#been thinking about heterosexual relations recently

[pickapea]

there's something beautifully romantic about heterosexuals. despite their differences, despite being raised differently in different cultures and with different expectations put on them, despite coming from different worlds and being kept apart their whole upbringings, they still manage to bridge that gap to find love. it's unfortunate that they don't like each other and don't view each other as human, but i digress

[blackbird-brewster]

Meta: Jemily Queerbaiting

With the huge influx of posts saying 'Jemily is gonna be canon', I really appreciated seeing this post because OP was completely correct. I didn't want to write an entire dissertation as a reply, so I'm making my own post with my personal opinion on this. (All sources are noted in footnotes)

Before I began this rant, for anyone who thinks this is anti-Jemily. It is not. I have shipped Jemily for 18 friggin years and that's never going to change. This post is specifically my thoughts about queer baiting.

First off, I need to note that the showrunners (and the cast members who use social media) KNOW what a huge queer following this show has and that's why we got pansexual Tara Lewis in S16 [1]. Which, in itself, was SOOOOOOO important!!! Our first canonically queer main in SIXTEEN seasons was a middle-aged Black woman!!! That's phenomenal. (The fact it was horrible rep, because they instantly ruined her relationships once her queerness served it's plot point is a whole other post entirely)

In my opinion, the 'big Jemily moment' Paget posted about on Twitter [2] (and AJ hinted at during a recent IG live) is simply queerbaiting to get people to watch S17. I know a lot of you are newer to the fandom and I love your enthusiasm, I really do, ship and let ship, but listen, let's be real, Jemily is not going to be made canon. The showrunners aren't going to suddenly say (after 17 seasons) 'Surprise, Jemily is endgame'. This show has never cared about queer rep and now that CBS/Paramount have already ticked their queer rep box with Tara, they won't be in any rush to add any other characters to it.

Please buckle in, I've got a lot of thoughts on this matter --

What is Queerbaiting?

If you aren't aware of what queerbaiting is, here's a good definition:

Historically, queerbaiting has carried two meanings: the first is an act of aggressive heterosexuality to shut down queer subtext on screen while still teasing and catering to the queer audience in advertising, public relations, and fan engagement strategies; the second is an existing homoerotic tension between two characters played up on screen while met with derision by the professionals behind the scenes. [3]

The Medium article quoted here is from 2017, a time when parasocial relationships were really starting to take over social media. In 2024, actors are now only a mention or tag away online, they have direct conversations with fans, and this process has allowed for an even deeper form of queerbaiting.

Oftentimes online, actors are asked directly about certain ships and while some ignore these questions (usually to avoid breaking their contracts or other repercussions), others (looking at you, Paget) choose to instead tease fans about queer ships. She's done this for years upon years and if I've learned anything in the past twenty-years of existing in fandom spaces it's this -- don't hold your breath. In it's original meaning, for something to be deemed as queerbaiting there had to be malicious, or at least, purposeful intent to string queer fans along by teasing them with suggestive content about the ship in question, while knowing this ship will never come to fruition in canon.

The thing to remember is, Paget and AJ aren't the only ones who know about Jemily shippers -- the network and showrunners are well aware of this ship too. When networks/showrunners figure out they have a strong sapphic fanbase, they love to use that to their advantage to get more viewers and higher ratings. Queerbaiting is a goldmine to keep fans watching long running shows, look at Rizzoli and Isles, Supergirl, and OUAT for examples of this.

Jemily and Queerbaiting:

Ever since Emily joined the BAU in S2 (2006), there have always been fans who ship JJ/Emily (shoutout to the old LJ forums!). Way before celebs were just a tweet away from fans, back when all our fics began with disclaimers so we wouldn't get sued by networks, we went to great lengths to keep our fanworks far removed from actors/showrunners attention.

As far as Jemily goes, this reply from Paget in a 2009 interview with TVGuide.com [4] (which has now been deleted from their site unfortunately, but there are quotes on Tumblr still [4.a]) confirmed some fans' worst fear -- the actors had found our fanworks online.

TVGuide.com: Of course, a band of fans want her to hook up with Hotch.

Brewster: I know! I didn't realize that fans make these videos on YouTube? A.J. Cook sent me a hilarious one that made it look like Prentiss and J.J. were having a secret lesbian affair. You know, when Hotch was blown up in the SUV, we shot this scene where he's in the hospital and I'm standing next to him, looking at his bleeding ear. Our director came in and said, "Paget, you're looking at Hotch like you're in love with him. It looks really weird." So now, every day, Thomas [Gibson] and I flutter our eyelids at each other.

This was the first time I recall anyone acknowledging Jemily shippers publicly and at the time (Jan 2009), the show was still in Season Four (just before CBS fired both AJ and Paget [5]). Paget genuinely said it's 'hilarious' that fans shipped JJ/Emily. Even now, I'll see people say 'We know Paget and AJ have seen Jemily fanvids, so they obviously ship it too' -- but those same people rarely acknowledge the full context of the original answer. Paget not only thought JJ/Emily were 'hilarious', but then she doubled down and turned her reply back to how she and Thomas liked to play up the chemistry between Emily/Hotch.

While no one can say for sure which video it was that AJ sent Paget, just knowing they were watching JJ/Emily fanvids sent a bit of a shockwave through the femslash side of the fandom. To some it felt like an invasion of privacy, fanworks are by fans for fans -- knowing the cast were poking around in fandom spaces added an extra layer of worry around what we fans were posting online. Fifteen years ago, it used to be quite taboo for actors to outwardly discuss shipping or other fanon for whatever show they were in, and we fans were usually comfortably removed from the actors altogether.

Of course, now it's the norm for fans and actors/showrunners to co-exist online and interact with one another. This connection has opened new ways for shows to queerbait their fans. Pretty much every show has some form of social media account now and there is no doubt that the people running those accounts keep up with the most popular ships and hashtags. Not to mention that actors are constantly barraged with questions about whether they ship their character with x,y,z, or whether they think a ship should be made canon, etc. These interactions only serve to benefit the shows themselves, because whether the conversation is for or against a certain ship, it's all just free publicity (Why do you think CM now has a TikTok account?)

Every time AJ or Paget say anything about Jemily, the queer side of the fandom loses their minds. But this has been going on for YEARS now and every single time, it turns out to be nothing but social media hype and queerbaiting. Remember this AJ post? [6] Or what about the notorious reply by Paget to a fan, where she talks about how she and AJ held hands under the table 'for the shippers' [7] I've seen this cycle over and over again, so perhaps I am cynical, but I'm not getting my hopes up that Jemily will ever seriously be canon.

It's widely known now, after both Kirsten [8] and Paget [9] have talked about it, that there was an early idea where Prentiss was supposed to be queer, but that was ultimately scraped before it ever made it on screen. For context, please remember, this show has been airing for nearly twenty years. It began in 2005, during the highly conservative Bush administration. Queer people didn't have rights in the US, we couldn't get married, we were rarely protected under discrimination laws, and we could even be fired for simply being queer (in some states). Diverse queer representation on screen was extremely limited to things like 'The L Word' and 'Queer as Folk' (both aired on Showtime, so they were behind a paywall. And as far as tLw goes, that show was extremely male-gaze focused and is horrible in nearly all regards if you try to rewatch it now). As far as prime time shows went, queer rep was even more rare. Which is why Emily wasn't queer from the get-go.

Yes, things have changed since 2006 in terms of queer rep on TV. We have a myriad of queer identities represented in TV and film nowadays, which is why I think it's so easy for newer fans to say 'lf she was supposed to be gay anyway, they should just make Emily queer in canon!' I know this is what fuels most fans' demands for Emily being confirmed queer, and I get it, I DO. I would be all for it! However, I do not, in one hundred years, actually believe that is going to happen after they already canonically queer confirmed Tara in S16. The fact we even got ONE queer character is ground-breaking for this show.

It's also worth noting, that in the time between Paget's departure in 2012 and her return in 2016, she became very active on Twitter. This was when more and more fans began asking her about Jemily and after Kirsten's AfterEllen interview, fans also pushed for Paget to address the possibility of Emily being gay. 'Pushed' is actually an understatement for some of the outright harassment she would receive. (AJ received some of this harassment too, but less so because she doesn't use social media ass often) Back then, neither of them replied to these things directly. Yet, no matter what either woman posted, the replies were full of Jemily stans begging for her acknowledgement. (Did you know 'stan' is literally a term coined for stalker fans?) I remember one time AJ's friend was missing and she posted info on her IG about it, you know what the replies were? People asking her about Jemily. It was genuinely sickening.

Within this context, it was no surprise to fans when Emily came back in S12 , she and JJ's friendship was seemingly erased. The two women were rarely on screen together in the late seasons, plus the writers saw fit to even give Emily not only one (Mark in London, but two, on-screen boyfriends for the first time in the entire series. I personally do not think these changes to Emily's character were coincidence, I saw the hellscape of what people would say to AJ and Paget online and I fully believe that upon Paget's return to the show, the showrunners purposely tried to distance JJ and Emily to dissuade the more abusive side of the fanbase.

Can I prove that, no. But it is the only reason I can think of as to why Emily S12+ seemingly didn't care about JJ anymore, despite their deep and meaningful friendship. I mean, they both CROSSED THE WORLD to go rescue each other in prior canon -- but when Emily comes back, they acted like they barely knew each other. This was even more prevalent in S16, when JJ's main storylines all revolved around Will, and Emily barely looked at JJ in the entirety of ten episodes. (Remember how Prentiss didn't even hug JJ after bomb, but she did go hug Luke?)

So, do Paget and AJ earnestly ship Jemily, or are they continuing the long tradition of queerbaiting us? Who fucking knows, not me. But based on the history of this fandom, I think I can make a safe bet. (Interestingly, if you search all of Paget's twitter for the word 'Jemily' [10] she only has 3 direct tweets mentioning the ship. I don't think it's a coincidence that two are within the past few months since they started filming S17 (the other one was a RT of Kirsten (who tagged something Jemily)

This is all to say --

Just because Paget and AJ have publicly talked about Jemily,, this doesn't mean it's ever going to happen on screen. And you know what, THAT'S OKAY!! There has been this constant outcry (after Tara became queer confirmed) of 'Do Emily next' or 'Why wasn't it Emily with a girlfriend!?' and 'Jemily needs to be canon in S17!' -- as if people believe their ships aren't worth anything unless they are canon.

