#and it's an excuse to read about more historic lesbians

[artemismatchalatte]

A new term has begun. Time for Turn of the Century and WWI Brit Lit! 

And then there’s Ulysses ready to end my literary career before I’ve even started.

[a-faggot-with-opinions]

Responding To The "Aromantic Manifesto"

So I found this aromantic manifesto earlier today and I have many thoughts and opinions about it. Mainly that it's really bad, and it is homophobic. It uses a lot of big words and complicated language to sound smart, but it's not actually conveying good ideas. I'm going to respond to it piece by piece. By the way, I am aromantic, but I am also gay, so that's the perspective I'm looking at this through.

The main points of this manifesto, as outlined in the beginning, are:

"Romance is inherently queerphobic."

"The organisation of queerness around the celebration and pursuit of romantic desires and pleasures reinforces queer oppression."

"Queer liberation must abolish romance as its long-term goal."

Point 1 is bad because the activism for lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights has LITERALLY been all about being able to love whoever we want to. We didn't fight for centuries to legalize gay marriage to have someone say that us loving someone else is inherently queerphobic. Implying that gay love is somehow oppressing someone else makes you the queerphobic one.

Point 2 is wrong because we've been fighting for our rights for literal centuries, and we've already decided that trying to repress our sexualities for any reason, is actually bad and contributing to our own oppression. The only way to make real progress in solving queer oppression is by expressing ourselves loudly. It's okay to dislike amatonormativity. I dislike amatonormativity. But that doesn't give you an excuse to be homophobic.

Point 3 is even more incorrect. That's because a movement that is fighting for people historically marginalized based on who we love isn't going to have abolishing romantic love as a goal. It's okay to be aromantic and not want romance. The problem comes in when you try to force everyone else to repress their romantic desires because you simply don't like it. That's bad.

The next part is extremely insulting to me as a trans person. They compare gay men wanting to date other men and not wanting to date women to gay men wanting to date trans men. Newsflash, assholes: trans men are men!

If straight people can’t help who they love, then neither can gay people. Nor, one might suppose, racists and transphobes, and people who find disability and fatness unattractive.

This is an obvious homophobic argument. They're implying by this that gay men not wanting to date women is the same as gay men not wanting to date trans men, implying that men who don't love women are misogynistic. It's transphobic to compare the experience of being gay to transphobia. Tell me you've never spoken to a trans person in your life without telling me.

Queer oppression is not just the experience of prohibited desire. It is also the experience of hierarchical and violent desire. It is also the experience of undesirability.

What the fuck are they even saying right here? Queer oppression is literally about the experience of prohibited desire and the lack of experience of expected desire. I can maybe understand where undesirability comes into play, since especially as a trans person I get cis people trying to equate my sexual attractiveness with my worth as a human being, but experiencing hierarchical and violent desire?

This reads as someone saying that queer romance is inherently evil and we're oppressing ourselves and we're totally at fault for our own oppression. QUEER ROMANCE AND SEXUALITY ARE NOT INHERENTLY EVIL AND SAYING THAT THEY ARE IS HOMOPHOBIC, IT'S 2023. Why is this even a hot take?

The next section talks about the "privatisation of love," which is a model for why they think that queer activism has been missing the entire point. Let's see what this author has to say about that.

While the domestic sphere fashioned by heterosexual kinship relations has been historically designated as private life, queer intimacies have instead been regarded as a matter of public concern due to moral panics associating them with predation and perversion throughout history.

This is a very sloppy, incomplete reading of the way that homophobia works. I'm not going to get into my theory of how homophobia works in this post, but anyone who's actually experienced homophobia in their lives will tell you that this ain't it. For one example of how that's incomplete, in recent years queer people have been encouraged by society and especially the right to hide our queerness and abandon our culture in favor of mainstream society. This isn't trying to make us a matter of public concern, it's trying to make us disappear. This isn't how oppression works.

This next section focuses on how romantic love is allegedly used as a hierarchy.

People who regarded as romantically attractive are invariably upward-mobile, white-proximate, gender-appropriate, able-bodied, slender/muscular etc.

Maybe. Just maybe. That is just a reflection of how society views people who aren't white, aren't gender conforming, are disabled, and are fat. Racism, transphobia, ableism, and fatphobia weren't invented by romance. The way that romance in our society works simply reflects those things that already existed. "I just find them unattractive" has been an excuse to discriminate against people for ages. That isn't because romance is inherently THE hierarchy, but instead it's because it's used as an excuse.

Often, calling romantic partners “compatible” just means their placements on the romantic hierarchy are relatively equal in privilege. Calling romantically unattractive people “compatible” with each other, on the other hand, easily sounds condescending.

I don't have much to say about this. This is simply not how romance works. While compatibility is not a great concept and I have critiqued it before, this ain't it.

Queer romantic ideals remain incredibly heteronormative, only celebrating the most privileged and “compatible” of queers and condemning more marginalized queer people all the same.

This quote is really interesting because it's pointing out a very real issue with society (the fact that society encourages assimilated queers) and tries to blame queer activists for it. No, we do not want to assimilate. Society wants us to assimilate, and some of us try to do so. However talking to most queer activists will reveal that we don't want to assimilate. We want to be treated with basic respect.

Queer romance does not resist heteronormativity as much as it assimilates queer desire, making us hold on tightly to whichever relative privileges we have and hate ourselves for whichever we don’t.

Hello? This is projection. This is exactly what the person writing this manifesto has been doing the whole fucking time.

By peddling the illusion that romance can be made queer, heteronormative capitalism forces queer people to try solve their problems of undesirability and unhappiness privately by finding the “right” partner, rather than directing their anger towards public action.

Gay people in the past got into romantic relationships that often got us killed. Did we do that because of heteronormative capitalism trying to force us to find someone? No. What the actual fuck are these people even talking about.

We propose aromanticism as a counterpublic that responds to queerphobic violence by mobilising public resistance instead of escaping inwards. Aromanticism is a principled commitment to finding radically nonviolent ways of relating to others.

There's so much to unpack in this quote. Firstly, the author believes that aromanticism is a choice. It is not. I was born aromantic and even if I choose to get into a relationship that does not make me any less aro. This is also implying that (gay) romance is inherently violent, which is Homophobia 101.

If you already have a romantic partner, we are not asking you to “leave” them, but to aspire to love them in a different, queerer way.

There's no such thing as more or less queer. If you're queer, and you love someone, congratulations, that's queer love. It doesn't become more queer if you call it something other than romance.

I'm not going to go over the last part, but this last quote is some icing on the cake of homophobia we've just eaten.

Just be aware that similar hierarchies of desirability exist in sex as in romance.

It shouldn't be a hot take in the year 2023 that claiming that all sex is bad is a very culturally Christian thing to do, as well as being very traditionally homophobic. Sex negativity is weaponized against queer people far more often that it is against cishets.

To conclude, I'm just going to say that this manifesto takes real frustrations that even I have with amatonormativity, and turns them into denial that romance exists, and blatant homophobia. It's also very hard to understand, so if I misinterpreted something, please do let me know. While I do think that aphobia is bad, being homophobic isn't a solution and is just going to cause us to be hated even more, as well as alienating gay aros.

[that-nerd-who-writes-fanfiction]

Okay, if you were asked who are in Merlin BBC that you can see based on canon that are gay/bi/pan/demi, which characters are they? Why?

