crush' on Captain Ryan.

Which, I am wheezing at the idea that the thing that makes Leo imperfect is the fact he has a man crush on Captain Ryan. Nothing else, just the man crush.

I did google the definition of a man crush because even though I am clearly just so manly what the heck is that.

-an intense and typically non-sexual liking or admiration felt by one man for another. -a man who is the object of another's intense liking or admiration.

Yeah that's approximately Leo's relationship with Captain Ryan, an intense admiration for a fictional man. Obviously, having a man crush doesn't automatically mean you're attracted to men, but given Leo's general behaviors in the show, I'm more inclined to believe he does have Some Kind of attraction to men.

Karai

The thing about Leo's crush on Karai is that it was executed in a distinctly different way than any of his brothers' love affairs.

With his brothers, they're very open about the fact they're into whatever girl the narrative has assigned them. Donnie's crush has been known by everyone since episode 1 and he and Mikey are not subtle about their admiration. Raph was talking about how cool he thinks Mona is and if turtles and newts can go on dates even though she was introduced as an antagonist before becoming an ally.

Karai was also introduced as an antagonist who Leo has some kind of attraction to, but he hid it. He refused to tell his family about it, only telling April who then chastised him about it. His family only found out by accident, and even then he either didn't tell them he liked her, shrouded in excuses of "We both like the fine craftsmenship of swords" and "I can see the good in her, I can save her", or begrudginly added "I guess I sort of liked her" at the end.

This reads as a very queer narrative, closeted kids discovering themselves and only their friends know out of fear of getting rejected by their families.

And this is also why I do think Leo has an Actual Crush on Captain Ryan. Trying to explain it as having an admiration for Captain Ryan and wanting to be a hero is much the same as trying to explain why he was hanging out with Karai, wanting to help her or admire swords.

His personality as a Very Good Boy who follows the rules and cares if they accidentally hurt people exemplifies the changes he went through from Karai's influence.

(also like. if space heroes is supposed to be a parody of star trek. girl star trek is so horny. and Leo says that space heroes has a ton of fans currently, implying he's seen the fanbase, and the very strong possibility that the fanbase is mostly populated by gay fanfiction

and yknow. Leo's the embodiment of 2010's tumblr fangirl, which has a lil queer autistic in it)

Karai is very visibly a lesbian, an edgy punk butch lesbian, and she and Shinigami lowkey embody a butch femme dynamic and the fact Karai is depicted as the more formidable, domineering force with a sword and Shinigami as a bit more pathetic with a cat is reminiscent of the japanese lesbian dynamics from this post. It's all very gay.

And she's an antagonist lesbian to Leo's closeted and internalized biphobia.

She represents the desire to give up and be swallowed by selfishness, forgoing responsibility and cleanliness in favor of having fun.

Leo is resistant to giving in. His attempts to do so immediately get shut down, and he's rejected by his family, even for a moment, for wanting to go do Bad Things. He tries to fix Karai, make her good and acceptable. But he slips further, eventually falling into Karai's circle to be gay and commit crimes against the Foot Clan empire.

In this way his sexuality is explored through self expression, the moral ambiguity, and transition from an absolute rule follower caring deeply about the affects his actions has on others to burning a building full of money. It's very classic "good girl getting corrupted" story telling, but at the same time it isn't, because Leo maintains an overall good moral compass, he just grew up. Sometimes killing people is a necessity, sometimes you make mistakes, sometimes people get hurt.

Being queer stops being this huge shameful, evil thing and it starts just being part of you.