That couldn't be further from the truth! Fandom is built on headcanons and fan interpretations and rare pairs and all types of shippers. Your ship does NOT need to be canon for you to enjoy it. I will ship Jemily forever, no matter what. I don't think there will be some magical queer plot in S17, at best, we might actually get to see Emily/JJ on screen together again and after the train wreck that was S16 -- I'll take whatever I can get.

And hey -- if I am completely wrong, if Erica Messer pulls a Korrasami out of her hat, I will be ecstatic. I will be happy to be proved wrong, but at the same time, I'm not going to lose sleep over it and I'm DEFINITELY not going to go hound the actors about it on social media.

Sources:

[1] 2022 Digital Spy article about the importance of Tara's coming out

[2] 04/18/24 Paget Tweet

[3] 2017 Queerbaiting article from medium.com

[4] 2009 Broken TVGuide link

[4.a] Tumblr quote from the above TVGuide Interview

[5] 2010 Kirsten interview screenrant.com

[6] 2019 AJ Instagram Post

[7] 2020 Paget video on Twitter (via @karasluthqr)

[8] 2015 Kirsten interview AfterEllen.com

[9] 2016 Paget Interview CriminalMindsFans.com

[10] @PagetPaget search 'Jemily'

[wistfulwatcher]

misty quigley is a lesbian; a comphet reading of her deprivation tank "realization"

in rewatching misty's deprivation tank therapy, i'm more convinced than ever that misty is a lesbian suffering from compulsory heterosexuality. the entire scene, from start to finish, is about misty accepting that walter has feelings for her (not the other way around), and learning to push through her discomfort with that fact.

the deprivation tank scene begins by establishing that misty is afraid. we see quick transitions and hear bubbling water and see a terrifying fish coming at the camera with sharp teeth. followed by a slightly softer stream of images of walter, interspersed with memories of crystal, and of caligula. misty is thinking about three key relationships in this moment: walter, who is actively pursuing her; crystal, whom she loved and hurt and misses; and caligula, who is the only creature that both loves her, and she loves back.

love is the concept that ties these three together: walter is who she could love, crystal is who she did love, and caligula is who she does love.

and so the memories fade into her fantasy sequence, led by caligula, and he begins to soothe her. this creature that represents real (platonic, obviously) love to her (in that it is true and reciprocated, more than she feels it is with any human) tells her "shake off your blues/i'll set the mood for ya". caligula is acknowledging her fear and her loss, and telling her that he can fix it. that he has an answer that will make all of her problems go away.

which is when walter appears, looking like the leading man in a classic musical; an idealized romantic interest, one her fantasy has turned from a real man into a fictional character. and what does he do? performs for her. misty (per the directions of the song, to just "sit right down") sits and watches. she does not interact with him, because she (and her attraction) is not a part of this. one element of comphet is the inability to picture yourself in a fantasy with a man; misty does not put herself with walter, she does not join him.

and while he and caligula perform, three items float around the screen: the plane axe, a syringe, and the black box (which fluctuates between intact and exposed). these three items are such a fascinating choice, because they, 1) all relate to the actions she took in her need to be useful and appreciated, but 2) also represent some of the ugliest things she has done (at a time when she has recently been thinking about what kind of person these things make her). she is thinking about these moments (her behavior with ben, murdering jessica, and stranding the team/breaking crystal's trust) that cause her great discomfort, at the same time she is trying to convince herself that walter is what she needs. she is comparing the discomfort she has with walter's interest and the validation she would feel from a relationship, to the way she's felt about all of these other bad things she's felt compelled to do.

while these items float, caligula sings, "now sit right down/let your troubles melt away/and you'll be sitting pretty in the moonlight gaze". continuing to tell her to push through the discomfort; just let it go. and if you do? "moonlight gaze" is such an interesting choice, because the moon is most strongly symbolic of women. if she lets go and has this relationship with walter, the other women will think she's normal. (especially after just a few hours prior to this, natalie had said, "we're all like this, aren't we?" this is her chance to prove nat wrong, for misty's own sake and/or for nat's!) this is not the first time misty has displayed behavior suggesting that it's important to her that natalie (and other people in general) see her as desirable as a romantic/sexual prospect: telling natalie about her dates on the road trip to travis, "i bet he thinks we're hookers!" said with glee in the jail, "i have a secret boyfriend, too," whispered to natalie in '96. if she decides to accept walter's interest (a man who is so into her that he is literally fine with her being a serial killer!), then maybe the other girls will see how worthy misty is of affection and attention.

once the dance number is over, misty immediately goes to speak with caligula; again, in her fantasy about loving walter, she doesn't interact with walter. instead she seeks caligula out, because he is the one she feels a real connection to; he is the one who knows her and can reassure her - the one whose reassurance will mean something. (walter, a man she barely knows, has been nothing but a concept to her in this fantasy, and that doesn't change.) misty's conversation with caligula is emotional; she is clearly bothered by the idea that other people see her as a murderer. but caligula doesn't give her an emotional response or solution; instead, he tells her she's a "closer". he points out that, even when things are rough (i.e., even though she doesn't like how walter makes her feel), she can persevere and accomplish her goals. it is this reminder that causes misty to transition the scene to to the final piece.

and oh boy, is that final scene a goldmine. because it begins with a close-up on misty's childhood phone. the phone that becky called her on back in 1992, to tell her that she was disgusting. that no man would want her, and that she would never find "a victim" to sleep with. that moment was foundational for misty's issues, for her desire to be wanted and needed in '96, and her deep need to receive validation from men in '21. this scene is so crucial to understanding misty's relationship to comphet, because one of the key facets is wanting a man to see you as desirable, because that is a woman's value in a misogynistic society. this hits misty so especially hard because she's not just lacking interest and validation from men in school; she hasn't been getting recognition from anyone. (for her to break the black box after just a few hours of receiving positive attention? she was starving for it.)

and so walter calls her on the phone - their backs to each other, literal and emotional distance between them - and starts to tell her that he loves her. but he doesn't say the words. instead he uses morse code to send "uoyevoli": "i love you", backwards. a fascinating choice, because it could be argued that the morse code is representative of their shared love of puzzles as crime solvers. but why backwards? surely the symbolism of the puzzle connection has been satisfied by the morse code.

it's because misty doesn't want to hear "i love you." she wants the implication of walter's desire, she wants to know she has value, but she doesn't want the actual feelings. she wants him to say i love you in a way she can't feel. she wants him to call her and turn his back so she can do the same. she wants to "get the ball over the goal line" and to do that she needs this level of distance.

so this scene with walter? it isn't about walter; it's about recreating that brutal memory. it's about rewriting her past. in her fantasy, walter calls her to prove that becky was wrong, that he is choosing misty because she is desirable. that he does want her. and this is so key because this whole scene is about how walter feels. that walter wants her. in misty's "realization" that she wants to be with walter, it isn't about her feelings at all. the purple flowing line of love comes from walter, the words "i love you" - twisted as they may be - come from walter. misty's only role in her fantasy is to "sit right down" and accept her role; surrender to the fact that walter is the right choice.

and when she does, when she finally, finally comes to the end of this moment, she still doesn't interact with walter. the natural progression of a love confession is physical contact. a kiss, or a relieved embrace. misty seeks neither! in this fantasy of hers where she can have anything, she makes no effort to acknowledge walter at all. instead, she turns to caligula, representative of her real connections. and she celebrates her victory with him. misty can close this deal, can get through this decision she's made, by clinging to the people she does actually care about.

[prince-liest]

How did you figure out you're aromantic?

Oh, god, what a short question for such a long process, hahaha. First off, didn't figure it out until recently, age 27, but here was the approximate (and very truncated in the amount of internal conflict and introspection involved) step-by-step process:

Figured out I was queer in high school because I felt the same way about women as I did about men! Spent about 5 years thinking I was bisexual.

Figured out that I'm not actually attracted to men when I read a post describing the experience of compulsory heterosexuality and related with it intensely, which was a very freeing experience. Spent 6 years thinking I was a (nonbinary) lesbian!

Hooked up at parties a couple of times out of curiosity and then took up my best friend's offer to fuck and realized that I got the same amount of skin-crawling distaste about that as I did about sexual contact with men, thus realizing I was ace.

Let that domino tip over into the, "Actually, identifying as gay has for a long time given me the same anxiety as I used to feel when I thought I'd have to date a man, and also I'm 27 years old and have never, ever actually wanted to date another human being. When people ask me what my ideal partner is like, I start listing off ways in which they should not bother me or demand my time or be part of my life. Maybe I just don't want... anyone." domino, and the subsequent "I'M FREE!! (from trying to date women)" euphoria was identical to the "I'M FREE!! (from trying to date men)" euphoria, so.

That's where I'm at!

I'm a generally introspective person, but I'm also really great at gaslighting myself into ignoring my own discomfort, so largely it's been, haha, a diagnosis of exclusion. First I excluded men, then the discomfort with women grew large enough that I was able to exclude them as well. Reading about other people's experiences and realizing where they paralleled my own was immensely helpful! So was being close friends with a very poly person who slowly and fully unintentionally changed my perspective on how I view relationships in a very poly-and-relationship-anarchy-as-default way, which incidentally is extremely compatible with aroace queerplatonic ideals and definitely softened me up to be ready to accept that particular realization.

Also, please let this be a sign that just because you identify with one "thing" doesn't mean that you're committing to it forever! <3

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Bisexual Basics

— Karin Baker

THE MOST BASIC thing about bisexuality is that it unlinks what most cultures see as a fundamental connection: sex and gender. If you can understand that for some people sexual attraction is not tied to a specific gender, then you understand the most important thing about bisexuality.