I’m just gonna note that I’m not attached to any sexuality headcanon because people are going to have different opinions and it seems daft to lose more than half the fan content (art, fics, etc) just because of a headcanon. I’ll read more or less anything, I play around with queer themes in my writing fairly regularly and multiship everyone in the show, sometimes with characters from other fandoms too, but these are the sexualities I’ve written most of for each character otherwise this would be way too long.

And I know I’m assigning modern understandings of sexuality to medieval characters, but it’s a show with dragons and magic, also capes, a French castle, and whatever the hell that chainmail was so I think I can be excused for my historical inaccuracy.

Merlin: either gay or bi with a a preference for men. I could never get myself to really like Freya in the show, she wasn’t bad and I didn’t hate her, I usually just forget about her because it was one episode so I didn’t have enough time to get attached. She deserved more screen time and I love what the fandom has done with her character, but I usually see her where Merlin’s shipped with someone else so I honestly forget their romance exists most of the time. Other than that, I usually see him shipped with knights or Arthur or if he’s shipped with another woman, it’s someone who didn’t get enough screen time to get attached, or a mergwenthur (is that their ship name?) poly relationship.

Arthur: bi and demi. He needs time to like someone, canonically only started wearing a shirt after he got married but he walked around his chambers naked when it was just Merlin/no sexual implications in a servant of two masters. I’ve done deep dive character analysis into that and what it says for their trust of one another if anyone’s interested. It goes into them being platonic but acting like a couple and why meant so much for me to see as a kid and also why I think that proves their relationship is more than words can fully encapsulate. Also he’s had crushes on men and women so bi just fits.

Gwen: bi with a preference for men, she and Morgana had chemistry and I ship them pre season 3 but after that, not so much. Also had crushes on Lancelot, Merlin and married Arthur. They’re an adorable couple, honestly I love them. I don’t really have much else to say.

Morgana: aroace lesbian. Just my favourite headcanon, I like that she never had a canon relationship but she definitely had chemistry with Gwen. They’re just sweet together. I don’t know, mostly just vibes and my desire for more aroace rep.

Lancelot: bi with a preference for women. Gwen and Merlin. Yeah, that’s pretty much all I have to say. I just love that he’s such a great guy, I don’t think there’s anything more to it than two crushes in canon and vibes. I’ve written him as unlabelled or queer a fair amount, it really just depends.

Leon: Romance and sex averse aroace. Again, I just want representation and think he’s cool. I’ve seen him shipped with others, but I tend to default to aroace Leon in my own works more than anything else. Occasionally I’ll give him a qpr but it just depends on what I’m writing.

Gwaine: aromatic pansexual, he likes flirting but I think the idea of a permanent long term relationship would be “the one to tie him down” and it never entirely fits right. I’ve seen him shipped with Percival, I love that but usually if I’m writing it, I’ll have them in a qpr. I think he definitely feels low levels of romantic attraction but not enough to want a romantic relationship with someone, he loves so much, just not in the traditional ways and writing aroallo Gwaine is always super fun.

Elyan: I headcanon Elyan as trans masc but I don’t think I’ve got any specific headcanons for his sexuality. I’ve probably written him straight slightly more than anything else, but it’s a close tie between writing him straight and bi. It never usually comes up, so maybe just unlabelled or queer. I don’t know, he’s just Elyan. That’s all really.

Percival: I know in canon he had a wife and kids, I write him as being gay more than anything else, but my main headcanon tends to be that he’s bi or pan. Purely based on vibes but if it’s not relevant to the plot, I won’t bother mentioning it.

[sun-citadel]

The violet sapphic flag

I decided to start work on a sapphic flag, as the original one did not feel inclusive to masculine presenting sapphics. The inclusive sapphic flag also felt too random for me to feel aligned, so I spent time researching a flag design

Excuse any spelling mistakes, English isn't my first language.

Info below. Original thread here. Tiktok version [ without typos ]

1. Why violets ?

The poetry of Sapphos often included talk of violet crowns, with one of her famous poems reading ;

` … Many crowns of violets,

roses and crocuses

…together you set before more

and many scented wreaths

made from blossoms

around your soft throat… `

Violets historically are considered a symbol of sapphic love and the LGBT movement, and are seen in pop culture, such as the cult classic lesbian movie, Bound. A 1926 play also involved a woman sending violets to another, as a potential nod to Sapphos. When the poem was censored / boycotted, women would send violets in support.

To say violets were not a part of LGBT + , and primarily spaphic / lesbian history would be a false statement.

2. Why these colours ?

I colour picked from violets themselves, primarily the African and common violet. One for their inclusion of white, and the other for its range of hues from more blue to magenta. I felt they could align with the various presentations seen within sapphic culture, as I myself ID as transmasculine / presently as a soft butch. There are those who are transfemme, femme, masc, androgynous, etc., and this various spectrum of colours I feel could align with how the community is not just one, but various shade of violet.

I spent time researching LGBT history, and have come up with meanings for these specific colours. They were carefully chosen for both traditional colour meanings, as well as symbolisms that align with the LGBT+ community.

From lavander to pink, both colours have a history of representing the community, and have become symbols reclaimed. From sapphos flowers, to the pink triangle, it is important to remember our history and struggles. Pink triangles itself was used as a symbol for transwomen, as an identifier for example [ as well as gay individuals, but this isn't about them at this time ] , but have been reclaimed to represent lgbt+ rights and our struggles. It is important to never forget those who came before us.

Each colour was picked based off traditional meanings, as well as identifying traits of the community.

3. Colour meanings?

From top to bottom, these colour meanings are ;

1. Femininity, health.

Pink is associated with femininity, so this is for the purely femme presenting individuals, whether trans, nb, or however they ID. It also is the colour of love, and health [ ex , ` everything is rosy ` meaning good ] .

2. Love, compassion.

A lighter shade of pink is usually associated with love, and with love comes compassion and understanding.

3. Youth and age.

From our lives comes the fact that, we as sapphics, lesbians, etc. know that deep down, this is who we truly are. Whether you're young, or come to the realization later, we live life as our authentic self. May we grow old and happy.

4. Limitless potential.

With those who are not afraid to break the gender / sexual binary, and present in ways uncaring of societal norms.

Whether trans, nonbinary, asexual, or uncaring of labels, I hope you find who you truly are.

5. Soft masculinity.

To be soft and masculine is frowned upon in society, but some of us present in ways that we deem just right. It is an oxymoron on many levels to those who do not understand, but we are indifferent and stand tall.

6. Wisdom.

With our history, we can learn and grow, it is important to never forget it. Ever on we march to assure that we are treated as equals.

7. Serenity, masculinity.

A nod to the original flag that brought us here, while also representing the other side of the spectrum for fully masc individuals. Once again, this is for those in the trans umbrella, or comfortable in their gender.

4. Who can use it ?

Sapphics or anyone who falls into that general category.

TERF / SWERFS / anyone not inclusive of the trans community are not permitted.

Please do not use if m - spec lesbian.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

which romance novels have you liked the most and also which ones have you disliked the most??

YEAH LET'S GO!!!

