#bi culture is being attracted to both of them

[moki-dokie]

been seeing some stuff on blue eye samurai and big yikes to nearly everyone pushing extremely western ideals onto these characters.

this is early edo period. 1600s. the japan you know now did not exist yet.

yall. please. there was NO concept of sexuality in pre-modern japan. that came with both the influx of christianity and western influence very very late in history. like, mid-1800s. (yes, there was christianity pre-1800s but it was not a widespread idea yet and wouldn't be until about the 1800s since, y'know, missionaries were routinely murdered before then)

"so and so is either bi and hasn't figured it out yet or..." no. that isn't how it worked then. nobody gave a shit what was between your legs. anyone could be attracted to anyone else. it was a little more common for male homosexual relationships to be between an adult and younger male - like many other places around the world - but two adult men could bang and love each other just as easily. relationships between women were quite common - especially since so many men were often away at war. there's tons of pornographic prints from the time depicting all manner of fun queer relationships. sex itself had absolutely no moral assignment to it. good sex was good health. it didn't matter who with. (well, social class/caste mattered more than anything else tbh but that didn't stop upper and lower class from fucking.) that isn't to say people didn't have preferences. of course they did. that is human nature. preferences arose more from physical appearance, caste, and circumstances with gender being about the last thing one would look for in a partner - romantic, casual, or otherwise. the only role in sex where gender actually mattered was for procreation.

there would be no queer awakening moment, no sudden switch flipped, no stigma to have internal conflicts about because it simply did not exist as a concept whatsoever. you were either attracted to a person or you weren't, it was that simple. gender played no role when it came to sex and sexual attraction. the japanese were lightyears ahead of western cultures in this particular area - like most cultures were before christianity came in and ruined everything with its backwards morals and strict good/evil dichotomy.

yall have got to realize queer rep will not and should not always adhere by modern western standards. there was no straight, gay, bi, or anything else of the sort. the closest they ever got was referring to roles during sex - as in who is giving and who is receiving.

i know this is mostly a made up story but it is still set within a very specific time period and culture, which should be honored and respected by not making it fit into our box. tons of research went into making this show historically accurate (albeit with some discrepancies but tbh they aren't really that huge) right down to the calligraphy writing. please please please don't whitewash the culture from these characters.

i say this mainly because without this knowledge, so many of you are going to build these characters up on a foundation they aren't meant to be on and then you'll rage about queerbaiting and bad queer rep if it isn't somehow super explicitly stated, if it doesn't match your very modern, very western ideal of what queer looks like. don't try to force this plot and narrative and characters into something they canonically and historically aren't. headcanons are a thing, AUs are a thing, fanfiction is a thing - leave your western thinking for those and let these characters simply exist as they should otherwise. this is one of those times where the queerness really does not need to be examined at all beyond what we get.

i know it can be hard to wrap your head around - sexuality is such a huge part of our identity in the western world and has slowly started to spread amongst other parts of the world in importance. but just keep in mind with these particular characters, that concept would be so very alien to them.

[a-frog-in-a-bog]

I keep seeing posts about how damaging ace discourse was to aces and while I’m glad we’re talking about tumblr’s bullying problem I think some of you have selective amnesia bc the war was DEFINITELY being fought from both sides. For every post calling asexuals cringe or lonely turbo virgins there was at least one reply or comment or post saying shit like “ok have fun dying of aids” or “I’m a bi ace which is exactly the same as being bisexual except I’m not a slut” or “ace culture is not having to worry about spreading STDs”.

Nearly every post made by a trans woman discussing transphobia was derailed by someone making it about asexuality instead (unfortunately this is still common on tumblr) and posts about gay sex or attraction were flooded with comments about those nasty dirty allos. Lesbians who expressed frustration about not being able to talk about their sexual attraction to women without aces “fixing” their posts to make them pure and wholesome were characterized as mean dykes and aphobic. And the shit that people posted after the pulse shooting was thinly veiled homophobia— do you know how many posts I saw that were along the lines of “well maybe if you gays were nicer to aces we’d donate blood” or “ace culture is hearing about the pulse shooting and wondering who would want to go dancing at a sweaty club when you could be home reading”.

And idk if people realize this but kink at pride discourse was born from ace discourse. The sheer amount of posts that were like “stop sucking face at pride I’m ace and it grosses me out get a room” or “pride is supposed to be a safe space for aces too nobody cares that you like to get tied up and fucked in the ass” or “as an aroace it makes me uncomfortable to see people wear nothing but leather harnesses stop making pride sexual”.