At least in the United States, separating sexuality and gender is difficult. While public attention—negative and positive—has recently been focused on homosexuality, the idea that it is not the only alternative to heterosexuality is less often recognized. This is not surprising, given that here as in most western cultures, there is a tendency to organize concepts dualistically, to see only opposites.

Heterosexuality and homosexuality as related ideas are one example. Thus, even while homosexuality is not an acceptable alternative to heterosexuality for many people, it is clearly fixed in their minds as the other option. Few conceive that there could be a third option, or even a continuum of possibilities.

This or That

Bisexuals sometimes refer to society’s tendency to dichotomize as an “either/or” approach. You must be attracted to either women or men, be either heterosexual or homosexual—what bisexuals sometimes lump together and call “monosexual.” Similarly, in our society, no matter what your actual racial background, you are seen as either white, or a person of color.

In contrast, some of us see bisexuals as having an approach to sexuality that could be called “both/and.” We are heterosexual and homosexual, both at the same time—which actually adds up to something completely different.

The woman whose parents are respectively white and African American is not racially or culturally half one and half the other. She is a blending of the two, in which neither aspect can be separated out. Similarly, bisexuals are not “part” queer, or “part” straight—we are what we are.

The Continuum of Sexuality

Maybe the idea that sexual attraction actually falls on a continuum, rather than clumping around homosexuality and heterosexuality, seems obvious. As a bisexual person, it is certainly obvious to me. However, I have come to realize that some are confounded by the idea.

This inability to imagine that someone could truly be attracted to more than one gender is probably the origin of myths such as “bisexuals don’t really exist,” and “bisexuals just haven’t made up their minds yet.” For some, sex means desire for women or men, but never both.

In a recent example, a bisexual friend of mine overheard a conversation between a lesbian and a gay man in which both commented on how confused bisexuals were. One of them said, “sooner or later bisexuals have to make up their minds!”

I wish I’d been there to ask them, why? Can you explain the basis for your reasoning? Why can’t we have already made up our minds—to be bisexual?

It seems to be hard to escape the assumption that there are only two choices, and everyone must ultimately settle for one of them. I have never heard a logical argument, or any biological law that explains why this choice is so unavoidable.

I have an easier time with this when I think about how hard it is for me to grasp attraction to one gender only, whether gay/lesbian or straight attraction. Because sexuality and gender aren’t linked for me, I’m surprised when I hear about people who are only attracted to women, or only attracted to men.

As a feminist I can understand why some women would choose not to be with men. I can also see that a person might want something in a sexual relationship that is more typically found with one gender or the other. But how could one gender always fall outside the boundaries of sexual possibility?

I believe that it happens, because people tell me that it’s true for them. It’s just extremely hard to imagine.

In fact, we bisexuals have a tendency (which I resist in myself) to think that all people are potentially bisexual. If they haven’t acted on it yet, monosexuals must either be repressed, or they just haven’t found the “right man”/“right woman” yet.

I suppose this is the bisexual equivalent of the monosexual perception that bisexuals are just going through a phase and haven’t made up our minds yet.

Gender in Bisexual Attraction

Although gender is not a limiting factor for bisexuals, it does sometimes play a role in bisexual attraction.

Some bisexuals that I know are attracted to women and men for gender-specific reasons. For instance, they like women because they see them as: easy to talk to, or nurturing, or soft and curvy; and they like men because they find them: straightforward, or more assertive, or hard and muscular (or some such gendered reasons).

So in this case, gender is part of the formula, but not a limiting factor.

Other bisexuals I have spoken with are also attracted to women and men differently, but they turn the previous specifications upside down. These bis say they find they like butch women and effeminate men. In a way this comes down to appreciating people to the extent that they escape genderedness.

But there are also many bis, such as myself, for whom gender has no place in the list of things that attract them to a person. For instance, I like people who are good listeners, who understand me and have interests similar to mine, and I am attracted to people with a little padding here and there, who have fair skin and dark hair (although I’m pretty flexible when it comes to looks).

“Male” or “female” are not anywhere to be found in the list of qualities I find attractive.

Monosexual Misconceptions

Bisexuals in the United States often experience hostility from lesbians and gay men, as in the incident described above. Lesbians and gay men, like heterosexuals, are often uncomfortable with breaking out of a dualistic way of looking at things.

Bisexuals blur boundaries thought to be fixed in stone, and this is disturbing.

Actually, bisexuals may appear to pose a more direct threat for lesbians and gay men than this general social disturbance. Lesbians and gay men who a in our society have almost always gone through a long process of leaving their family and heterosexual friends, as they leave the closet.

The community that rejected them is replaced by the one they join when they come out; the lesbian and gay community becomes their new family and friends, the place where they feel security and belonging.

Bisexuals who pop up in their new community blur its boundaries, making it feel less safe, less apart from the rejecting heterosexual community. Especially for those who believe that a bisexual has a fifty-fifty chance of finally choosing heterosexuality, a bisexual may well appear as the enemy within their midst.

Bisexuals often face misconceptions shared by lesbians, gay men, and heterosexual people. One of these is mentioned above: that bisexuals are confused people who havent made up their minds yet.

Undoubtedly some bisexuals are in a transitional phase between heterosexuality and homosexuality, but this is not necessarily so. And even when it is true, why should transition be seen as problematic?

Another common myth is that bisexuals are not committed to the struggle against queer oppression. Like many stereotypes, this may have some basis in reality. There are bisexuals who stay in the closet, who gravitate toward opposite gender relationships, marriage, and whatever else it takes to fit in.

Of course, many gay men and lesbians also never make it out of the closet. In fact, the lesbian and gay movement has always included bisexuals. Some have been openly bi, while others haven’t felt it worth the struggle to be open in the face of disapproval from the community that is so important to them.

Today, some bisexuals, like some gay men and lesbians, are not interested in getting involved in political struggle, but many others are very active within the queer community.

Another misconception is the idea that to be bisexual you must be sleeping with both women and men, and along with this, probably cheating on your partner. This is like saying that you cannot call yourself a lesbian (or gay, or straight) if you are single and celibate.

I believe that you’re bisexual (homosexual, heterosexual) if that’s what you call yourself. Your orientation stays the same, you still feel attraction, whatever your current actions.

Now it’s true, there are bisexuals who feel more fulfilled if they have relationships with a woman and a man. Some of these may have an agreement with their partner(s), and some not, but bisexuals are not the only sexual orientation where unorthodox relationships can be found, or where some cheat on their partners.

Bisexual Oppression?

A lesbian once told me that bisexuals experience oppression only to the extent that we “are homosexual.” She used this as an argument for leaving the name “bisexual” off titles of marches, community centers, newspapers, etc.

Who is included in group names has been a controversy for years (going back at least to the time when including the word “lesbian” was controversial because “gay” could supposedly count for both).

I don’t agree that bisexuals face only homosexual oppression. It’s true that when we are in same-sex relationships, one of the things we experience is heterosexism (and also, in our opposite sex relationships we do not as directly face the oppression gay men and lesbians face, although if we are openly bisexual we never completely escape heterosexism).

However, bisexuals confront forms of oppression that lesbians and gay men do not. Bisexual oppression includes compulsory monosexuality and the invisibility that is a result of monosexism. We are made invisible when people can’t conceive of sexual attraction that isn’t tied to one gender or the other, thereby denying our existence.

Even face to face, there is nothing about us that says we’re bisexual—if we’re with the same gender it’s assumed we’re lesbian/gay, and we must be straight if our partner is of the opposite gender.

Unless we happen to be holding hands and kissing a woman and a man simultaneously, an either/or way of seeing things means most people will automatically categorize us as either homosexual or heterosexual. This is monosexism at work.

In recent years some things have changed for bisexuals in the United States. We have started to find each other and form organizations and small communities. Conferences happen regularly in different parts of the country, and a national network exists.

Books about bisexuals multiply, as we tell our stories and develop theories about how we fit in. Much to the discomfort of some lesbians and gay men, we have been increasing the pressure to have our presence within the queer community acknowledged.

It seems inevitable that we will have an impact on how the people of this country view sexuality. Will this go further and affect the fundamental tendency toward dualistic categorizing, the either/or mindset?

[solisaureus]

Let’s talk about a trend in queer Jason Grace headcanons

I have been seeing headcanons about Jason Grace actually being queer since House of Hades came out (Jason was not popular before that. trust me). While there's nothing inherently wrong with queer headcanons, it is frustrating that the most common ones I see are already included in canon in the less-acknowledged character arcs of Reyna and Piper. It feels wrong that Jason fans are so willing to read deeply into the story for evidence that that this white boy could be affected by compulsory heterosexuality and is actually queer, while Reyna and Piper are not appreciated nearly as much despite comp-het being a part of their canon stories.

I even recently saw someone say that Jason's character arc of learning who he really is outside of the norms of Roman society is suggestive of a queer coming out journey. If only there was a character in this series who canonically struggled with heteronormative expectations of Roman praetorship, who then embraced their canon marginalized sexual identity after stepping away from Roman society....does this ring a bell to anyone else...?

In addition to Reyna's canon arc getting projected onto Jason by fans, Piper's queer journey also gets applied to Jason while Piper herself is largely brushed aside by fans. Like Jason, Piper's memories of her hetero relationship with Jason were implanted in her head by the goddess of marriage, and she later realized that her feelings of love for Jason weren't genuine. She then goes on to break up with him and explore her queerness, later dating a girl. This is a very compelling allegory for the real compulsory heterosexuality that wlw experience, and as a lesbian I found myself relating to it a lot. It makes me sad that Piper's queer journey so underappreciated by fans, while every other day I see posts imagining Jason with a very similar journey.

Why Jason? Why do I see so many people put so much thought into how Jason could be read as queer, while largely not touching the female characters with canon stories of queer self discovery? It's hard not to wonder if this is linked to the bias of prioritizing white men over women and especially women of color. This isn’t anyone’s individual fault: if it were just one Jason fan doing this, I would chalk it up to just a preference for his character over Reyna or Piper’s. However, the presence of a trend, the fact that this happens repeatedly, suggests a bias in favor of centering white male characters to the detriment of brown female characters. If you feel targeted by this post, sit with that discomfort. Examine and question your preferences. None of us are free from bias, and leaving it unexamined doesn’t make it go away.