Helen Hoang is my absolute #1 ride or die, anything she writes I'm here for forever. I do think that Kiss Quotient is the weakest of her books, which isn't shocking from a first novel, but the sex is solid and she got SIGNIFICANTLY better for the Bride Test and the Heart Principle. those were the best romances I read in 2023 and the competition is not close, Bride Test in particular is just a heap of fun.

Alexis Hall's A Lady for a Duke is also pretty excellent, just really dreamy trans woman historical romance with the most #woke and fuckable 19th century duke who ever lived. yes the duke gets over his alcoholism and laudanum addiction way too fast. yes there's an insane shoehorned Wickham-running-off-with-Lydia style plot at the end that comes out of nowhere and doesn't really make the story better. no there's no enough sex. but who cares? just have fun with it.

I also really really enjoyed Lauren Kung Jessen's Lunar Love but like... entirely because I was reading the protagonist, Olivia, as like a Rachel Bloom Crazy Ex-Girlfriend type who's so obsessed with the Chinese zodiac because she has an undiagnosed personality disorder. that's definitely not what the intent was but I think Olivia should have been allowed to be way MORE unhinged, tbh. I think Olivia should be allowed to kill.

as for the dishonorable mentions... god.

Tessa Bailey's Unfortunately Yours is ATROCIOUS. unbearable characters and dialogue that feels like listening to a garbage disposal and sex scenes that almost ruptured my spleen because I was laughing so hard. also the premise was just. very dumb. I Cannot Handle fake relationship books where the characters are stupid about it. the only part of it I like was the female protag's mom, a frigid evil milf who could keep me like a purse dog.

speaking of fake relationships, Chencia Higgins' book D'vaughn and Kris Plan a Wedding was also a huge letdown. the premise of two strangers having to fake a relationship on a reality tv show is good silly fun but Higgins just seemed like... DEEPLY uninterested in the reality tv aspect except as an excuse for how the characters met? when camera crew politely agreed not to film D'Vaughn coming out to her family, that was some bullshit. the whole book is just really sloppy, it's very disheartening that this is like THE #1 Black lesbian romance that I see recommended because it sucks and Black lesbians deserve soooo much better.

Kiss Her Once for Me by Alison Cochrun has been one of the hardest books to read because the protagonist/POV character is just soooo whiny and insufferable. she's supposed to be a very #relatable smol bean but god she was exhausting, I couldn't stand her.

[molsno]

Your post on transandrophobia was the first time i'd heard of it and it from just reading your post it made sense why it couldn't be real. But i didnt want to adopt a new belief against something without looking into why people are for it. Upon reading many other posts and doing a bunch of thinking i now have a few thoughts on your post id appreciate your input on as you seem understanding and extremely well-read

please correct me if i'm wrong, but your argument against transandrophobia is that transandrophobia as the combination of androphobia/misandry and transphobia (to mirror transmisogyny being a combination of misogyny and transphobia) cannot exist because androphobia/misandry does not exist

you are completely correct that misandry does not exist in the same systemic way that misogyny does, it would be idiotic to argue otherwise, but our current system of gender stereotypes/expectations does also negatively impact men. Men are seen as inherently violent, dangerous, emotionless, and too sexual. (ie. men aren't belived when victims of rape bc/they must've enjoyed it, men are more likely to be incarcerated)

Men's Rights Activists and people like them were wrong in believing they suffered more than women and that women gaining rights was the cause of their suffering, but they did correctly identify that men also suffered from the patriarchy (and im forever gonna be salty that they were so close to understanding but instead of engaging in solidarity they decided to be misogynist about it)

When combined with other forms of oppression the often excused or ignored negative associations with masculinity are viewed as horrible problems

For example black men have to constantly make themselves less threatening when near white women because it is assumed they have malicious intent. Historically many many black men have been lynched in order to 'protect' white women. Yes it was very much racism, but it wasn't a coincidence that black men were the victims far more than black women.

Lesbians have historically been seen as inherently masculine therefore dangerous and predatory. The same associations now are used to justify transwomen being banned from women's spaces because they must be inherently masculine therefore inherently sexually predatory.

There is a narrative that Testosterone should be avoided for transmascs because it will make them into ugly violent monsters.

In specifically queer spaces there is often a strong stigma against being proud to be masculine. Which makes sense as most of the groups and people who have been openly proud of their masculinity before have been actively advocating for the elimination of queer people, but masculinity in itself is not anti-queer and shouldn't be treated as such.

There are many transmasc struggles seperate from transfem struggles that could potentially be more accurately described as an intersection of misogyny and transphobia, such as the infantilization and denial of control over our bodies, but because transfem people have established transmisogyny as a term to talk about their struggles and because there are several struggles resulting from our specifically trans masculinity, transandrophobia was chosen instead to not encroach on transfem's space while still having the ability to speak about our struggles.

thank you if you actually spent the time to read this and i genuinely hope you have a great day :]

thank you for being open to criticism with these ideas but oof, there's a lot to unpack here. frankly, I find it a little hard to believe you'd never heard the word transandrophobia before, considering you're regurgitating all of its talking points. you say that misandry doesn't exist at a systemic level, but then all of these points are framed as if it does. we'll go through that, but first, some foundations:

our current gender system may negatively impact men in a few narrow circumstances, but it is ultimately self-inflicted (even if some women do uphold it), and still benefits them. men are perceived as violent, dangerous, and too sexual because they continue to perpetuate a gender system that oppresses women with sexual violence. still, to this day, marital rape is not punished with the same severity as non-marital rape. still, to this day, women stay in abusive relationships out of fear that their boyfriends/husbands will commit acts of violence against them if they try to leave.

do you understand? violence, and ESPECIALLY sexual violence, is a tool men wield to maintain power, sometimes over other men, but especially over women. they wield this tool voluntarily because it benefits them, even if it does have its drawbacks in some circumstances. violence is punishable under the law, which is why men who perpetrate violence against other men tend to be incarcerated at higher rates than men who perpetrate violence against women. after all, women aren't considered full human beings with equal rights, so violence against them isn't a severe offense. our society was structured around the premise that women are men's property with which they can do whatever they want. that's why, for instance, when men are raped by women, they aren't believed; the very concept of a woman wielding sexual power over men is unthinkable in the eyes of society.

misogyny is one of the oldest forms of oppression - it's existed since nearly the dawn of society itself, and has existed in cultures all over the world for thousands of years. as a result, it is baked into the very foundation of society. if your analysis of gendered systems doesn't begin from this basic fact, then your analysis is incorrect.

certainly, men uphold very rigid, overly-restrictive notions of masculinity which can harm them in some cases, but this "toxic masculinity" as it's come to be known is really just a means of threatening other men with transmisogyny. I've written a whole post about it here.

with all of that out of the way, let's go through the rest of your examples of supposed misandry one by one.

first, while you are correct that there is a long history of violence being enacted upon black men because they are perceived as a threat to white women, the cause of this phenomenon is just racism. as you will recall in an earlier paragraph, I stated that men are perceived as violent and dangerous because they uphold a system of sexual ownership over women. any man that may pose a threat to another man's ownership over a woman must be punished with violence. now, black people regardless of gender are seen as hypersexual in this white supremacist society, so when it comes to black men in particular, they are perceived as being more likely to threaten a white man's ownership over a white woman - hence the amount of violence they face.