We absolutely should be calling out the people who posted graphic porn in the ace tag or harassed aces by calling them broken and unloveable bc that’s fucking horrendous and unacceptable but don’t act like every asexual on tumblr was an innocent smol bean posting garlic bread memes and minding their business bc the shit thrown at lgbt people in the name of ace discourse was awful and damaging to see, especially as a teen coming to terms with my sexuality

[officialspec]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

first off i hate this ask and i think youre a freak. in any other world i wouldve blocked you for this but unfortunately for both of us i actually like this type of philosophy. dont send this shit to anyone else though

i dont think its right to compare human sexuality to the same thing in animals, to get that out of the way. im sure until a certain point it comes from the same biological impulses, but human beings have way more complicated social structures and reasons for coupling that just do not exist in other animals. our social behaviours are what make us unique in the animal kingdom and that definitely extends to gender and sexuality. so theres that

people love to tout 'gender is a social construct' around like its a criticism in and of itself, which i think betrays a misunderstanding about social constructs in general. theyre the foundations we build language on to better understand each other, and affected by a whole host of cultural and historical factors. just because theyre subjective and complicated doesnt mean they arent real. in terms of the effect they have on peoples lives they may be the most real thing that exists

for example, 'kindness' is a social construct. the definition and ways it is enacted differ greatly across personal and cultural lines. but no one would ever suggest a world where kindness doesnt exist or loses meaning, because its an essential part of the way we interact with each other (in the same way i dont really see a world where gender entirely ceases to exist, mainly just one where people have more fun with it. im not a psychic though so who knows)

similarly, sexuality in humans is another social construct. i think the driving biological forces behind it are very real, but the labels people attach to those impulses are subjective attempts to express their inner world to the people around them if that makes sense. and those same biological impulses are ALSO subject to social ideas of gender, because those ideas are established at birth and reinforced over a persons entire lifetime

to use myself as an example, im a gay trans man. ive identified as other things in the past, because i was trying to pick apart feelings i had and express them to others in an attempt to find community. my identity might change as i get older and experience new things, or it might not. i identify as gay because im not attracted to the social concept of women, and someone i would otherwise be attracted to might lose all appeal after i find out they fall under that concept (this has happened before w transfems pre and post coming out lol)

of course, the real REAL answer to this is that trying to give queer identities rigid and objective definitions is a fools errand, and also lame as fuck. someone might identify as gay and be more attracted to general masculinity than men as a social category, maybe they fool around with a couple of butch women without considering themself any less gay. two otherwise identical people might be a butch lesbian and a gay trans man without either of those identities coming into conflict. they might even be the same person at different times of the week

the labels people choose to use are communication tools, not objective signifiers. if you dont understand them, they probably arent talking to you

social constructs are everything. we as humans have the unique ability to interpret our own messy desires and impulses into words that other people can use to form an idea of someone else in their mind. its how we build connections, and of course it isnt perfect because trying to squeeze someones entire personal history and the centuries of context that defined it into a handful of syllables is going to leave some room for error. but its all we have, yknow? so we keep trying. and i think thats much more human than any imposed objective 'truth' could ever be

tldr we live in a society dipshit. get with it

[what-even-is-thiss]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

There’s whole subsets of philosophy and science dedicated to this sort of thing, dude. If you’re looking for one particular answer that applies universally to all gay men or all of one orientation or gender etc that’s not useful and if you insist upon getting that one particular answer you come across as dangerously ignorant.

Asking what it is that makes someone gay is a bit like asking “What’s an American?” or “What’s a country?”

At first they seem like straightforward questions but once you dig even a bit below the surface you’ll find that everyone and every place and every situation has a different answer. Is the EU a country? Is India? Is Idaho? Why? Why is a Mexican an American in Spanish but not in English? Spanish speakers will be insulted if you say they’re not American but Canadians will be insulted if you say they are. And Americans as in persons and from the United States of America aren’t as clear cut a group as that quick little definition I gave you would suggest. Why would someone living in the US for over a decade not consider themselves an American? Why would someone who just moved here insist they are American? Is it citizenship that makes you American? The continent you live on? How do you draw lines between continents? At what point do you identify more with your adopted country than the one you were born in?

Being gay is similarly complicated. What makes you gay? Your gender? Your attraction? Who you’d prefer to marry? Who you’d prefer to have sex with? Is gay a political position? Does it mean you’re happy? Is it a girl’s name? A surname? Is it only for men? Is it also for women? Is it a slur? Is it a reclaimed slur? Is it just a word? Where are you in time? What language are you speaking? Are you personally more attracted to genitals or hands or smells or the whole package? Can you sometimes fall for someone not typically your type? Is it a personality thing? How much of your attraction is influenced by your genetics, the balance of hormones in your parent’s womb, your society, your upbringing, your friends?

The only available answer is a non-answer because sexual orientation isn’t an arithmetic question. There’s no A+B=C that can be applied universally to all people who identify with a certain term. Any more than one singular definition can be given to a country, a gender, a continent. There’s some things that just don’t have one solid iron clad definition and anyone attempting to give them one typically has an agenda.