I’m not against queer readings of Jason’s character, I just wanted to point out that people’s headcanons tend to recreate the canon queer arcs of Piper and/or Reyna to project onto him. I’m pointing this out because I don't think people even know they're doing it. Part of me wonders why Reyna and Piper don't get the same kind of attention and celebration for the traits that people want to apply to Jason. Except I think I already know the answer.

[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.

[coochiequeens]

The tide is turning and the TQ+ only have themselves to blame

Brits are turning against gender ideology

Ordinary people are swiftly waking up to the threat posed by 'trans rights'.

JO BARTOSCH. 30th September 2023

In news that has left members of the dinner-party set spluttering over their decolonised soya lattes, it turns out the great British public isn’t as bigoted as they fantasised. Published last week, the latest British Attitudes Survey (BAS) has shown that Brits are increasingly tolerant of same-sex relationships and ever-more accepting of sex before marriage or abortion.

But perhaps most tellingly, as attitudes toward sexual morality have become more liberal, attitudes toward transgenderism have become far less sympathetic. The survey shows that the proportion of people who think someone should be able to change the sex on their birth certificate if they want has fallen from 53 per cent in 2019 to 30 per cent today. The proportion of people who ‘describe themselves as not prejudiced at all against people who are transgender’ has also declined from 82 per cent in 2019 to 64 per cent today.

That particular statistic has been taken to mean that there is a rising tide of ‘transphobic’ bigotry. But I see no trace of that in the gender debate or in broader society. More likely, these stats capture the public’s growing concern about policies and ideas associated with transgender ideology, from the erosion of women’s rights to children’s safety.

Predictably, this change in attitudes has been condemned by those who have built their careers on the grievance politics of trans activism. Former Stonewall CEO Nancy Kelley opined on X (formerly Twitter) that ‘years of relentless toxic coverage and political manipulation is making us less tolerant and less supportive of a marginalised community’.

Kelley is just wrong. This attitudinal shift is not prompted by ‘toxic’ reporting or ‘political manipulation’. It’s actually prompted by a greater understanding of ‘transgender issues’. And here Kelley is correct – news coverage has made a difference. It has made us aware of what the cause of trans rights actually entails.

So, as stories like that of double rapist Adam Graham (aka Isla Bryson), a man who was put in a women’s prison, have received column inches in the British press, public opinion has begun to shift. Furthermore, in the face of obvious injustices, such as men triumphing in women’s sporting competitions and winning female-only awards, accusations of ‘transphobia’ have lost their power to silence would-be dissenters. The public is gradually waking up to the reality of transgender ideology and they don’t like it.

Gillian Prior, deputy chief executive at the National Centre for Social Research, which produces the BAS, disagrees. She seems to think the public’s turn against trans rights is evidence of our growing illiberalism. ‘In the case of transgender people’, she said, ‘the recent public debate about the law on gender recognition has appeared to have resulted in attitudes becoming less liberal than they were just a few years ago’. But this completely misunderstands the issues. There is nothing illiberal about not wanting women to give up hard-earned rights and spaces to accommodate the feelings of men who identify as trans.

In fact, the survey shows just how liberal Britain is now. The change in attitudes toward homosexuality has been remarkable and encouraging for those who believe in equality. Over the past 40 years, the proportion of those who think that same-sex relations were ‘always wrong’ has fallen from 50 per cent to just nine per cent.

The cause of LGB rights is very different to that of ‘trans rights’. Gay liberation was a fight to achieve legal parity with heterosexuals. The fight for trans rights is not about fairness or legal parity. It’s about allowing children to be put on experimental, puberty-blocking drugs, advocating for taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery and, above all, demanding that the rights of other groups, especially women, are infringed upon.

These illiberal and dangerous demands have been pushed by trans activists, not those advocating for LGB rights. As Kate Barker, chief executive officer of LGB Alliance, the only charity advocating exclusively for same-sex attracted people, explains, the battle for equality for gay and lesbian people has largely been won. If there is a growing threat to gay and lesbian rights today, it comes precisely from trans activists.

‘Today, gay men and lesbians are being branded as discriminatory bigots for being attracted exclusively to one sex, their own’, says Barker. ‘This is the result of gender-identity ideology, which promotes the belief that it is valid for some men to “identify” as women and vice versa. Believers in this ideology say it’s “transphobic” for lesbians to rule out all males who “identify as lesbians” as potential sexual partners. It is a bizarre reversal of the prejudice we faced in the Seventies and Eighties.’

So, despite the howls of protestation from trans activists, Britons are not becoming more intolerant. Rather, they are waking up and saying no to an ideology that threatens us all.

Jo Bartosch is a journalist campaigning for the rights of women and girls.

[transmascpetewentz]

@bugjolteon

this is such an astronomically bad take and you probably knew it as you were writing it. if you didn't, now you do, and here's why. (tl;dr at the end of the post)

gay trans men/lesbian trans women don't have "most content with any sort of relationship" made for us. i don't know what got into you that made you think that a group of people that famously has gender dysphoria has content "made for them" that centers our agab. like, please tell me why you think that i as a person who would rather die than be a woman, has content where i'm supposed to project onto the woman catered to me. that's not to say that it's impossible for me to relate to women in media, but it'd be the same as telling a cis gay man that he can just project onto random women and that that's good enough gay rep. it's just not a good argument.

there is not a lot of trans representation, especially for lesbian trans women and gay trans men, due to our relative invisibility until very recently. while you as a cis person probably won't relate to most stories about trans/trans + gay/t4t people where the transness is one of the main focuses, that is okay. you're allowed to consume and be emotionally impacted by media that you don't relate to. the mark of good media is not whether or not you relate to it but instead what you can learn from it. and i think that you need to consume some media so you can learn to see gay trans men and lesbian trans women as complex human beings within a society.

there are indeed (mostly cis, though other trans people are not exempt) people who draw porn, especially with gay trans men, where it's painfully obvious that they want to think of us as women. that's an issue that many of us have already addressed. usually, though, the people who fetishize us don't think it's "cool and gay", they see us as subhuman freaks whose only value comes from our genitals. they actively erase the homosexual nature of a trans man's encounter with a cis (usually even het) man. in fact, the specification of the trans man's sexuality is a major green flag that suggests that whatever art/content is not going to be fetishizing. this is due to the fact that mlm trans men's sexualities are usually erased so that the chaser can ignore our manhood and think of us as straight women without needing to confront their bigotry.

a group of people whose existence has been erased and whose experiences have been silenced wants to be loud, proud, and subversive. gee, i wonder why?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

tl;dr: it's stupid to expect gay trans men and trans lesbians to be able to relate to heterosexual media the same way that cis gay men relate to media of gay men or cis lesbians relate to media of lesbians, the gay trans experience is a metaphorical 20 hour plane flight away from the cishet experience, and chasers suck but try to erase our sexualities.

[randomidiocyncrazies]

alskjfhlajsajfklsaflfsdaj the depressed repressed potentially gay middle-aged man sure got me good............................

from his Interrogation questions, the Thing that Kazui is lying about since he was a child (and telling the truth about killed his wife) is at least partially related to gender roles, at least in his own mind. We know his father had expectations of him being a "strong manly man" and had him follow in his footsteps in being a police officer. His T1 answer about wanting to ride a carousel also hints that, for whatever reason, he never had the chance to do so as a child. While carousels are not inherently feminine or emasculating, they are kind of seen as kiddie or girly rides, especially back when Kazui would've been a kid himself. The fact that even as a child he had never been on one, while wanting it enough to still think about getting on one as a adult, implies that he probably had been forbidden or pressured into not going on it due to it's 'emasculating' reputation (even though there's nothing about it that's inherently emasculating)... just like how being gay isn't emasculating, but was seen as such until relatively recently (and in some places still has that reputation).

Now, imo Kazui enjoys/prefers being the one who is pursued and pampered, if he was free to take part in the kinds of relationships he craved*; this would, again, go against the traditional gender role of the 'proper man' being the one who provides, who pursues, who takes action—in Cat we see that even though Hinako is the one who fell in love first, Kazui is the one who initiates the dating and proposal. She doesn't ask him out; he does. Not only is he playing the role of a heterosexual man, he's playing the heterosexual man who is assertive in demonstrating his desire for his romantic partner, when I think his inclination is to be the one who is wanted/courted. Even if he was straight, the desire to be the pursued pampered partner is already something that wouldn't fit in with the traditional gender role of what a 'proper' man should be like... and then on top of that he likes men. Liking men by itself is already considered 'emasculating' by his parents and/or society, and wanting to be the receptive partner who is courted and desired would be another strike against his masculinity (because a strong manly man is the one who is supposed to articulate/express his wants and desires assertively, or so society says).

I really do think "wanting to be loved like a cat" (猫 which sounds the same as ネコ) is a pun that gives additional context about why he's so ashamed of his desires—in his mind he's a failure of a man because he not only is (most likely) attracted to men, but he wants to be the receptive/courted partner. Him being so so so torn up by this is really sad because like... being the receptive partner in a gay relationship doesn't make one "less of a real man" or whatever, but he can't let go of that idea (that his parents/society drilled into him) even though it's not actually true.

*if we apply 0506's "confessing or being confessed to" question to Kazui, I really think he'd prefer to be confessed to—he wants to be known and accepted and loved, but he cannot bear to tell us the truth himself and instead begs Es (us) to free him. He wants someone else to articulate the truth of his desires for him but is unable or reluctant to state them plainly. This is not a guy who wants to confess; this is a guy who wants the option to decide whether he'd go along with his partner's desires, but doesn't want to be the one to lay his desires out in the open.