now, I need to say, I'm white, and while I do my best to learn about racism and how it intersects with other forms of oppression, my understanding will always be limited by my privilege as a white person. I've never experienced racism and I never will, so I don't have the full nuance to explain this topic in particular that comes with lived experience. that being said, I find it very callous and cruel that transandrophobia truthers repeatedly use the violence black men face as "proof" of their beliefs, especially because they act like black women aren't also subjected to racist violence, which they very much are. here's a thread by two black bloggers about this topic that I think discusses this phenomenon better than I ever could - be sure to check the read more link in it.

moving on, your point about lesbians and trans women (note the space) is, frankly, extremely insulting. misandry is not a part of my oppression. people don't hate me because I'm masculine, they hate me because I'm a tranny. they hate me SPECIFICALLY because I reject manhood in its entirety. they hate me because my very existence calls into question the validity of the assumptions that 1. there are two opposite mutually exclusive genders with absolutely no overlap and 2. manhood and masculinity is inherently superior to womanhood and femininity. that's why they portray people like me as a threat to cis women. if I'm free to exist in the way that makes me happiest, then the gender system that gives men absolute unchecked power over women will crumble. lesbians are also reviled and viewed as predatory for their rejection of subservience to men and their attraction to women, which - again, threatens men's control over them.

I'm going to go out of order here and address your point about queer spaces being hostile to masculinity. it just isn't true. I've never seen a single person provide an adequate explanation for how there is a stigma in queer spaces against masculinity that wasn't just lesbophobia and transmisogyny in disguise. it always boils down to "waah lesbians and trans women are mean to men and people who like men :(", a la this post.

now, last but not least, your points about transmascs. they're discouraged from transitioning because we live in a transphobic society. there is nothing unique about that. transfems are subjected to the exact same rhetoric.

transmascs do not experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. they may experience both of these, but they are not intersecting, and any assertion to the contrary demonstrates an abysmal understanding of intersection, whether willfully or not. I've already written another post about this exact topic.

I hope this was helpful, but for future reference, I'm going to say this: most women are not going to be so patient and understanding when you approach them with a giant wall of text asking them to explain misogyny to you. I did not have to do any of this for you, and you shouldn't expect me to. I've already written and reblogged many posts about the topics you've brought up here, as you've seen, and you could have easily found most of them by looking through my writing and transmisogyny tags. I hope you have a good day, but please do not do this again.

[arwainian]

Reading This Week 2024 #27

words

Finished:

Counting Out Stitches by chinuplargepup (chinuplilpup) on ao3 ough... Dick and Joey....what an excellent point in time to set this too

The King is Dead, Long Live the King by Havendance on ao3 an excellent fic about what if Batman actually for real died and stayed dead. sad, interesting, very well written, I'd been meaning to finish it for ages and just this past week finally read the third and final chapter

a conversation at 4:30am by xscintillate on ao3

the rest of the Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast's fiction backlog:

"Cardinal's Gambit" by Catherine Lundoof, narrated by Onerae Clark "Your Fingers Like Pen and Ink" by Jeannelle M. Ferreira, narrated by Violet Dixon "Give Us This Day" by Jennifer Nestojko "A Soldier in the Army of Love" by Diane Morrison, narrated by Laura Pinson "The Adventuress" by Catherine Lundoff, narrated by Heather Rose Jones "Margaret" by Eleanor Musgrove, narrated by Heather Rose Jones "Moon River" by Mandy Mongkolyuth, narrated by Heather Rose Jones "Abstract" by Kat Sinor, narrated by Jasmine Arch "Palio" by Gwen C. Katz, narrated by Violet Dixon "The Spirit of Cabassus" by Ursula Whitcher, narrated by Heather Rose Jones "A Farce to Suit the New Girl" by Rebecca Fraimow, narrated by Violet Dixon "The Wolf that Sings on the Mountain" by Miyuki Jane Pinckard "From the Bird's Nest" by Jennifer Nestojko, narrated by Emma Ross "The Pirate in the Mirror" by Catherine Lundoof, narrated by Heather Rose Jones "To the Fair Muse who, Loving Me, Imagin'd More" by Annemarie KD, narrated by Heather Rose Jones "The Salt Price" by B. Pladek, narrated by Jasmine Arch "Battling Poll" by Rose Cullen, narrated by Heather Rose Jones "Daughters of Derbyshire" by Daniel Stride, narrated by Heather Rose Jones

my favorites were "A farce to suit the new girl" and "Battling Poll"! check them out, and check out the whole podcast

We Could Be So Good by Cat Sebastian like I said last week when I started reading it, enjoyable but not super compelling! But i like the relationship dynamic that's set up between the leads, so it was sweet and I finished it

"Consent" by Emily A. Owens absolutely a must read in terms of thinking through what the place of consent is in discussions of sex and sexual violence

"Sexual Violation and the Question of Experience" by Linda Martín Alcoff

"On Not Being a Victim: Sex, Rape, and the trouble with following rules" by Mary Gaitskill an essay on date/acquaintance rape, and how we understand being and feeling violated. it takes a little digression into attitudes about PC moral purity in opinions about media. all of it written from a personal anecdotal perspective that I think is written deeply compassionately to one's past self and will be sticking with me. however I don't like how it picks up race as a topic at the beginning and then quickly drops it

"Convicted Rapists' Vocabulary of Motive: Excuses and Justifications" by Diana Scully and Joseph Marolla

"The Right (Way) to Represent: The Emotional Politics of Remembering Mass Rape in Germany After 1945" by Katherine Stone

Always the Almost by Edward Underhill recently released YA romance I read for the queer lit bookclub bc its a gay romance involving a newly out trans boy. I have many complaints but the group chat has already heard them

Witch Hat Atelier, Vol. 12 by Kamome Shirahama, translated by Stephen Kohler I finished reading this RIGHT before I saw the trailer for the anime. i am overjoyed! excellent art and storytelling as always

Uzumaki by Junji Ito finished reading this right after the new Shelved by Genre episode came out, bc its due back at the library soon! has the sort of dramatic denouement that I was missing in Tomie

"The Unwanted Guest" by Tamsyn Muir borrowed @quiriusblack's copy of Nona the Ninth to finally read this bonus story. i love palamedes he's so insufferable

What Did You Eat Yesterday? Vol. 11 by Fumi Yoshinaga, transalted by Jocelyn Allen cute as always

Started/Ongoing:

You Should be So Lucky by Cat Sebastian set in the same friend group as we could be so good, this one has marginally more plot and I'm liking in better! love the main couple, and I like that they have similar struggles to the first around like living authentically as gay people in the 1950s and 60s and also trying to live safely

The Way of the Househusband, Vol. 11 by Kousuke Oono thought I had already read this but I guess I had not! as always light silly fun

[zinnie-zoloft]

Things I think should happen in Our Flag Means Death

1. Buttons tells the crew about haggises

Half of them want to see one and the other half are like “there’s no way those are real”

Someone should convince Stede to hunt down a haggis, I think he’d be very easy to convince and 100% down for it

2. The ship gets a cat

The ship develops a rat problem so they get a cat to deal with it

They don’t know what to name it so everyone comes up with suggestions

Frenchie is convinced the cat is trying to curse him

Izzy ends up bonding with the cat and is ultimately the one who names it

His threatening demeanour is severely undermined by the fact he’s carrying around a fluffy cat

3. The “none of us speak English” excuse

The crew needs to get out of a situation and they do so by pretending none of them speak English