Anon, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you’re not here attempting to cause trouble and that you’re genuinely curious. But if you’re here attempting to set up bait, please reconsider how you think about definitions and queer identities and identity more broadly.

[holmsister]

Is Kabru a Twink? A possible answer from queer history

Abstract: ever since his introduction, discussion amongst Kabru scholars has been vivacious, sometimes to the point of some vitriol, on one particular specific point: does Kabru of Utaya fulfill the basic traits of a twink? There are points to be made on both sides of the issues. The solution proposed in this paper aims to be the compromise that might allow the scientific community to move on from this terminological impasse.

First of all, since this is a terminological discussion, let's start with a few definitions. What is a twink?

From Wikipedia, page "Twink (lgbt+ slang)" [retrieved 2024-06-12]:

Twink is gay slang for a man who is usually (but not always) in his late teens to twenties whose traits may include a slim to average physique, a youthful appearance, little or no body hair, and flamboyancy.[5][6][7] Twink is used both as a neutral descriptor, which can be compared with bear,[8] and as a pejorative.[5][9]

From Fandom LGBTQIA wiki, page "Twink" [retrieved 2024-06-12]:

Twink is a subcultural term referring to gay or bi men who defy traditional masculine roles, embracing traits that are generally seen as feminine.[1]

Twinks are typically associated with a few key tropes: general physical attractiveness, a slim build, and a youthful appearance that lacks facial hair and often body hair as well.[1] In his book Never Enough (2007), Joe McGinniss describes a court case in which twink was defined as "a gay slang term used to denote an attractive, boyish-looking gay man between the ages of 18 and 23, slender ectomorph and with little or no body hair, often blond, often but not necessarily Caucasian."

Now sadly we don't have the time to delve into the ways the term "twink" has sometimes be used to enforce ageism, racism and fatphobia in the LGBT+ community, since we are talking about, you know, a fictional character in a fantasy. We will refrain from judgement and just base ourself on these barebones definitions without further fleshing them out.

On the surface, Kabru fulfills many of the requirements for a twink. His build is slender (tho more on that later), he is in the age range (22, altho its worth noting age of majority in the dunmeshi world is 16).

Also, he has the baby face. Round cheeks, long lashes, big eyes... Like there's no way around it thats the kind of face some seme asshole would grab by the chin as they call him "pretty boy" in a bl manga. That's a face that gets men who have always considered themselves hetero to question a thing or two. That's a face that gets your landlord to make your laundry for free.

Kabru Schrödinger's twink paradox comes from the fact that as someone who practices swordfighting and wears an armour (a lighter one but still) and marches for days in the dungeon, he MUST be muscular. There is no way around this. And this goes against one of the basic tenets of twinkhood, which is Twinks MUST Be Lithe And Delicate.

To further this point, I will quote from this article from OUT magazine titled "Dear Internet: THIS is what the word 'twink' really means", dated 01 March 2024 [retrieved 2024-06-12]:

"But the things that tie all these definitions together include being gay, being thin, young-looking, little to no body hair and no facial hair, and attractive. So NO, 27-year-old with a ’70s mustache and buff arms full of the tattoos he’s gotten over his adult life is, you guessed it, NOT a twink..."

As you can see, emphasis is put on the lack of muscles. While Kabru has no facial hair, we can however substitute the tattoos for the many scars he has received in battle - his body looks much more like the body of a man who is weary with experience. Again, keeping in mind that the age of majority in dunmeshi for tallmen is 16 and Kabru is 22, we could argue that proportionally, at least culturally, Kabru leans towards being almost too old for a twink, too, and his scars can be symbolic of that in much the same way tattoos are.

Also, in both the definitions above a tendency towards feminine-coded behaviour is noted. In Kabru's case, while see him occasionally engaging in behaviour that might read as slightly feminine, we see him also assume very masculine roles both in his party and during battle. Its also worth noting that Kabru was raised by elves, a culture whose aesthetic standards lean heavily towards what reads as feminine to tallmen, and that Kabru himself is characterised as someone who heavily adapts his behaviour based on other's expectation - we can therefore argue that it is possible that what "effeminate" behaviour he engages in is actually a result of his upbringing, as well as a way to endear/ingratiate himself to those that he judges would respond better to such behaviour, rather than a matter of self-expression.

Now, i already hear the objections, so i will further elaborate on the muscle point. Having been killed and resuscitated so many times, Kabru has lost the soft layer of fat that makes Laios body so evidently strong, and it has probably even started to cut into his muscles. Also, differently from Laios' stout build, we see young teen Kabru in a few illustrations with Milsiril and he IS naturally lanky - even at his top weight its probably going to look more like an athletics/gymnastics body type than the wrestler/weightlifter type.