[tomwambsgans]

i'm ngl it's because i recently read fight club, But i'm thinking a lot lately about castration and the true/deepest implications of it irt nero and sporus and tom and greg. obviously we've got tom's line about greg being "castrated on pay" and some pretty solid analysis on that being a matter of tom keeping greg dependent on him, but tbh even with said meta posts...

like, i'm sorry, but it's a weak line. it feels just as strangely on the nose as shiv falling down the stairs, and in fact like a line that exists specifically to match shiv falling. it almost even seems like a last-minute rush to complete Following Up The Nero And Sporus Thing, like they did the first part and managed to get all the way to the last episode before realizing they'd forgotten to do the second thing, so they had to reach for anything they could relate castration to without having to film a new scene. this feels especially evident/likely in the fact that there is NO way greg's salary is actually getting docked to the degree that tom implied. it's markedly disappointing, too, in the way that setting it up with shiv literally falling down stairs had the audience looking forward to how the rest of the overt symbolism would play out. castration on pay was the most mundane and least expected possible conclusion, lol. and not at all on par with the literal fall. like if that is the castration we were actually waiting for the whole time...

it's also all overkill, for that matter, considering that the s3 finale fit "pushed his wife down the stairs and married sporus" thing perfectly fine and a perfect amount of vague. like tom ALREADY betrayed shiv, symbolically "killing" her, and had an ancient-roman-wedding-handshake agreement with greg about his soul. even tom and greg's initial dynamic in the final season often feels like that of a married couple. which begs the question: why have the stuff in s4 on top of that? it may very well be simply one of the many marks of s4's drop in quality, caused by a myriad of irl factors. or it could possibly be on purpose to specifically bring home something else about the nero and sporus story. maybe it's to reinforce the tomshiv divorce and also tom and greg's marriage after all the rapid shifts in dynamic. who knows.

but what i DO know is that i wanna get to the bottom (lol) of the castration symbolism/motif. so i'm gonna go through everything that could possibly inform the audience's interpretation.

i'll start with the least significant, which i believe is the reality of castration in ancient rome and in the circumstances around the irl nero and sporus. part of why this falls on the bottom rung is the fact that historical accounts of nero especially with sporus are hotly contested. another reason is that the story tom tells is one that not only omits many details in a technically misleading/recontextualizing way, but also adds details that are present in no known accounts.

so: WHY was sporus castrated? there are 2 main possibilities/reasons.

to maintain his youthful [and therefore feminine] beauty. the real sporus was most likely around 16 when nero had him castrated. and the practice of castration to preserve youth had precedence. basically, twinks were REALLY in. it's alleged that sporus may have already been more effeminate (and sexually attractive) than average. but it's also said that sporus bore an uncanny resemblance to poppaea, which nero chose him for specifically and wanted to maintain.

in order to marry him with legal/social sanction. ancient roman society, rather than being built upon the heterosexual, was more built upon the Top/generally masculine. Eunuch was a gender class/category essentially equivalent with Woman, which allowed sporus to specifically be nero's wife. this didn't mean that his marriage to sporus was necessarily seen as good and normal, only technically acceptable.

and i have a ways more to go with the analysis but i'm gonna say right here that i do not think the first reason bears any significance to tom and greg. firstly due to that there is no textual evidence that tom wants greg to be explicitly feminine, even compared to himself, and a LOT to the contrary. tom consistently invites greg to join him in performing masculinity and gaining power through it, case in point the "let's fight like chickens" scene that directly follows the nero and sporus story. secondly, sporus's possible resemblance to poppaea does not track to greg and shiv more than incidentally; greg being shiv's cousin doesn't directly earn tom anything. but more importantly, imo, is the fact that what would have made nero want sporus to look like poppaea is in direct contrast with both the story tom tells AND the way their arc plays out.

so NOW, to demonstrate this, let's look at the irl poppaea's death/murder, which happened during her second pregnancy. different historians (even those alive at the time) have different theories for how it went down. who knows how much truth they're based in, bc there's a clear heavy bias against nero, but they're all we have anyway and therefore all tom would have had. here they are:

nero kicked her in the stomach in a fit of rage, while she was fighting with him about how much time he spent at the races (main theory/rumor)

nero kicked her in the stomach in a casual outburst

nero "leapt upon her belly" either accidentally or on purpose

nero poisoned her (uncommon rumor, most likely bs)

she died through no fault of nero's at all, simply bc of complications with her pregnancy (this has the most evidence, and is believed by many modern historians)

you'll notice a complete lack of stairs-related death theories, and in fact a near total lack of Nero Purposefully Murdered Poppaea theories. the general idea is that nero deeply mourned poppaea's death (and was remorseful, if it was his own fault), and proceeded to replace her with sporus, even calling him by her name.

which feels like a good segue into the more significant story of nero and sporus to analyze: the one that TOM told.

Sporus was a young slave boy. He was Nero's favorite. And, uh... you know what Nero did to him? Well, Nero... pushed his wife... down the stairs. And then he had Sporus castrated and he married him instead. And he gave him a ring. And he made him dress up like his dead wife. ...I'd castrate you and marry you in a heartbeat.

without looking into the actual story, this would sound like nero murdering his wife in order to marry sporus. with bringing up sporus first, it even sounds like nero met sporus and started favoring him prior to killing poppaea. which is also overtly analogous to tom and greg's relationship arc.

despite what tom must have read in his book, and what one could very easily imagine him, a Wife Guy, latching onto in that book... tom isn't telling greg about the tragedy of an emperor who accidentally killed his wife and then had to replace her with a young boy. tom literally invents a method of death that there is NO preexisting source for. furthermore he chooses one that does not sound remotely unintentional. at best he keeps in line with themes that suggest a violent miscarriage. but he removes all notions of an accident. he turns it into an unambiguous, purposeful uxorcide.

so, since all notions of trying to keep sporus looking like poppaea are not only unfitting as potential parallels, but also utterly irrelevant to the version of events that tom tells, and since we know tom twists and omits many other details (like what happens just a year into their marriage) anyway... what reasons DOES tom have for bringing up castration in this story? here's the possibilities i can come up with:

to make it sound less overtly romantic through means of the bizarre. classic diversionary tactic. literally without the castration it would sound undeniably like he's just saying "i read about this ancient roman gay marriage. an emperor murdered his wife so that he could marry a boy. i would like to do that with you also :)"

to make it sound less gay, specifically, because of nero's power in the situation. this of course calls back to that second reason for the actual sporus to be castrated. it's not gay if i've made you a eunuch, greg.

to emphasize the cruelty on nero's end. tom often puts himself in the role of a villain, especially irt his behavior with greg. considering also that this whole scene follows tom talking about how he's going to prison (AND that the next time he calls greg sporus it's in the scripts before the diner scene, where he agrees to sacrifice himself and go down for greg), it would make sense for him to buffer this confession with the caveat of what a bad person he is, like express in SOME way how insane his feelings are and how terrible he knows it is that he feels this way about greg. tom is notoriously unable to make normal apologies either, so. it tracks.

i think all of these are true, and i'm sure most would agree. i'm also sure most who've read this far are in full agreement that tom fixated on the story of nero and sporus in particular because it was a gay relationship with just enough ambiguity that he's able to relate to it without panicking. hell, the "he gave him a ring" line alone doesn't even evoke an ancient roman marriage nearly as much as a modern american one. i can't find even any sources that specifically mention a ring from nero to sporus, so i imagine tom invented that as well.

BUT while i'm here i do still want to mention a couple other queer things about nero to drive home that it's not just incidental gayness but overt homosexual desire being portrayed, as well as to emphasize that second reason that the irl nero may have had to castrate sporus:

prior to knowing sporus, nero had a mock-wedding as part of festive role-reversals during saturnalia. in this wedding he took the role of a bride, marrying a different freedman.

this is apocryphal and practically historical fiction, and may also specifically be due to perceived deviancy in nero, but it's old enough (like 13th century) that it's lowkey in the nero "canon" that he had womb envy and was obsessed with being the one to get pregnant

okay so NOW... how does all this translate into the actual events demanded/foreshadowed/symbolized by this story? if pushing shiv down the stairs is the betrayal that keeps her from being able to block the gojo deal (but also shiv is shown to fall down a couple real stairs)... and marrying sporus is making the "deal with the devil" (AND the sticker on the forehead)... then what's the castration? what was the first, less on-the-nose-and-simultaneously-meaningless castration, at least?

my best answer is that it's tom getting greg to drop his brightstar buffalo plans and follow him instead. because if death is just corporate death, then your testicles/manhood is your independence. tom says you're a joke, you can't function on your own, you need me (i need you). he's insecure that greg will leave if he has the option to do so. fair enough.

......and yet i come back to my initial disappointment, because that is barely different than the pay castration. and it's redefining greg's symbolic testes to something that tom gave him in the first place, thus practically retconning the first castration. but if that's it, does shiv's literal fall also replace her kick out of the company? that would sure be stupid! is the point of rehashing the symbolism to be stupid? to have meaningless stuff follow up the more significant events? even if that was the case, wouldn't you at least be doing it to give a visual element to the symbols? if shiv gets actual stairs, WHERE are greg's actual balls? or ANY balls!!!! greg even started wearing grey suits which he hadn't done before (but shiv had), and got a "ring" in his final scene. where's the FUCKING balls, huh?????

(anyway)

occam's razor, i think, may be that the meaninglessness of the castration specifically is the point. tom's insecurity that greg will leave if he has the option to (that greg would never actually want him but only need him), has been present for basically the duration of the show. it's just a character trait, and thus doesn't even work as foreshadowing when that just means "he's gonna keep doing what he's been doing." then, take that second reason--the purely pragmatic, not based in heterosexual-adjacent desire reason--for nero to castrate sporus. aka the only reason that makes sense for the way tom spins the story.