This seems like a good idea because most of them are bilingual, however problems arise when they have to communicate with each other but they can’t use English and don’t have another language in common

4. Anne Bonny and Mary Read

They probably know Ed and Izzy through Calico Jack

We have so many gay pirates it’s time we have some lesbians too

More potential non-binary representation with Mary/Mark

5. Ching Shih the pirate queen

Ok so she existed like 100 years after the events of the show but historical accuracy isn’t exactly a top priority

Zheng Yi Sao aka Ching Shih married pirate captain Zheng Yi and later took over his fleet after he died

She is one of the most successful pirates in history there’s literally so much potential here

Ed suggested he and Stede run away to China and I still think they should go on their honeymoon there, this would be the perfect opportunity to introduce her

Just some ideas for potential episodes and plotlines, if anyone wants to write something based on these then go for it

[teddy-stonehill]

Top 5 books read in 2023

I'm gonna claim I was tagged by @thevagueambition lol

Somehow 2023 was actually the year I started reading books again, so it was actually a little bit difficult for me to narrow it down to 5 favorites, but I did my best. In no particular order:

Ammonite by Niccola Griffith

Ammonite has the feeling of a true classic golden-era sci-fi novel, and has an almost cliche high-concept sci-fi premise: What if a mysterious disease wiped out all the men on a planet, and the women who were left somehow evolved to survive as a species without them?

But the way Niccola Griffith approaches the concept is far from cliche. She takes an anthropological approach to it, rather than a bio-essentialist one. Often, writers will use single-sex societies as a sort of excuse to explore and highlight the specific things that they think make women fundamentally different from men or vice versa, and it ends up being a roundabout way of enforcing our societies naturalized ideas about the gender binary. Niccola Griffith doesn't do that. Instead, she takes the opportunity of a single-sex society to ask other questions, like, "How might a society organize itself if sex was not a viable category to define people and assign them roles by? How would the notion of 'family' change if the whole process of pregnancy and childbirth was fundamentally different? What other sorts of differences between people emerge, if sex difference is removed?" and so on.

And more than that, it's just an incredibly well-written book that also very thoughtfully explores themes of colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism. It has compelling characters and one of the sweetest, most tender lesbian romances I've ever read.

When I recommended the book to my parents I described it as a Robin McKinley style fantasy book (thinking particularly of Dragonhaven) meets and Ursula K. Le Guin style sci-fi novel. So if that means anything to you, that might tell you a lot about what's going on here. I highly recommend it!

The Care and Feeding of Waspish Widows by Olivia Waite

I actually read the entirety of Olivia Waite's Feminine Pursuits trilogy this year, and while they were all enjoyable enough, The Care and Feeding of Waspish Widows was by far my favorite. It's standalone enough that I would actually recommend reading just that and skipping the rest of the trilogy, unless you're very into historical lesbian romance (as I am) and out of stuff to read.

The Care and Feeding of Waspish Widows is a romance about a printer and a beekeeper, both of them on the older side for romance-novel protagonists (which I appreciate). Agatha, the printer, even has a grown adult son. The book takes a really grounded and thoughtful approach to the historical elements, and the romance blossoms really naturally out of their growing friendship.

If you end up looking it up, don't let the goofy cover fool you (although I actually really like the goofy cover lol). This is a very sweet and down-to-earth novel in a way that I found pleasantly surprising in the genre.

The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet by Becky Chambers

This is also a book that took me by surprise. I wasn't really sure what to expect from it when I started it, but what it ended up being was a novel I would compare to a season of a really good ensemble sci-fi TV series.

The plot structure was oddly episodic for a novel, which is part of what enhances the "season of a TV show" feeling, but somehow I found that I didn't really mind that. The characters, worldbuilding, and themes were all strong enough to keep me engaged throughout. I especially appreciated the focus on the labor which would be required to make advanced technological civilizations function in this kind of a setting.

And if any of that sounds appealing to you, you'll definitely like this book.

Every single book ever written by KJ Charles

Okay, this is a slight exaggeration, because I haven't quite managed to read every book ever written by KJ Charles just yet, and some of the more fantastical ones of hers don't really interest me that much. But in a year where I read a lot of gay historical romance fiction, KJ Charles stood out as, consistently and by a wide margin, my absolute favorite author currently working in the genre.

In particular I want to shout out Proper English, Think of England, Band Sinister, The Gentle Art of Fortune Hunting, and The Secret Lives of Country Gentlemen as my absolute favorites of hers. Yes, I know including 5 favorite books nested within my list of 5 favorite books is cheating. I don't care.

The Tombs of Atuan by Urusula K. Le Guin

It honestly is shocking and shameful that I had somehow never read the entirety of the Earthsea books before this year, and I'm sure none of you need me to tell you that Ursula Le Guin is a good writer, but damn... Ursula Le Guin is a good writer.

The Tombs of Atuan in particular was SO extremely up my alley in every single way that I actually at times felt genuinely jealous that I wasn't the one who had written it. I only hope I can one day write something at least half-as-good, because holy shit.

Honorable mention to The Mercies by Kiran Millwood Hargrave

I haven't actually finished this book, partially because it's SO far up my alley that reading it is such an intense experience that I've had to be careful about when I'm actually feeling up to reading it. It's a fairly dark book, and difficult to read at times, but it's also beautiful and compelling and again, just so grounded and well-researched in its historical setting it's incredible.

If you like slow historical burn tragedies about women trying to survive in difficult circumstances... you gotta read this. You just gotta.

I won't tag anyone, but if you want to share your favorite books of 2023, make a post and say that I tagged you! I'm genuinely interested in hearing about what people are reading, because I'm running out of stuff to read and I want to know what's out there. :)

[sapphicwriterao3]

I’ve been sending in a lot of asks so excuse me if I tend to be a bit bothersome 🤣 I guess what I want to know (provided you are comfortable telling) what hobbies do you enjoy? I am a very big reader I have been since a young age. I tend to read a lot historical fiction. Although just recently I am reading more YA which was a bit of a change for me. I tend to enjoy history, I’m planning on being a historian with a degree in genealogical research. Although I am just finishing up my first year of uni. I like to collect old coins, I have a ton from England and wales. I also write. I’ve been writing for years now. It’s mostly sapphic stuff. I have one story I’m working on about a young girl who discovers she has unique abilities It’s set in modern Salem Massachusetts. It deals with supernatural creatures and vampires (it’s literally so sapphic 😭) (not the typical modern idea of vampires. I made them slightly more complex than the typical twilight) 🤣 not sure if you were interested in all that but I tend to ramble a lot. -🤓

you're not bothersome, darling! I've always been a massive reader too, actually. It's lessened in recent years because I got busier, but I've always been a big YA fantasy girlie myself. I'm leaning a little more into contemporary fiction these days, but fantasy is very much a comfort genre for me. I do typically find it harder for me to immerse myself in historical fiction for some reason, although it might be that I've never held particular interest in like "period drama" type scandal. Supernatural historical fiction? might be great.

A historian, you say? Very lesbian of you. What does genealogical research entail? I presume its something to do with uncovering ancestry?

SAPPHIC BOOK?? if you need a lil beta reader or some shit, send it my way, I beg of you. It sounds really interesting!!