However, the muscles ARE there, and losing the layer of fat would make them even MORE visible. He is more likely to have defined cut abs than Laios, paradoxically. And again, if you look at the classic twink porn, the boys rarely have sixpacks or even visible arm muscles. They're bony.

Thankfully this is not the first time the lgbt+ community has been faced with this dilemma. Therefore, falling back on the wisdom of our elders, i propose: Kabru is a twunk.

Urban Dictionary, voice "twunk" [retrieved 2024-06-12]

Twunk

A term used amongst the LGBTQ community to describe males (typically gay) with the face of a twink (boyish-looking, pretty) but the body of a hunk (muscular, jocky).

Without the ambition of being definitive, my humble offering will hopefully offer Kabru scholars a chance to possibly reach a terminological consensus, therefore allowing us to move on from this topic without misunderstandings.

[mamawasatesttube]

a tuppence for your bi4bi Clois thoughts 🪙... I'm luv them so much and I'd love to hear if you have any specific headcanons about them 🥺

YESSSS!!! i DO have some thoughts. i love them,

generally i think lois has her bisexuality figured out by the time she's in her mid-20s. she and cat grant have had some rage-filled makeouts on at least one occasion, but an actual relationship would never in a million years work out between them. they respect each other but do not see eye to eye nearly enough. she never bothered to come out to her father, but just knows it's one more thing about her that he'd hate.

clark, by contrast, does Not have it figured out. he has spent his entire life repressing every single thought, feeling, and ability that set him apart from the classic good all-american boy because he had to fit in. and being superman, exploring his kryptonian heritage, etc., has helped, of course, but he is still. so repressed. he has no idea that he's ever experienced attraction to guys before. he's got some internalized homophobia to work through, about himself. He Has To Be Normal. so as far as he's concerned, there was lana, and then there was lois.

to me, clark's journey toward self-acceptance is very intrinsically tied to his family. there's kara, talking about how sexuality and gender stuff on krypton wasn't like it is on earth, especially in western culture. there's kon, suffering through his own repression and depression and trying to pretend he's fine. there's chris and jon, both too young to fully grasp it all (probably), who make clark incredibly aware of every step he makes in terms of parenting them.

so one day, after kon's finally come out to the family, and kara's muddled through trying to figure out earth labels that she's comfortable with, the two of them decide they wanna go to pride, and ask lois and clark if they want to make it a family affair. lois says hell yeah, and clark says yes of course he's happy to support them! and jon says YAY, GLITTER!! CAN I GET STICKERS? and chris says if you get glitter all over my nintendo ds again i will punt you into the ocean, baby brother or not.

and there's just this innocuous moment while they're out when kon goes "here i got you these!" and hands lois and clark two simple lil heart-shaped bi flag buttons. and lois is like aw thanks squirt! and ruffles kon's hair. clark meanwhile goes oh i think there's been a misunderstanding... ... . . . .. . .. .. . or. has there?

and that night he's just sitting on the edge of the bed holding this tiny like $3 button in his hands having a whole crisis. lois hooks her chin over his shoulder and asks what's wrong? and he's like. lois i'm not. i'm. except maybe i'm not not. but i don't know, i thought i... i never thought i could think about it. clark kent is supposed to be normal. i... i'm already an alien, lois, i thought i was already set apart enough, and if i'm... if i'm this, even when i'm clark, not superman, then... then...

and lois digs her matching little $3 bi flag heart button out of her purse and bumps it against his and says, even if you are queer, you're still not alone. and then clark gives her the patented kent family big soft puppy-dog eyes. that night, he falls asleep in her arms with his head tucked snugly under her chin. it's where he feels safest.

but the next year, he lets kara get him a flag, and lets kon tie it around his shoulders like a cape. and he's here as clark kent, but it's kind of funny when he looks at his shadow. because he might not be superman right now, but the silhouette still looks the same.

[inuette]

Radinclus does NOT mean Radqueer

[PT: Radinclus does not mean Radqueer. END PT.]

　🦴🎀 — proof read by the boyfie & ⛪️ — unedited

essay under the cut due to length

Well, to start with, what do either of these terms even mean? We have an explanation of radqueers (and why the community is flawed) here! If the post is too long for you to read, a basis is: They steal terms from others, support transitioning for terms that never supported it in the first place or that are impossible to transition to (i.e. transracial and/or transage) and their community is full of entirely pro-contact beings (people who support paraphiles, all of them, acting on their paraphilias) and groomers whether a "good radqueer" or not.

But then, what's a radinclus? It's a term that's commonly associated with and mixed up with the term radqueer. Radinclus is short for "radically inclusive," the term generally means one is in support of identities like gaybians, lesboys & veldigirls/turigirls and mspec monos (pan lesbians, bi gays, etc.) All of these terms are known as "contradictory" and/or good faith terms.