(it's also a motivation that leaves room for not even actually doing it. sporus wasn't going through rapid masculinization or anything. and they only lived another year. you could get away with just claiming that you did it for a while, probably.)

i should say there IS technically a third reason, postulated by modern scholars, for sporus's castration: to intentionally humiliate a potential rival for the throne. imagine if tom had told greg about nero and sporus upon first meeting. obviously things changed very quickly, but if all castration is here is tom keeping greg on a tight leash, then it works. and if the castration is nothing, then greg nearly tanking tom's plan out of naivety can be a nothing version of sporus wanting revenge. and shiv falling down real stairs can, instead of actually intending to set up a meaningful castration, be a red herring in that regard and simply foreshadow her pregnancy.

and that could be it. but... i've got One More Thing. maybe the most significant of all. lightning round:

who or what, in modern day where tom and greg live, actually IS castrated?

animals

specifically dogs

hmmmmmm

and why are DOGS castrated?

to reduce sexual and territorial aggression

reduce other unwanted behaviors

to keep them from breeding

okay. think greg's newfound sexual confidence in s4 and tom's distaste for it. tom's continued anxiety that greg's independence might lead him to leave him. think greg being tom's attack dog and how that nearly backfires at the very end. greg approaching tom at the end like a begging puppy.

think full circle: who's the rescue pup, i'll take care of you, i've got you...

i feel justified in recontextualizing all of this, and i come back to fight club:

Valley of the Dogs. Where even if they don't kill you, if someone loves you enough to take you home, they still castrate you.

[bumble66]

The similarities between closeted right-wingers and Chris Evans

Alternative title: "Dear Mr. future president Evans,"

Recently, I saw how Chris Evans met Joe Biden. For people who don't know. Chris Evans has a political online platform called ASP. This was not the first time he met a famous politican but meeting the president of the United States is something else. It should be clear by now why he does that... Anyway, it reminded me of the gossip I found recently:

As I mentioned in my last big blog post, about Chris' potential boyfriends, I am not really a fan of marvel and didn't know much about him during his time as Captain America. I only got interested after he started the cringeworthy PR relationship in November 2022. In 2018, I was made aware of how many closeted celebrities exist and Mr. Evans being so clumsy with his Portugal bride gave me the perfect opportunity to uncover this Hollywood facade.

As you can see, I have also been asked by a lot of people why I think Chris could be closeted (either gay, bi or a straight guy who doesn't want to commit and just sleeps around). I will answer these questions in relation to today's topics: I. The Portugal PR relationship is mostly done for his future political career (or that was the plan before the backlash) II. The behavior of closeted right-wingers resembles Chris Evans' III. Portugal Bride was not the first PR relationship rumor but why does a rich, attractive and alleged womanizer like Chris need PR relationships all the time? As I always say. Everything on my tumblr is alleged. I merely summarize what people speculate online and give my own opinion on that.

Tim Scott, a failed GOP 2024 candidate and alleged closeted gay man, announced on X that he got engaged to a woman:

As you can see from the screenshot, no one's buying it. It is rumored Tim Scott is doing this because he will be chosen as Trump's vice president. People online claim that Tim Scott being gay has been talked about way before the first "Why doesn't have Tim Scott have a girlfriend" articles:

I heard about Tim Scott being gay and being pressured to have a PR girlfriend around the same time Chris pretended to have gotten married in September and that made me think... I can't find the comment anymore but I remember someone of Chris' fans on the LSA forum suggesting that Chris' "A starting point" political platform isn't just for shits and giggles. Apparently, he wants to go into politics after his acting career. No idea how successful he will be now with that after his latest movie flops and the Portugal relationship having led to lost followers on his social media accounts because it made him appear as a "dollar store Leonardo DiCaprio" but in general..., this idea isn't too far off. Remember the Terminator aka Arnold Schwarzenegger? An action hero became the Governor of California and with Chris Evan's fake Captain America image, pretending online and in interviews to be like Steve Rogers, he could sway a lot of people too!

Remember. The alleged marriage wasn't the first PR relationship of Chris Evans. At least according to his fandom, when they explained how he and Portugal Bride met, he was involved in several other PR relationships before:

According to this person, the relationships with Christina Ricci and Minka Kelly from long ago, were planned by a PR team too and it adds up with a blog post I found years ago about how Minka is allegedly a beard for my back then favorite actor Jake Gyllenhaal. Bearding appears to be a career of its own in Hollywood: https://gaywriter.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/blind-item-jake-gyllenhaal-is-looking-for-a-new-female-beard-to-present-illusion-of-heterosexuality-to-fans/

So his PR team not only allegedly had several options next to the Portugal Bride (like Monica Barbaro) but they were apparently also responsible for his faked relationship with Lily James? It is rumored that Lily wanted more from this PR arrangement from back in 2020. Possibly real love? The social media site Icons+ reports that "Lily James left Chris Evans to be a millionaire's "other woman"". She basically publicly "cheated" on Chris and many gossip sites reported on it. Did Lily do that as revenge because Chris solely wanted PR and rejected her? Kinda like "if you don't give me real love, I ain't giving you positive PR either". It makes me wonder though. Why would a heterosexual man privately reject a pretty woman like Lily James after wanting to be seen with her in paparazzi photographs after all? Odd.

Yes, Chris' alleged personal Paparazzo with the name Jesal basically admitted that he was called to do the pictures with Lily back in 2020 (Nowadays, he seems to be busy with the Portugal PR relationship as you can see from the screenshot, where he was called for a christmas party Portugal Bride and Chris attended). This reminds me of of another failed 2024 GOP candidate who is rumored to be closeted. There is a medium article regarding Ron DeSantis called "Is the GOP gossiping that Ron DeSantis is gay?", how most if not all of the GOP party know about his alleged homosexualty:

As you can see, not just his own party but the general public thinks so too. In fact, they speak about Ron DeSantis' being closeted the same way some people speak about Chris being allegedly closeted:

The replies to this dailymail article about Chris' and Portugal Bride's relationship-reveal, demonstrate that people think that both Chris and Ron overplay the alpha male macho tough guy image, solely to cover their true sexual orientation.

But PR relationships can also have another function. As I pointed out on my blog before: There are many heterosexual men I know who just wanted to sleep around but because of societal pressure, they pretend to be monogamous. The latest political example of that seems to be Gavin Newsom who has been in the news for being an alleged serial cheater. He was already caught cheating back in 2007. On X I found this summary of his latest shenanigans: (TRIGGER WARNING: mention of SA)

Why do I mention Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom in relation to Chris Evans? Because they all have one thing in common. A fake stable married man image. Look at the header picture of DeSantis and Newsom on X. Newsom holding his son in his harm. A few weeks ago, DeSantis had a header picture of holding his children's hands and the latest picture, you can see right now, also shows his wife and kids again to portray the family man image while allegedly being someone completely different (a closet case = Ron, a cheater= Gavin). Sorry not sorry but when I saw those header images combined with the rumors I knew about those two guys, I immediately though that Chris is not so different. He also calls the paparazzi, so he can be portrayed for the public as a guy who has a stable relationship and doesn't randomly sleep around in all kids of places.

As someone pointed out on the Lipstick Alley thread called "Chris Evans Relationship Theories 5", he used to go to parties similar to the ones seen in the movie "Eyes Wide Shut" but these rumors were allegedly scrapped by his team when he became Captain America. Why did they worry so much about this specific gossip? Was it true after all? Apparently this goes back as far as 2006:

I have no problems with that because I am pro sexual liberation. I actually point this out so we can normalize this and let people be who they really are, so that they don't have to do these fake relationships anymore.

I mean, remember the screenshot from my "Chris Evans possible boyfriends" post? The user ShellyT20... how she described that a lot of PR relationships in Hollywood exist because the male actors either sleep with each other, have p-word scandals and/or are serial cheaters "but post fake romance stuff on IG and other public platforms. It gives a fake sense of normalcy and stability and shuts fans up for the most part as well as acting as a distraction." When I read this I got reminded of the public "beyond the blinds podcast" episode you can listen to on spotify. The one about the Hemsworth brothers. There it was alleged that Chris Hemsworth is constantly cheating. I wasn't surprised. He isn't my type but I can't deny that he is what most consider super attractive + tall + rich = in no way is this guy monogamous as a famous hollywood actor (LMAO the audactiy to even thinkt hat)... Sadly, when I confront some people with that... for instance Evans fans on LSA or X, most roll their eyes and don't believe that.... They were like: "How can a guy like C. Hemsworth, who posts social media posts about loving being a father and being married for over a decade possibly be such a bad guy"... ... ... ... ... Well and this the reason why Hollywood still fools you with PR relationships because most of you are gullible. You want to see men married with children and as long as the women are age appropriate, you eat it up. And all this goes even beyond these Hollywood celebrities and politicians the general public is aware of. Apparently, even e-celebs are in PR relationships/fake image relationships these days. The youtuber TheQuartering, who said he was partying with right-wing e-celebs said this about them last year: (TRIGGER WARNING: transphobic slur)

Just like how Chris Evan's fans are disappointed that he wasn't the internet boyfriend after all (his fake image for the 2010s) and started to date random young women like Leonardo DiCaprio and Bradley Cooper, TheQuartering was disappointed too with his right-wing colleagues, who pretended to be committed husbands with children while actually being a closeted pride parade. The right-wing commentarors TheQuartering talks about are: Elijah Schaffer, Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich. When I found that out I was shocked. I was like "So even these e-celebs are basically "their own Hollywood club" and need PR relationships to function publicly". It really shows how deep gender roles are still ingrained in our society. That even internet-famous people have to have a family man image and portray themselves in a certain way to become "e-celeb-A-list". And if they don't, they will be denied that status.

I know it hurts that your favorite A-list stars are also wife cheaters and that their activism is most likely fake only so that they can continue participating in Hollywood orgies (Which apparently already happen on the e-celeb level). But at one point it had to come out and isn't it better to accept reality than to participate in and support these fake scenarios only to feel better about the world? Cause it is not just TheQuartering who exposed the fake image of the right-wing online community. Blaire White, a right-winger herself, pointed out the same. As people say, where there is smoke, there is fire:

In this video at 55:35 regarding Blaze Media, Blaire White spills tea about closeted e-celebs. It also includes orgies and drugs... like with our favorite super hero (allegedly).