[zucchinibread777books]

More Than a Best Friend Book Review

More Than a Best Friend (Don’t Want You Like a Best Friend) by Emma Alban Book Review

Summary:

When Beth enters her first season, she finds that the only friend she can make is the slightly infamous Gwen, who is already a few seasons in with no sign of a match. After learning that their (recently single) parents have history with each other, they become determined to set up their own match. Little did they know that they would find their own love in the process.

The good:

I thought that this was a super cute lesbian romance! It was just the right length for this kind of story and I’ll definitely be reading the sequel when it comes out.

I really appreciate that this wasn’t some sort of enemies to lovers arc. I’ve had to avoid a lot of lesbian romances recently because they all seem to start with one character who is just absolutely horrible but is excused because of some trauma they’ll reveal later. Those romances always make it seem like the two characters would be the most toxic relationship and I just can’t stand them. There’s also usually emphasis on one of them being closeted. Despite this being a period piece, there wasn’t a lot of focus on them coming to terms with liking someone of the same gender. Gwen and Beth were a cute match from the start and I found myself rooting for them immediately. Rather than drama between the two of them, it was mostly outside issues that prevented them from being together.

Even with those outside influences, there wasn’t really any homophobia against the main characters. In fact, there was no direct homophobia against them, just mentions of how society would view them. It’s a nice break for people who are tired of homophobia being such a main theme in queer stories.

I also really loved that there was an older lesbian couple in this story too. It’s so nice to see different generations of queer characters and have them give advice and talk to one another. Gwen especially had such a great support system and I was so glad they weren’t entirely alone as they went through their issues.

The Bad:

If you are looking for something historically accurate, this definitely isn’t for you. There were a lot of times I noticed certain phrasing and lingo that was so modern it took me out of it a bit. Not necessarily modern slang, but definitely not language that would be used in the time period it is set in. And as much as I loved the lack of homophobia, the amount of characters who knew and accepted their relationship was definitely not realistic.

Adding on to that, the sex scenes. They were very unrealistic for the time period, especially because of how entirely public they were. Even in the comfort of their own homes, they should have worried a lot more about being caught. I also just personally wish they weren’t so integral to the story. I understand smut is really big in the publishing world right now thanks to things like booktok, but once the characters had sex it felt like that was their only motivation for anything. The constant mention of each others fingers having been inside them really took me out of the story.

I’m always iffy on relationships like the one in this book too. Where parents get together and their respective kids also get together. Step siblings being a couple just feels odd to me. It felt right for the situation they were placed in but still.

This is also a personal pet peeve but I’m really not a fan of main characters having similar names. Beth and Gwen were very easy to confuse, being the same length and the only vowel being e. They were interchangeable in my brain for a while. Mason and Montson were even worse. If it weren’t for context clues, I would’ve assumed I misread and they were the same person.

Overall:

I thought this was really good, especially for a debut novel. It definitely took influence from a lot of popular stories, including Parent Trap and Bridgerton, but put its own spin on them. (It also reminded me a little of the comic High Class Homos) I enjoyed reading it a lot and it was a good break from the heavier-topic books that I was in the process of reading at the same time. I’m not sure it’s at the top of my reread list because it did hit a few of my pet peeves, but I definitely want to read the sequel. I’d also recommend it for anyone looking to read more cute lesbian romances!

3.5 Stars

[olderthannetfic]

I’ve been lurking here for a while now and I just gotta say this. There’s this constant undercurrent argument about lgbtq/cis harassment. LGBTQ anons and commenters describing how they’re harassed for their lgbtq headcanons, and cis anons and commenters describing how they’re harassed for their cis headcanons and it often seems neither side fully accepts the reality of the other.

Let me start by saying that historically, of course it is the lgbtq side that has had it much worse in terms of suppression and harassment. There’s no question about that and anyone denying that is dreaming.

The thing is, in this current climate, no one has it better. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. It all depends where you choose to share your headcanons and content. On Reddit for example, lgbtq headcanons and fan content will get a lot of abuse, on Tumblr, cis headcanons and content gets harassment and let’s not pretend otherwise. Both sides face unwanted interactions and bullying and saying that getting shit for cis headcanons and content doesn’t matter because historically they’ve had it too good…excuse me, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

The ones harassing lgbtq members of fandom are toxic, conservative and incel types. The ones harassing cis members are the militant, vocal minority of the lgbtq community. Let’s not pretend that the average teenage girl/boy who just wants to doodle their favourite ship after school is the one hurling abuse. It’s coming from people with extreme views and they’re present on both sides.

The problem comes from two things. Firstly, where you post about your headcanons. I post m/f fan content and on some platforms it’s very well received, on others not so much. Secondly, there are many people who, either through plain ignorance or wilful stupidity, equate people not explicitly agreeing with their headcanons or content as a moral failing.

Antis do it. But proshippers do it too. I’ve seen plenty of subtle and not so subtle examples from anons and commenters here.

Let me be frank. Many cis people are not interested in lgbtq headcanons. They just aren’t. It is not their experience. They can’t relate to it. It isn't a sign of phobia or hate. Just like I’m sure many lgbtq people are not particularly interested cis/hetero headcanons. And let me very clear I am talking about HEADCANONS ONLY here. Personally, I’m not interested in seeing posts describing in detail why a character from X anime is gay/lesbian/bi/trans/pan/ace etc when it has never been officially confirmed. I am not interested in reading HEADCANONED m/m, f/f or other lgbtq fanfic or seeing that fanart. If you like that sort of thing, fantastic. You do you. I, personally, do not care about or spend time thinking about characters' sexualities beyond canon. Conor and Oliver from ‘How To Get Away With Murder’? Adorable. Soojong and Taehoon from ‘An Innocent Sin’? Compelling. Deku and Bakugo? Nope. Sherlock and Watson? No thanks. I’ll never see that as anything more than a wonderful friendship.

And the thing is, I’m sure there are people who will get really, really irrationally aggressive about me saying this. Who think that because I quietly have zero interest in and avoid lgbtq headcanons that that somehow makes me phobic or hateful towards the lgbtq community. And I have to say, what I enjoy in my fandom space has absolutely no bearing on what I do and how I treat people in real life, as hard as that is to believe for many active in fandom spaces. For some reason, it’s fiction is not the same as reality until you don’t engage with or produce fan content in the ‘right’ way.

Someone not interested in engaging with or supporting or even liking particular headcanons, no matter how popular they are, has nothing to say about their actual morals. Not being interested in and not hyping up this or that headcanon and instead producing content that's the opposite of a popular headcanon is not the same as actively hating a real life group of people. And I’m surprised I have to say this but I do.

I will march with and stand with whatever group is being unfairly treated, whether it’s based on class, sex, race or other and campaign for social and political change FOR REAL PEOPLE because that’s what actually matters. Just because I mute and block the m/m tag in my fandom doesn’t make me homophobic or hateful. You know why I block it? Because m/m does absolutely nothing for me, but more importantly, I’m in love with one of the main characters and seeing him romantically involved with anyone, girl or guy, makes me upset. So I block all romantic and shippy tags related to the character. Sometimes it’s just like that. It has nothing to do with being against the lgbtq community but for very strange and personal reasons. Or very benign reasons. Maybe people just don’t want to deal with sexuality discourse in their fandom space because it’s where they come to relax and forget about all political and social stuff and just shitpost memes.