So, what's the difference? Radqueers have outright stolen terms and are misusing them, whether using the terms in good faith or because they think it's "cute" or "fun" in some way, they're still being misused and causing harm. These terms belonged to different groups that weren't necessarily queer, but are being taken to mean something they never meant in the first place. Terms that those who are radinclus support have history in queer culture and have existed long before radqueers ever decided to appropriate other groups' terms.

The terms lesboy and veldigirl/turigirl are typically used by systems, those who are multigender or those who are trans and still feel a queer attraction towards women or men. These terms were never meant to be used by solely cisgender heterosexual men or solely cisgender heterosexual women. To say that multigender people who may identify as a man and a woman don't belong in either gay nor lesbian communities IS discrimination. You can be a minority and a marginalized group and discriminate against other marginalized groups, excluding multigender people from these spaces is discrimination. By letting them into your spaces, no, we aren't forcing you to date them. But acknowledge that they exist — acknowledge that gender is different for everyone and because of that, so is sexuality.

For those who are trans and still feel a queer attraction towards the opposite gender, that is entirely valid! The NWLNW (Non-Women Loving Non-Women) and NMLNM (Non-Men Loving Non-Men) terms were historically used by TERFs to discriminate against trans men and women and imply that they were not 'actual men' or 'actual women'. Alternative terms to NWLNW and NMLNM are QLM & QLW (Queer Loving Men and Queer Loving Women). A cisgender heterosexual man would never understand the queer attraction that a trans man might feel towards women, nor would a cisgender heterosexual woman be able to understand the queer attraction towards men that a trans woman may hold. And no, a trans man using the term lesbian or a trans woman using the term gay isn't misgendering themselves — if one label fits them more than another & they're using it in good faith, let them!

Now, what's a 'gaybian'? Or a 'lesgay'? Or a 'straightbian'!? Someone who identifies as both gay & a lesbian (or straight and a lesbian, but we'll be focusing on what a gaybian because the same explanation can be used for other variations). You might be thinking now, well if the definition for lesbian and gay are queer loving men and queer loving women, how can you experience queer attraction to both if you're not both genders? Well, for one, most people who are gaybian are multigender — the way they view their attraction to both genders may be different because of that. They may view themself as both a gay man and a lesbian woman, and that's perfectly valid! If you believe that one or both of their identities as such are invalid or that they need to make their own community, that just means you have internalized biases against multigendered people. Others who may use this term are systems due to the varying genders and orientations between the alters.

Finally, mspec monos, also known as mspec gays or lesbians. Firstly, what does 'mspec' mean? Mspec is short for multispec, which is the umbrella term for identities in which one is attracted to multiple genders — i.e. pansexual, bisexual, omnisexual, etc. How can one be both multispec and lesbian? The most common explanation are those who use SAM, the split-attraction model. Many use the argument that SAM was made for aspecs by aspecs, and therefore mspecs cannot use it, but the first example of the SAM was in 1879 by Karl Heinrich Ulrich who used the example of heteroromantic homosexual in his writings. While romantic and sexual attraction may not be as separate and more intertwined for others, that isn't the case for everyone. Not everyone has to use the split attraction model, but it does work for those who's sexuality and romantic orientations are aimed towards separate genders.

Some people just ARE multispec and gay/lesbian — not understanding an identity isn't an excuse to shit on or discriminate against it. That's not to say blindly accept it, but there is proof and recorded history of these identities existing in the queer community for years. You cannot brush them off as "just a new fad" or "trend" when they've existed since before you did. Most radqueers support harmful beliefs and encourage them, radinclus is the inclusion of identities that have always been apart of our community — but have been thrown to the side for more 'easy to understand' ones. Whether you think they're 'the reason people aren't willing to understand' or not, don't fight against people who're in the same community fighting the same fight as you. There will be people who will hate you whether you're the most 'normal', 'straight-person-looking' lesbian ever or the people that you hate in your own community — the only difference is that when they're driving YOU out, there'll be no one left to help you.

Other Good Faith Identity Resources : Lesboys Carrd , Good Faith Resources Hub , Bi Gay / Lesbian Masterdoc

[bilesproblems]

I would love to know how many people who currently are saying that aspec people own the split attraction model and no one else can use it are people who participated in ace discouse and not on the side of the aspec community.

Idk, just the fact that they'll so readily participate in denying the lived experiences of people and coming up with absolutely bullshit that doesn't actually disprove the experience or prove that lesbian and bi aren't inherently compatible via split attraction, and the fact that their argument is literally aphobic because it says romantic and sexual attraction are inseperable and inherently tied to each other. It all feels like the kind of people who destroyed my community while it was young, traumatized aspec people severely, convinced baby Lun that they couldn't identify as asexual despite it being the only label they were right about the first time, and when they came back to the community, so much of the culture was forever lost before they even got a chance to be part of it.