(Blaire is not the only one who knows about the orgy parties)

Lastly, one of the most famous right-wing e-celebs is Steven Crowder. On his channel he had a video where he once admitted that he had a bisexual phase... a phase..

And according to his own logic that means:

He also went so far and basically created beard twins. I remember clearly the video where he announced the pregnancy of his wife. He held up a picture into the camera from an ultrasound. It was like "See, I am hetero after all. Are you happy now?". That's at least my opinion on how the video looked like and it adds up with what peole usually say about him:

Honestly, if someone had told me that this text is about Chris Evans, I'd have believed it and so now we have come full circle. While I only know about Chris Evan's since the pandemic (As I said, I don't watch super hero movies), I am still disappointed. In some interviews, he appeared so adorable, awkward and different from other men in Hollywood (like when he was interviewed about his "Lightyear movie announcement" tweet on Jimmy Kimmel). But in the end he is no better than the closeted republicans. Portraying a conservative image of marriage while behind closed doors it is worse than a sitcom trying to convince you that canned laughter makes everything funnier.

(picture: Is this the awkwardness people talk about? Adorable...)

Yes, there have always been rumors that his real personality is being "weird and awkward" and that he is not just acting in movies but also in most interviews. It goes so far that someone claimed he had been rejected on a date and that's why some people assume it is actually him who initiated the Portugal PR relationship and basically paid for it because he can't get someone himself through normal means. Are some people punished with their good looks?

IMO just like with the married right-wing e-celebs who do orgies all the time, it is also a bad idea of Chris wanting to become a father (at least according to his "sexiest man alive" PR narrative from 2022 which seems to be in the trash can now too).

But let's assume his PR team has that still on their minds: Not only would it be solely for his image (which would make this situation PR either way, even if the marriage were real) but according to all his alleged wild ways, he is also unfit to parent, it would be a disaster actually. Controversial commentator Pearl Davis described it very well. How some people just shouldn't be parents:

I agree with Vale. She would just be in it for the image of being a married woman and in our case... a married, monogamous, non-cheating family man. A user on LSA said that when you switch out "fake nails" with "fake teeth" in Pearl Davis' message, you will have the pefect description of Chris Evans:

(Chris Evans being interviewed at the Lightyear premiere resembling Barry Manilow with too much botox) Sorry but after seeing this picture, I have to agree with her. I love his clothing style but a bi-peacock who is more interested in vanity and fake status will never be a good role model for children. As the saying goes: "You can't have it both ways"

I know this is all a tough pill to swallow but c'mon people. This is the year 2024 and at one point this fakeness just needs to stop. Celebrities, politicians and even social meda e-celebs... you are being fooled. And according to Hollywood insider and daughter of famous TV personality John Walsh, a lot of times, one partner of the arrangement is suffering. Is this really what you support? I don't and that's why I uncover all these PR relationships of the entertainment world because as a true progressive, I don't think that people should be judged based on outdated gender expectations like marriage and monogamy.

The closet kills... your real personality. I mean honestly, what do you gain from being remembered after your death as someone you never were? As Joan Rivers jokes at 0:43 in a short clip from 1966. This so called bearding has been going on forever. I don't think we need a 100th anniversary of this shameful practice. So please help me to expose this so that in the future, celebrities can become famous for truly being themselves.

[k-s-morgan]

Hi, I hope you are safe and sound

I've been meaning to ask you a question about asexuality but was afraid it would be too personal. Your recent post is about, so I guess it's ok to ask, but if not, feel free to skip

I'm still young enough, going through my university years, but I've never felt attraction towards anyone. Even as a teenager at school. (Now, I'm not even sure if I can love anyone as a partner) Though I like reading romantic stories and do understand when a person is 'attractive' or not. So, the question is how/when did you understand that you are asexual and do you have any tips perhaps? It's just so upsetting for me to feel pressure from not only society but also my parents who expect me to find a lover and have a family

Hello! Oh, please don't worry, I don't mind any kind of personal questions as long as they are not deliberately offensive!

Asexuality means a lack of sexual attraction to anyone, but there is such thing as aesthetic attraction, meaning that you find some people aesthetically pleasing, very beautiful, etc. From what you said, you might be referring to it. Asexuals are perfectly capable of evaluating the general attractiveness of a person and they might even have their preferred ideal of beauty.

In my case: for a long time, I was confused because I felt aesthetic attraction., and like, I adored reading and writing and watching romance stories. It's my favorite genre. All of this made me think that I’m bisexual, and I identified as such. But even when I admired a person’s beauty, it was more like admiring a painting. I felt no desire to do anything sexual with them (or anything romantic). When I saw a great character, I wanted to ship them with someone instead of seeing myself with them.

When I read about asexuality, something finally clicked, and I was thrilled with understanding who I am. I never doubted it since I found my label around 23, and I knew at that point that I’m just not attracted to people, neither romantically nor sexually. If you live that long and you never experience what other people do, to me, it's a clear indication that you're different in some way. I was excited to find the source of this difference.

The most important thing is what and how you feel. You can find a definition that describes you best and makes you feel comfortable; you can change your mind later. Many people dislike labels in general; I felt pleased when I found one, but we all have different experiences. Just try not to push yourself into something you don’t want or don’t like. Even if others don’t respect your sexuality/preferences, respect them yourself and I think (and hope) that you’ll be happy.  

I understand about feeling pressure, and I'm sorry. I wish I knew what to say here. My immediate family is very supportive, but everyone else is often annoying. I’ve never dated anyone, I never felt romantic or sexual interest to anyone; I had my first kiss + sex out of curiosity when I was 22, and it didn’t change anything in me - it was just a weird, very mechanical activity. But my friends and most of my relatives still say stuff like, “Oh, honey, you just haven’t met the right person yet! Have you tried therapy? I hope this year, you’ll find the love of your life! Would you like me to set you up with my friend?” My Mom tried to explain to her co-workers why I don’t plan on getting married, and they all refuse to accept that asexuality exists. They think I must be hiding some trauma. This is extremely offensive and infuriating. 

Sexuality is a part of who you are. I try to make people around me understand it, but they just blink at me in confusion. I ask heterosexual folks, “Why are you so sure you are straight? Maybe you just haven’t find the right man/woman.” When my aunt wished me to find a partner for the 100th time, I waited for her birthday and wished her to become a surgeon (she never had any relation or interest in medicine). She seemed to understand something, but a few months later, we were back to where we started. Still, maybe something like this could help you?

I'm comfortable and happy with myself, so while other people are a source of occasional frustration, their opinions don't really affect me.

I don't know how aggravating your situation is or might get, so the only thing I can say is that I hope you remember that your happiness with yourself matters most. You might figure out what label fits you best, you might start/keep changing them - as long as you’re comfortable with who you are, it’s all fine!

[farmerlesbian]

hi farmer lesbian!

so ive identified as bisexual for a long time but ive discovered recently i feel very comfortable within the lesbian ideas of gender and specifically the butchfemme community. i’ve been dating someone recently who also identified as bisexual but has related to transmasc lesbians understanding of gender as well as posts about butches. we both kind of see ourselves within the butchfemme dynamic but i’ve been very tough on myself with calling myself a lesbian because i’ve dated a man before (…in middle school..)

it’s gotten to the point where i’m really worried to label myself because of what it’d imply for my partner? but also what people would say? and while i know i dont HAVE to label myself it just sucks to know theres an identity im drawn to and feel like i fit into that i cant immediately slip into

hmm i'm not really sure how to guide you here. i guess i want to challenge you on some of the things you're saying here, it feels like you're coming at this from maybe the "wrong" angle (wrong feels too harsh a word, maybe just not the most helpful angle)

you're worried you can't call yourself a lesbian because you dated a boy in middle school? i think.. a LOT of lesbians dated boys in jr. high and high school and there are lots of late in life lesbians who were married to men for years before figuring out who they are and coming out. this is all completely normal and common. like, dating one boy in middle school doesn't really mean much tbh. i wouldn't base your identity or label you use around something like that. i dated a bunch of boys in high school and early college when i was still figuring out who i was. your labels or identity or gender or sexuality don't need to account for all you life experiences and past. it's not so much about your sexual history but describing who you are *now*, what you're interested in, in the present.

you say both you and your partner really like Lesbian Genders and butch/femme stuff. that's nice, but liking and relating to lesbian culture and gender stuff doesn't make you a lesbian haha! it's who you're attracted to and who you're not, that determines your orientation. gender and orientation are different things, as i'm sure you know. obviously very connected and stuff. like, for example, just because someone identifies as a man it doesn't make him straight, even though heterosexuality is an integral part of manhood, in the dominant culture. gay trans men are certainly not rare! the same goes for you guys.

also, remember that transmasculinity is a broad umbrella and encompasses a wide variety of people and their identities and experiences. plenty of butches aren't transmasc, and probably most transmascs aren't butch.

i will tell you that in the course of running this blog and being on the internet, i've probably seen and shared thousands of photos and drawing of people. not once have i ever seen something that represents me and my wife. if you are seeking out representation or examples of the options to be, in order to figure out who/what you are, i would advise against that. seek what feels true to you, what feels honest and right. you do not need to be similar to other people in order to find belonging, acceptance, and community. (though of course this is absolutely nothing wrong or bad if you do find others just like you, if you do fit in to existing roles and dynamics! that is of course perfectly normal!)

now, i don't know you or your partner. you know yourselves best. i can't tell you what you really are or really aren't. and i certainly am not going to tell you what you can or can't be! everything i'm saying here is to prompt you to think about and questions to ponder for yourself.

so, i think you have some points to think about, why have you been identifying as bisexual? what is drawing you to the lesbian label? have you tried using 0 labels and not thinking about your identity or labels for at least a month or two (if not a several months) and then coming back and evaluating it afresh? what about the butch-femme dynamic are you drawn to? what is holding you back? you are allowed to discover that you are a lesbian! or you are allowed to continue to be bisexual! i can't tell you who you are - but you're allowed to be and do whatever you want, whatever feels true to you! even if it doesn't make sense to other people or you don't see anyone else like you out there. you gotta be a little bit brave!

hang in there, and sending much love to you and yours! 🧡

[lucy-moderatz]

aceness and re-learning to read romance

this is long. just warning you.