Your headcanons are your headcanons and no one will take them away from you. Both cis and lgbtq sides get shit for their content from a vocal, toxic minority on different platforms these days and everyone needs to remember the old ‘Don’t like, don’t read.’ The more we keep going on about who has it worse, the more divisive fandom spaces will become, even worse than they are now.

--

I loathe headcanon posts in general, though I like well-supported meta essays.

[colorisbyshe]

i really don’t want to read the seven husband of eleanor hugo but i want to know what happens. why is it so bad like i assumed it would be but i need to hear the exact specific shitty details!!! (if you don’t mind sharing)

*Evelyn Hugo, not Eleanor

(Scroll down to my TLDR section if this is too much)

But... to start off, I need to stay that it's written by a straight, white woman and it is about... a lot of women of color. And the "soulmate" relationship in the book is about a lesbian and a bisexual woman and the bisexual woman is best friends with a gay man.

So, the author is writing about a lot of things she doesn't... really have experience with. I've given my complicated opinion on "Own Voices" which is that it CAN be okay to write outside of your own identity but the onus is on you to get it very, very right. This book... doesn't.

But beyond it just handling race and sexuality HORRIBLY, including a weird line where a gay man admits to always ~a little bit~ wanting to sleep with the bisexual lead and the biracial interviewer admitting she preferred her white husband because he never made her feel like she wasn't black enough (which is VERY odd for a white author to throw in, it made me viscerally uncomfortable).

The book is just... not good. It is EVERY SINGLE "Old hollywood wasn't glamorous, you have to sleep your way to the top and sell your soul" cliche but like... updated to include gay people. The main character's first marriage has domestic violence and her "soulmate' relationship with teh lesbian has the EXACT same patterns of abuse except it's emotional abuse and not physical abuse nad it's just... excused as like? Oh, you know how she can get sometimes...

There's a weird plot where the lesbian is UPSET that her bisexual gf won't be out (WHILE THE LESBIAN GF IS ALSO CLOSETED) IN THE 60S. She's like "Okay, so we might be jailed or forcibly institutionalized and lose our careers, but if you REALLY LOVE ME, you won't be closeted" WHICH IS INSANE. ANd part of the patterns of abuse in the relationship.

The book is fucking boring. It's slog of cliches just mixed in with "But I love this woman so much" even though their love is never really established, just stated. And what we see is the abuse.

There's a VERY weird plot twist where the main character reveals the interviewer's (black) father didn't die from driving drunk. Instead, the black father wa sin a relationship with Evelyn's white gay best friend and the white gay best friend drove drunk, KILLED the dad, and Evelyn moved his dead body to make it seem liek her dad killed himself.

And she knew it was her dad because... he VERY conveniently wrote out a letter saying "I'm a dad, I love my kid, I am also gay for you, but my wife is my platonic soulmate. My name ___. I love you" and the white guy (WHO WAS THE ONE WHO KILLED HER DAD) had the ltter in his pocket?

A VERY weird contrivance.

More weirdness: the book stops, COMPLETELY, to go on SEVERAL like basic diatribes about how like bi erasure is bad, the word whore is used by men to control women, and other like... baby's first feminism lectures. And it feels SOOO proud of itself.

It also stops to be like "You know every historical event between the 50s and present day? Yeah, Evelyn was on the right side of hsitory EVERY time despite being money hungry, dehumanizing to other people, fairly fucking awful to her (Latina) staff, and never once mentioned her politics until the author remembered she was alive during stonewall and the AIDS crisis and that she needed to maek sure you knew Evelyn cared."

The injection of real world events kinda curdled my stomach. Also, the author made sure to say that it was MEN at the frontlines of Stonewall and it's like ???????????????????? Okay, work. Also, die maybe?

The characters are all horrible people but not evne in interesting ways. There's no like complex politics to it. There's not even real nuance to it. It's just like "Evelyn likes to use people but she had to, so it's okay." Which I could get with if she wasn't so otherwise FLAT.

Also, I know this isn't a well organized complaint list, but can I say it is INSANE that the ENTIRE book is about how Evelyn has HUUUGE honkers and htat's why everyone gravitates towards her or forgives her or wants to use her. And then she gets breast cancer and the interviewer thinks "Isn't it funny that the things that got her so far are killing her" and I knooow it's meant to be some like ironic twist of fate thing but idk... it really feels like misogyny. It feels like comeuppance or some weird shit and it made me UNCOMFORTABLE.

TO PUT IT BRIEFLY:

The book is insanely boring and cliche. It is every "Hollywood is SCARY" cliche ever but thinks it's differentiating itself by involving LGB people and people of color but, because it is written by a straight, white woman, it cannot do that well. Every time it tries to smugly diatribe about sexuality, gender, race, class it gets it wrong and makes you feel like you're slowly going insane.

No one cahracter is interesting. The main romance is abusive but doesn't know it's abusive, despite spending entire chapters on how ANOTHER relationship is abusive.

The book is soulless. Isn't particularly well written. Thinks it's smarter and more charming than it is. No one is likeable. No one is funny or sweet.

It runs on shock value but nothing is shocking. IT's the same stupid mistakes over and over again withou tanyone EVER realizing what the REAL mistakes are.

It's bad.

[vergess]

Lads, I fucking get it that people who summarize books in a way you don't like are frustrating, but "the locked tomb is about lesbian necromancers in space" did a LOT FUCKING MORE to explain to me why I should bother learning more details than 7 months of people writing detailed meta about the characters did.

Because y'all habitually get in the fucking weeds wanting extremities if detail, but a TAGLINE is not the same as a SUMMARY is not the same as a REVIEW.

The fact that PUBLISHERS are increasingly replacing summaries with taglines is a problem, yes.

BUT THE EXISTENCE OF A TAGLINE IS NIT FUCKING EVIL IN AND OF ITSELF

Like, I get it. You want summaries for your books before reading them. I do too.

But 'lesbian necromancers in space' IS VALUABLE IN ITS OWN RIGHT.

If you as a person aren't intrigued by a given tagline, please consider for one singular moment that the tagline IS NOT FOR YOU THEN! Not everything is for you!!

Take up your frustrations with summaries being replaced with taglines with the publishers DOING THAT.

Not with people whi spent half a year watching y'all talk about people with Historically Men's Names doing Historically High Fantasy Acitvities while FULLY FORGETTING TO MENTION IT'S A SCI FI SET IN SPACE FEATURING MOSTLY FEMALE CHARACTERS.

God, fuck, you have got to get your fucking heads around the fact that a high level 5-word-or-less tagline HAS A FUNCTION TOO.

It svoujdn't 'replace' summaries.

BUT IT IS NECESSARILY GOING TO BE THE THING PEOPLE SEE FIRST THAT MAKES THEM INTERESTED ENOUGH TO READ THE FUCK DAMN SUMMARY

Jesus fuck.

Just stop letting publishers trick your godforsaken asses into thinking people who FIND BOOKS DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU are the goddamn enemy, when it is THOSE SELFSAME PUBLISHERS denying you as a reader AND authors as artists access to Basic GODDAMN Tools like summaries.

Like, hey Jackass, have you considered that the response to '2 of the 3 major tools readers use to judge books in the moment have been elminated and replaced with the third' is not and will never be 'therefore we should get rid of the third entirely to make space for the other two.'