I feel like these kind of people decided to forget the destruction they caused and moved on to their next target. Now they're pretending they're allies to us all while their arguments against this community are again just revealing that they're still the same aphobic pieces of shit who have only accepted aces and aros in a surface level way because it's no longer okay to treat us badly.

Like I am not kidding. Mspec-lesbophobia is just recycled aphobia. And I don't mean in the stupid "oh switch the words replace bi lesbian with asexual" logic way I mean actually reusing the same ideology and ideas. Like the idea that there are invader sexualities that are stealing resources from the actually oppressed people. Like the idea that you cannot have romance without sex and cannot have sex without romance. Like the idea that identities that are too "ridiculous" or "out there" or "don't make sense" need to be extinguished. Respectability politics ("ace culture is stupid and childish, the queer community will never be accepted if we let them be here" "bi lesbians make no sense, the queer community will never be accepted if we can't get our definitions in order"). Not accepting that a label might not have a perfect, one size fits all, short definition (orchids and cupios are both aspec despite being opposites). Denying experiences you don't understand off the bat and making assumptions about them ("Demisexuality isn't real you're just normal everybody feels that way" "bi lesbians aren't real you're just bisexual"). It's actually all the same

[ginnymoonbeam]

Be My Favorite is digging into concepts of masculinity to a degree I haven't seen in Thai BL before. Since episode 2 we've been seeing the contrast between the kind of man Kawi is and the kind he thinks he should be, and 3 and 4 have drawn a big highlighted circle around what, for simplicity, I'm going to call bro culture: the whole complex of male social behavior that includes competition, ritual humiliation, stark othering of women (both "chivalrous" and not), and a rugged, deflective response to pain.

I'm saying bro culture rather than toxic masculinity because only some elements of it are toxic, although they're so intermingled that it's hard to sift the toxic from the non. You have to work to create a bro culture without misogyny and homophobia - although a lot of BLs (Bad Buddy, for example) do exactly this. Be My Favorite isn't interested in doing that though: it is presenting bro culture unsanitized, and looking at how our two leads interact with it.

On the one hand we have Kawi, who has very clearly always failed to meet bro culture standards, and who still sees success in that sphere as something to aim for. And it's not that the bros reject him outright. Someone like Kawi is great to have around, because for everyone else it means never being at the bottom of the pack. It's not that Not and his group dislike Kawi or want to hurt him. If you asked them, they'd say in all sincerity that they're just trying to help him out. What they're actually doing is using him to affirm their own superior bro-ness: whether they're helping him or mocking him, he lets them feel that they're succeeding where he fails.

Pisaeng sees this much more clearly than Kawi does, hence his facepalm when Kawi tells the other guys he's a virgin. Pisaeng could succeed in bro culture: he could be top dog in that group if he wanted to. It's because he could succeed that he's able to see so clearly that he doesn't want to. When a prize looks hopelessly out of your reach, it's hard to see that it might be worthless.

Pisaeng is frustrated because he's seeing Kawi try so hard to achieve something Pisaeng has already rejected. Kawi is confused because he sees how easily Pisaeng succeeds by bro standards, and yet he's still lonely and discontent. He's always been attracted to Pisaeng (just look at how Pisaeng's introduction, in Kawi's pov, is framed) but he has chosen to interpret that through the bro lens of admiration and envy.

I think we're going to have to see Kawi make a conscious rejection of bro culture. Whether that comes about through his deepening friendships with Max and Pear, or through realizing his feelings for Pisaeng, at some point he's going to have to decide that that prize is not worth winning. I hope we see this, because it's rare for BLs to deal so directly with conflicting views of masculinity, and what being gay or bi means for a young man's sense of self.

[nayatarot777]

💗 how do you make them feel? 💗 ~ pac

• pile 1 • 🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁🍁

your person feels conflicted. they feel as though they need to be in control of themselves and what they allow themselves to think about because if they leave their mind to it’s own rulership, fears and anxieties will set in. they release these anxieties by allowing their ego to control them instead.

this person feels like they’re not good enough. like they’re not even one of your options anyway. this person could think that you’re not even attracted to their gender, so they either think that you’re gay when you’re actually bi, pan, etc. or they think that you’re straight when you’re actually not.

you guys could also be a different race or from a different culture than this person, and i feel like they’re the type of person who has either been conditioned to only seek partners within their own race/culture or that was always just an expectation of them that they were happy to fulfil.