For a good portion of this year, I thought I’d started to hate romance novels. They’ve never exactly been the focus of my reading, but since I’ve started reading regularly again, they’ve always been a feature. For the most part, I’ve enjoyed them. There are always duds, of course, but more and more over the last few months I just…haven’t been able to take them. 

Tropes I used to like suddenly annoyed me. Writers I once really enjoyed flopped time and time again. Was it them? Was it me? I severely downsized my romance collection. There were some hits, for sure. But they were fewer and farther between. I started to have much better luck when I focused primarily on queer romances, where I saw far more success. But that left me with another question. Why?

We should all be reading queer stories. Sci-fi, fantasy, non-fiction, horror, every genre, every month, every year. That goes without saying. My sudden fixation of queer romances could have just been a desire to see stories told in a different way, from a different point of view, old tropes reimagined. But what about my queerness: my aceness. Did that have something to do with it?

My aceness goes like this: I do not want to have sex. I probably never have. I probably never will. That’s the base from which I operate. However, that doesn’t mean I don’t want to read about sex. That doesn’t mean I don’t love reading about sex. I do. I love a well-constructed, hot, dirty love scene between any two consenting adults who want to be there. That’s fun. Sex is fun, as long as it’s not happening to me. 

However, a thought recently occurred to me that I haven’t been able to let go of: have I begun to gravitate away from, full disclosure, mostly heterosexual romances because they make me feel like sex is happening to me?

I know a common criticism that gets lobbed at the romance genre and romance readers by joyless morons is that it’s all wish-fulfillment and self-insert. That women imagine themselves in the place of the heroine and get off vicariously through that. That’s certainly not always true. And if it is true, so what? I read sci-fi novels to live vicariously through people who get to fly around in space. I read cozy fantasy to feel like I’m in a magical world where everything is safe and comfortable. Self-insert is a valid way to read, but since we apparently need to be policing women’s desires all the time, it’s something women have to defend themselves against all the time.

But this isn’t about how capital “W” women read. This is about how this lower case “w” woman reads, and how I come to a piece of work as an asexual/aromantic. I realize I may have been coming to the piece as if I am the woman in the piece. I’m now forced to be her. Which is difficult because more often than not, she wants to be there and I don’t. I don’t relate to her because I can’t relate to her. I wouldn’t give the male love interest a second chance because I don’t feel her feelings and I don’t know how. Therefore I get frustrated when she does because what’s the point? Living happily ever after? I’m happy now.

You see where this is a problem.

I am not the person in the book. But somehow, I have been reading romances, and I feel it is particular to romance, as if I am. With queer romances, particularly ones where there are no female love interests (and those are, for the most part, the ones I inevitably picked) there’s a built-in defense against that. Against the uncomfortable feeling of being unable to separate myself from the female protagonist, from her choices feeling like mine, and her desires being completely antithetical to mine. I find myself liking those books a much higher rate more because I feel inherently set apart in a way I suppose I no longer feel in most heterosexual romances. It's just a book again.

I don’t think we’re taught to read this way. Maybe subliminally, I don’t know. I know not everyone reads this way. I know that “this has nothing to do with me, these people are not real, let’s see all of the fun things they do” is the way, probably, most people come to a book. I just never realized, when it came to romance, maybe I wasn’t one of them. Maybe I didn’t know to have that barrier up. Maybe I didn’t know it would end up bothering me so much.

I told my Dad I was asexual because I was reading a book and two characters were having a conversation and suddenly, or at least suddenly it seemed to me, one character began thinking they were sexually attracted to the person they were talking to. In the middle of the conversation. I was just…annoyed. Baffled and annoyed. Because here we were again. This was not a romance book. This was a mermaid and a human talking about some heavy stuff and then there it was. I felt slammed into. By this feeling I don’t get, this thought I’ve never had, that every single person seemed to have but me. I’d been thinking about asexuality, reading about it, talking with friends, asking myself, “Is this me? Is that why I don’t feel these things? Should I tell him? What will he think? I can’t not tell him. I can’t not tell someone. He loves me. He’ll understand.”

He did, by the way. They all did. I was lucky.

So. I haven’t had long to test this theory. I just finished my first heterosexual romance in a long time, and though there were very few sex scenes, I went into it with the thought, “This has nothing to do with me. Let’s have some fun.” And I did. I can’t promise they’ll all be like that. I don’t know if it matters if they are. They’re just books. But I wanted to reflect on this part of myself, this journey into what being ace means for me, how being more aware of it and accepting it as part of my identity, part of how I intrinsically think and approach the world, may change, may expand, how I approach everything.

I’ll never stop reading queer romance. It’s not a shield, I’d never treat it that way. I just hope that I’ll now be able to approach all romance the way I have always approached queer romance, as it’s own piece of art to be judged and evaluated on its own merits, as a story about people completely separate from me who happen to want relationships and like sex and will live happily ever after.

After all, I’m already happy now.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Mike Ramsay

Published: Mar 7, 2024

Late last month, the public learned that the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) through its Equity, Anti-Racism & Anti-Oppression Department issued a teaching guide claiming the Canadian education system is “colonialist” and designed to uphold the dominant white culture. The document, entitled “Facilitating Critical Conversations,” specifies that “education is a colonial structure that centres whiteness and Eurocentricity and therefore it must be actively decolonized,” and “schooling in North America is inherently designed for the benefit of the dominant culture (i.e., white, middle-upper class, male, Christian, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, neurotypical, etc.)”. It adds that, “race matters—it is a visible and dominant identity factor determining people’s social, political, economic, and cultural experiences.”

While the school board has since temporarily removed the guide pending review after the Ontario Ministry of Education called it divisive, it is important that this thinking which has captured our school systems not be ignored. 

That this handbook was actually produced and distributed by the TDSB did not come as a shock to me, because, in my view, it is representative of what is taking place at other school boards right across Ontario. A reasonable question to ask is how all of this came about.

Having served as a trustee for 24 years, I would suggest it emerged because of the work of frontline activists who truly believe in their cause and that the system is stacked against racialized students. However, many others in leadership positions, who have other motives, simply see this as an opportunity to enrich themselves. They did this by pretending to address the activists’ perception of the issues.

As a Black trustee and past chair of a large school board (WRDSB), I often wondered what good could come from paying DEI consultants upwards of $500.00 an hour to teach kids that if they are white, the successes they experience are not due to personal effort. Meanwhile, racialized students are being taught that despite personal effort, their chances of success are diminished because society is racist and therefore biased against them.

The fact is that we have both white and racialized kids who are doing well academically. Conversely, we have white and racialized kids who are not doing so well. What I have found as a member of my board’s discipline committee is that the kids (from all backgrounds) who are not doing well usually have other issues that are at play, including, but not limited to significant behavioural issues that are impacting their ability to learn. However, you can’t tell this to the proponents of DEI, who have been busy organizing events to celebrate and take credit for the academic success of racialized students who I believe were, for the most part, never in danger of failing school in the first place. The credit should go to the parents and caregivers who worked and continue to work hard to encourage and support their children.

Thankfully, with the passing of each day, more and more people are beginning to question the need for school initiatives that are fixated on identity politics. They are coming to realize that certain aspects of DEI instruction can actually lead to greater prejudice and even harm, as highlighted in a recent study released by the Aristotle Foundation and authored by Professor David Haskell. 

Haskell’s report shows that DEI related to “anti-racism” education and its promotion of “white privilege” doesn’t make participants more sympathetic to disadvantaged Black people as DEI trainers claim, and can in fact make them more hostile toward poor white people.  

As he elaborates, “Teaching students about white privilege, a core component of the DEI curriculum, does not make them feel more compassion toward poor people of colour but can reduce sympathy [and] increase blame…for White people struggling with poverty.”

In light of Haskell’s overwhelming evidence, I feel school boards should be required to justify the expense and existence of DEI in their organizations. Moreover, if it is doing harm as his research shows, do we not have an obligation to use legislation to stop the practice immediately in our classrooms?

I would say we do. And that is why I agree wholeheartedly with parent Liz Galvin who recently told the Halton District School Board: “Trustees, when your equity and inclusion policies are used to generate administrative procedures by un-elected DEI proponents that contradict the aims and prescribed goals of said policy, then you have an obligation to insist that they be scrutinized, amended and or removed.” 

It seems straightforward, but the practice will not stop if it is left solely to the discretion of the Ontario NDP supporting majority which dominates most school boards.

This is where the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Doug Ford comes in. Even though his government has made it clear through their 2023 Better Schools and Student Outcomes Act (Bill 98) that they want boards to be dead focused on tangible measurable learning achievement, rather than on faddish so-called “social justice” experiments, boards continue to double down on these DEI initiatives. I don’t know if the government is tiptoeing around the issue out of fear that the far-Left radicals entrenched in our education system will attack them. More and more parents and education workers from all backgrounds across our province are paying closer and closer attention to the damage being done. It is time for the Ford government to respond firmly and issue clear directives to boards to end these divisive practices.

==

You can tell it's a cult because they don't care about evidence.

The way to combat this is the same as combatting religion. You say, prove it. You're asking us to sink a tub of taxpayer money into your program. So, let's see your statistics. Let's see your before and after metrics. Let's see how you measured the success of your training program and the results. Let's see what we can expect for ourselves based on your success elsewhere.

They can't and won't. They'll instead morally brow-beat you with words like "white supremacy" and "danger" and "harm." Despite them making truth claims - that is, statements that are supposed to be taken as factually true - part of the scam is that they'll even claim that asking for this sort of evidence is itself part of the problem. This is the same tactic as a priest threatening you with hell to sell you salvation, or a salesman frightening you with murder and rape to sell you an alarm system.

At that point you say, so, no statistics, no metrics, no results, huh? And you invite them to leave.