#and methods for Queer History... i can't stand fandom sometimes

[mswyrr]

Since I keep seeing the same talking point, I wanted to address it:

Yes, even things like ages can be unknown about famous historical figures! You can get can overview of reasons why at this r/askhistorians thread

Hotd fandom is full of people who don't know about historiography in general, but specifically for the kind of medieval text the book is meant to imitate, holding forth on how obvious historical fact is when that's simply not so.

And as I've said in a prior meta - yes, people in queerphobic societies have actively and consistently erased evidence of queer people and their love.

Now, it would be artistically valid to make changes in an adaptation even if none of this were the case. But it is. It's entirely possible that records were unclear due to time and the chaos of war or other factors. And that it just seemed obvious to people, as the story was handed down, that the dowager queen, Rhaenyra's stepmother, *must* have been older than her, even though she wasn't.

What we know of the past is often very sketchy. It's a careful process of putting clues together to make best guesses in many particulars. No trained historian would look at a medieval account like the kind the book imitates and simply believe it as fact.

Each subfield of history has specific tools and practices for analyzing materials to come up with the best understanding - and then historians challenge and rework those understandings over time as they reevaluate evidence and find new materials!

[sodasa-was-taken]

The problem plaguing cishet romance and the biggest advantage queer romance has over it: A sociology of literature analysis on the history and prevalence of the romance genre

I've gotten some feedback where people have expressed that they thought they didn't like romances but later found out they liked queer romances. I thought it would be fun to go over some inherent differences between cishet and queer relationships in fiction and how they came to be. I've chosen to use cishet instead of straight because I want to make it clear that these things don't necessarily apply if someone in a straight romance is confirmed not to be straight, and they definitely don't apply if one or both are trans.

As usual, I hope you enjoy this.

So, what is the biggest problem with cishet romances? Its ubiquity. The type of relationships depicted in those stories wouldn't be half as problematic if they weren't so prevalent. It'd be one thing if a few stories had some questionable, to say the least, relationships portrayed positively. After all, countless stories have some questionable things in them that go unnoticed by the narrative, but that doesn't mean that people who like those stories can't tell that those things aren't commonplace. Nor does it have to mean that there’s any harm in those people believing those things were accurately portrayed. The times this becomes a problem is when the portrayal of something questionable becomes so widespread that people start to think that it's odd for them not to have this thing in their lives or when a popular work inaccurately portrays something that's already poorly understood and highly stigmatized. This, inversely, is also the main argument against setting requirements for one specific story since one story isn't going to change the world, no matter how popular. Storytelling is one of the most collective forms of expression there is, so what really matters is how much effect it has on other storytellers. Not to mention the role fandoms have in normalizing queer identities as someone who has previously been sheltered learns about different people’s experiences through a common interest.

So, how did cishet become so prevalent? Well, for starters, there used to be a time when a man and a woman getting together was seen as a societal obligation, and whether or not the people involved even liked each other wasn't a concern to anyone. There was also some method to their madness, as this sort of arrangement worked quite well for the societal structure at the time. It made sense to create stories where the justification for someone getting together is that they're a boy and a girl because that was the main requirement in the eyes of society. If anything, the stories often portrayed people choosing to marry someone for their personality, which many historians would say wasn't something people did. At least not typically. Though, who's to say? It's a lot easier to find out what people in the past did than why. The bottom line is that cishet relationships were so prevalent in stories because they were stupidly prevalent within society.

Then there’s the way a lot of cishet relationships are depicted in fiction. It tends to imply what a desired relationship should be like, which at best creates unreasonable expectations and sometimes straight up encourages girls and young women to seek out traits in men that ain’t healthy. Some of the most prominent of these are anger issues, controlling behaviors, and possessiveness. This, too, used to serve a function. How good of function that was is debatable, but the point still stands. Portraying these traits as manageable, at the very least, was a way to prepare girls to be married away to someone who might not treat them the best. Stories managed to do this by reassuring them they could tame their new husbands. The whole “I can fix him” mentality evolved from this. Telling someone repeatedly that they can fix someone by making them fall in love with them tends to make them believe it. This somewhat common delusion results from centuries upon centuries of multi-generational gaslighting. Long ago, believing this could be seen as a form of copium since girls at the time usually didn’t have much of a say in who they got promised away to and were stuck with that person until one of them kicked the bucket. Nowadays, in all the places where girls and women, or those perceived as such, ain’t forced into relationships, this mentality causes nothing but trouble. It should go without saying that if someone doesn’t treat others well, they are not relationship material.  

However, it’s worth noting that this has become less of an issue in recent years as there has been a decline in romance in pop culture, particularly in movies. There’s also been a rise in queer romances in more wide-reaching stories, and male/female relationships have gotten healthier depictions. Although a lot of those consist of people who are not straight, so they’re technically queer relationships too. The only place those outdated ideas consistently persist is in stories targeted toward people who are already used to those kinds of depictions.

Speaking of queer relationships, when it comes to fiction, they tend to avoid these issues. So, why is that? Well, for starters, despite what some bigots might say, it’s a lot harder to avoid being exposed to straight attraction than gay attraction. Many commercials are, in particular, needlessly straight. Also, there isn’t a precedent for two people of the same gender or anyone who isn’t perceived as a man and a woman to be obligated to get together. This leads to authors being less likely to either write or be asked to write a queer romance for the sake of it, which means that the romances in stories that feature queer relationships tend to be more deliberate. Then there’s the casual sexism that’s often brushed off in cishet romance that will more than likely come off as odd if it appeared in a romance between two people of the same gender. For example, it’s not too uncommon for one of the main characters in cishet romances to have had some unfortunate encounters with someone of a different gender, and the character does that thing where they think everyone within a group is the same. Try having a female character think that all women cheat without guaranteeing that it’s going to give someone pause. Unfortunately, internalized misogyny is very much a thing, but the point is that it’s not something people are just going to shrug off.

When it comes to how healthy queer relationships are depicted, it varies greatly from story to story, but when these relationships are extremely toxic, it’s rarely done by accident. There might be some cases where people who have internalized that guys show affection by easily getting angry and being controlling and possessive could see a man being abusive to another man and not see a problem with it. The stories themselves rarely seem to depict a toxic relationship as anything other than a toxic one.

Lastly, the main characters in queer romances rarely seem to be reluctant to spend time together. That’s not to say they always like these others from the get-go, but that one of them is more likely to contemplate murder than think about how they’ll have to be in the other’s vicinity for an extended period of time. If one or more of them has something against the other, it also tends to last only as long as it takes for them to get to know each other. These characters quickly grow fond of each other compared to their cishet counterparts. Forget about spending half a novel for one of them to find out they were wrong about the other; it usually takes a couple of conversations at maximum before they start to enjoy each other’s company. It’s not clear why this is, but it is hilarious to think about.