this person could even be in a relationship of some sort, already. or in an arranged situation if they’re from a culture that participates in that (i feel like that’s for someone specific). they could even have a child already. if not then i feel like i’m picking up on the type of future that they dream of, regarding having a family. you don’t fit into that image for them though. and it’s not because they don’t want you to, it’s because of some sort of differences between you two. physically. identity wise. something about this person feeling like there’s no way that you two could make a relationship of any sort work, due to the criticism and judgement that would come from others around them about you and your differences.

i’m also seeing that they may feel as though you’re not even interested in a person like them. they feel like you’ve completely released them for some reason. like they were never that important to you. i feel like you guys didn’t even get to know each other that well, because i’m picking up on a separation. a disconnect.

this person still thinks about you, but it feels like they don’t want to. it makes them uncomfortable because the feelings that they had towards you before are still there. when they think of you, they still feel the way that they did when they could actually see you and be around you. i don’t think that this person is used to not being able to control their feelings for people. they seem very in control of themselves and a very typical, emotionally cold and distant masculine.

they haven’t been able to be their usual selves when it comes to you though. they can’t just tell themselves that you were just another person that they met because the connection that you both had was very apparent. very different for this person. if you guys are opposite genders, this person doesn’t usually connect to your gender group for anything other than superficial reasons (could be sex, money, power and influence. anything.) but with you, they felt like you guys were just naturally on the same wavelength. like you saw each other clearly and just understood each other. they don’t find that often in people who they have feelings for (surface level feelings at least). i feel like they genuinely feel like you’re a soulmate basically. i don’t think this person speaks in “soulmate” terms though, so they can’t even put it into words.

i just heard “she’s different”. switch the pronoun if you need to, but that’s what this person would say to describe what they think of you and why they feel this way. because you’re different. in a great way. i’m feeling like you were a shock to their system. are y’all aquarius/uranus/11th house dominant? 👀🤔

they’re still keeping hope alive that you’ll meet each other again. but that triggers their fear of disappointment. they might even feel goofy af for staying stuck on you for so long, but they don’t want to release the idea that meeting you again is a possibility. because that’s what they’re hoping for. at the same time though, they don’t want this to happen because what could they do if they’re so worried about the opinions of other people? they feel as though being able to see you again would be futile because they feel like they wouldn’t be able to get the outcome that they want with you anyway. the feelings for you are persistent within this person because they feel like you’re someone significant and special in their life (even if you only knew each other for a short while), but ego-wise, they’re ignoring them. this person is so conflicted. their mind without the distractions is a mess.

• pile 2 • 🌼🌼🌼🌼🌼🌼🌼🌼

ngl, you guys trigger this person. but not purposefully. this person knows that the abundance and wealth that they have in the materialistic or physical sense isn’t good enough for you. i feel like this person could be a part of hustle culture, or they’re just extremely hard workers. workaholics even. they might think that physical appearance, money, and materialism were all that they needed to be wanted by anyone that they wanted, but it’s not the same with you.

i’m also seeing that this person feels ridiculed by you? again, i don’t think you’re actually doing this, but they feel as though they’re under criticism or scrutiny. you could’ve put this person in check? 👀

actually, they could be projecting right now. i feel like they could be a very insecure person, but they secure their persona and physical appearance to make themselves seem confident. you don’t give af about any of that though, so you see right through it, triggering tf out of them. you’re seeing the most vulnerable sides of them without them even lowering their guards. this person knows that you’re intuitive af. i don’t think they’d use that word, but they know that you just know shit about people 😂

you make them feel as though there’s value in them. damn. i felt a pang in my stomach as i typed that. you might’ve been able to tell that this person was seeking your attention in small ways but talked yourself out of believing it. they were. you validate them. your attention and their interactions with you both validate but scare them.

this is someone who wants to portray themselves as a big, strong, powerful, emperor type of person, but they feel the complete opposite around you. they feel powerless around you. this person might clearly be scorpionic, plutonian, or an 8th house person in nature. they could have a very intense, fixed, heavy, stable, but maybe unnerving energy to them. very intoxicating in a way? there’s something about them that just seems dark. but intriguing. yeah, they’re probably scorpionic/plutonic af. but you see through the outer shell that they navigate this world in. they have no idea how you do it, but they like it although they’re not used to it.

you also make them feel nervous when speaking. this person might feel like they don’t communicate “properly” or sound intelligent enough in general day to day conversation. they don’t usually care though (it seems on the surface anyway. this is actually quite a deep insecurity of theirs too) and it gives them a bit of anxiety when wanting to speak to you. it’s like they clam up or shut down. they might even ruminate about all of the conversations you guys have had, knit picking at everything that they think made them sound “stupid”, or at their tone of voice, etc.