God, fuck, the amount of situations created whole fucking cloth by predatory corporate publishing houses that people just insistently blame readers for instead is... fucking unfathomable.

But at least I get how living under a corporate propaganda system would teach you 'free access to books is evil because you are stealing money from poor innocent authors' in spite of every single study ever done on the subject proving repeatedly that free access improves author income but damages CORPORATE INVESTOR DIVIDENDS. Like, the propaganda is everywhere and often backed with the threat of state violence.

But what POSSIBLE fucking excuse does ANYONE have for saying shit like 'taglines are useless' or 'if you use taglines you're an intellectually bankrupted moralist.'

Fucking WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Do you think you're exempt from critical goddamn thinking because you have the Right Opinions about how The Other Guy is stupid or deranged??

Fuck off and die.

[creativepup]

Felt like doing some self-indulgent Pride art for some of my characters today. More info + pin closeups below the cut because I feel like rambling.

(These also ended up being a really good excuse to do more queer history research lol)

Gwbdolyb the pescetarian mindflayer archaeologist & her shrimp wife 'Robert'. Robert gets to have a colored dress since lavender has historical queer connotations. [An argument could be made that Gwyb is also trans since her original host body was male, but considering the process of ceremorphosis is all about erasing the host's identity I don't view it as 'counting'.] I've made pin-up art with them before.

Ra-Im Moon / 문라임, aspiring fashion designer (wearing one of her signature designs, the "skuit"). Technically she's an NPC moreso than my own character, but I couldn't have Seungmin without her big sister. The double-moon pin is another bi symbol (+ moon/Moon pun :)).

Seungmin Moon / 문승민, escaped corporate mercenary (her face was replaced with an electronic screen after an explosion). Ra-Im designed her demiromantic hanbok for her. I had a hard time searching for Korean-specific queer symbols, but I noticed multiple people with this flag at the Seoul Pride Festival so I went with that.

'Maddie' Moon, the 1970s Bionic Kid teen AU variant of Seungmin. Some close-ups of her buttons below. Maddie is Korean-American but also spent several years living in Berlin. I never fully figured out out if she's lesbian or bi (part of the reason I was initially looking at the double-moon is because it's preferred in Germany over the double triangles) so I tried to go with period-appropriate symbols that could work for both. The lambda was made an international symbol for gay & lesbian rights in 1974, and the pink color obviously has historical connotations as well. The labrys is often used as a lesbian feminist symbol. I'm admittedly not sure exactly what year the German pin is from but the sentiment is perfect. Wasn't able to dig up any other German/European-specific symbologies (although I did learn that organized queer groups were called friendship leagues / freundschaftverbände).

Tree Shaper, my beautiful mutton-chopped firblog (also nicknamed Branches). Exclusively they/them. I love them a lot.

Len my ghost boy! Len's look is supposed to be a bit anachronistic since he's originally from the 1980s but ghosted around through 2018 before traveling back in time to the 80s again (long story). The most commonly used trans symbol only came around in the 90s, but I did find this variant that was used by the FTM magazine Metamorphosis in the early 80s as well as on the pin below. Their activist friend Krysta would definitely have gotten him the Anita Bryant pin. (It would probably be a little more in-character for Len to have an ace ring instead of the pin, but I didn't make their hands very visible so)

& last but not least, Kraner the half-drow busker (not shown outside on a sunny day). He can normally make his tattoos glow in a variety of colors (good for putting on a performance) but I think he'd enjoy coordinating them specifically to match the pride flag. He's still coming to terms with his asexuality, but he'll get there eventually.

If you're reading this, thanks for listening & I hope you enjoyed!

[boonskicks]

[image description: Screenshot of a tumblr text post with two usernames censored, the second user having reblogged it with additional text.

The original post by the first user reads - ''lesbian: being stereotyped as predatory is harmful to my mental health and physical safety to the point where I'm afraid to talk to any woman who I'm not 100% sure is gay because I'm afraid they'll think I'm hitting on them and being creepy.'' Followed by a paragraph, which then reads: ''non-lesbian: okay but one time a lesbian said my boyfriend was gross so who's the real oppressed person here?'' end of original post.

The reblog with an addition by another user reads: ''People act like lesbians have oppressed bi women and that's the only way those interactions go and yet I have had two different instances of bi women I was instered in insisting that they cannot go out with me till I have 'experience' with a man and offering to help with that. You don't see me bringing that up every time I see a bi positivity post though because that's literally not how you build solidarity in the community.'' end of image description.]

I found this post by chance many months ago now, but ever since then this has frustrated me so much it wouldn't leave my mind, so I decided to let it out in text.

Let me start off by saying: I understand what the original poster and the person who reblogged it were trying to say. People make false comparisons all the time. Of course lesbophobic experiences are not in any way comparable to a lesbian telling a bi (usually sapphic) person that their ''boyfriend was gross''. The clearly lesbophobic statements of the two bi women mentioned in the reblog by a different user are also completely unacceptable.

But the thing is... to preach this ''solidarity'' you have to show for it. And I think these two users have a ton of biphobia to unlearn.

As much as this post frustrates me, I blame this type of wording and mentality mostly on the ease with which echo chambers on online LGBTIA+ spaces are created. It's easy for lesbophobia to fester in bi sapphic spaces, because they're so separated from fellow sapphics, specially lesbians, but it's not an excuse. Likewise, I would say it's also easy for biphobia to fester in exclusively lesbian spaces, because they're separated from other sapphics. These echo chambers become more and more intense and hostile towards one another exactly because of these unlearnt prejudices and mentalities.

As a bi sapphic, I'll say this however: some of you really really really need to understand that there's a ton of intersectionality in both lesbian and bi sapphic experiences. And I think that's my main issue with this post. I understand what type of situation they were referring to, but to say that ''bi sapphics have never faced oppression from the lesbian community'' is just blatant historical erasure.

Yes, bi sapphics need to acknowledge and unlearn their lesbophobia if there is to be solidarity, but the same goes for your biphobia - you need to stop the constant dismissal of our experiences, intentional or not. You think bi sapphics aren't also afraid of being perceived as predatory? ''Being predatory'' is one of the main biphobic stereotypes!! In both bi sapphics, as they are seen as predatory or manipulative towards lesbians (unicorn hunters, etc. Not to say again, that there aren't situations like this, but it's most likely that they're just shitty people, and it has nothing to do with their orientation?), plus bi mlm are seen as potential ''gay predators'' for cishets!!!

I don't know if these users just aren't aware of all this, but it is telling how the original poster is more likely to make a post talking about this one bi/pan person - real or completely hypothetical - than to acknowledge that a bi sapphic may also have the exact same anxiety and fear that they mentioned. It adds insult to injury though, to see the second user to outright say ''well I don't complain about my negative experiences in bi positivity posts'' - yeah well, I'm glad you aren't doing that, but you clearly aren't afraid to say that ''people act like lesbians have oppressed bi women'' as if it's fact that there has been absolutely no biphobia within the sapphic community... how insightful and not misinformed at all! /sarcasm

I'm trying to hold back my anger at this, but it's hard. I want to meet these users halfway. A lot of bi people in these online spaces do, and I get that, unfortunately, it's lesbophobic asshats that tend to yell lower and be more visible to many but... if you want solidarity, listen to those whose voices are being drowned out and erased by many.

Because I believe those voices are in the majority, not the opposite.