i think you guys actually planted the seed of introspection into this person. they’re not often in situations where they feel “below” someone else in some way, so feeling like that around you was uncomfortable but also rewarding for them. i feel like this person is either stoic af or egotistical af but in a quiet way. the type of person to “humble brag” 😂. i really believe that you kickstarted this person’s soul searching journey by exposing a bunch of insecurities to them that they themselves never really paid attention to.

you make them want to improve and be a better person. thoroughly from the inside out. not the outside in.

you know what i’m seeing rn that sums up this person’s feelings perfectly? i’m seeing a king who gives orders and controls everything - all day, everyday. nobody can get him to do something that he doesn’t want to do, or to feel any other way about himself other than prideful.

his queen though? she keeps him in check. without even having to say anything. her presence alone makes him want to act right, but the pressure that he feels to be better in her presence also causes him to start searching for anything and everything that he needs to improve. and when he receives confirmation that he has made his queen happy/proud (she compliments him, laughs at his weak ass joke, gives him words of encouragement), he becomes happier. he feels as though his queen’s happiness is his reward for his improvement. but he still suffers from major anxiety about “failing”. so much to the point where sometimes, he has to take space away from her because he’s dug himself into a hole full of self deprecation and self criticism. some of you guys might notice that this person is hot and then cold with communication. or that they hesitate around you. aw, bless 🥺

this is so fucking cute, pile 2. your person is a secret simp for you lmaooo.

• pile 3 • 🥀🥀🥀🥀🥀🥀🥀

the first thing that i’m hearing is “proud”. you make them feel so proud of themselves. you’ve taught them how to be self sufficient in some way and only rely on themselves for something. i feel like this has something to do with being stable within themselves enough to give up caring about other people’s judgements. you could have this type of energy. very much a mix of aquarian and piscean energy. the type of person who doesn’t care enough to try to fit in with people unless you want to, and because of that you fit in with everyone. you’re multifaceted, and this person may have felt the need to be one type of way when around others. until they met you. then you cracked their stoic, emperor-like demeanour and you influenced them to just let go of control over their self image for a few moments.

damn. i just heard that they feel like no other woman compares to you. deadass. the image on this card is a woman on her knees, crying, but being ignored by the person next to her due to them looking elsewhere. this woman feels ignored in this card. they don’t care about any other person as much as they cared about you. you’re the full package for them. specific for some of you guys: you could be black women and have short afro hair. this person thinks that you embody both masculine and feminine energy in the most divine way in your physical appearance. they also love the fact that your hair is natural and short. they like the fact that you can pull off a “masculine” hairstyle and still look divinely feminine and adorable. i just heard “infatuated”.

i feel like there may be a disconnect between you two. distance? and/or a change between them and their viewpoint on what they find attractive thanks to you. you’re the biggest “temptation” that they’ve ever met, but you’re not someone who they would’ve ever thought that they’d be this attracted to physically. but you are. you’re not their usual type. they may have thought before that they could never find someone who isn’t typically masculine or typically feminine attractive. you guys are this person’s idea of what a perfect mix between masculinity and femininity looks like and feels like. because this is even expressed through your personality.

but, back to the type. they don’t know wtf their type is anymore. not really. you have a very unique beauty. again, aquarius and neptune energy heavyyyy. i heard “fuck the type” lmaoooo. you destroyed this person’s idea of a type. damn, pile 3. you are a bad bitch. don’t fucking second guess that shit ever again in your LIFE. i don’t usually interpret readings that are centred around someone’s looks but your looks are emphasised here. you are a damn temptation to them. i’m seeing that this may be because you look like the type of person who they’d assume would be scared of them but you’re not. if anything, you’re bold af towards them at times. lightly roasting them, calling them out for something, or putting them in their place when they crossed a line switched something in their head about you. that doesn’t have to resonate but they find your attitude paired with your physical appearance intoxicating af. gworl 👀

if you’re a woman, they can tell that you’re for women. they may have seen you defend a woman on her behalf. you may have stepped into your lilith energy. but at the same time, you’re like “one of the boys” without being a pick me bitch and feeding into things that you’re not okay with. you will call men out, but again, you’re like “one of the boys”. they didn’t think that a woman could hold men accountable while not hating them at the same time 😭 your person may be quite close minded. i feel like that’s why i’m picking up on that you could’ve called them out for something. you’ve expanded their mind a lil though.

you make them feel as though they’re attracting good luck and abundance to themselves because of you. i’m literally seeing that they see you as a good luck charm. they may have realised that their life started to become way better after meeting you.

they’re very protective over you because they see you as a rare type of person. they could be quite “possessive?” naturally but they’re not the type to control you. they have a very stable self esteem around you it seems. although they do shy away or become bashful when you know the right thing to say.

they want to share their abundance with you. you’re the type of person that they literally want to spoil. you guys could have lilith in 2nd house/taurus and this person could have scorpio/8th house placements. i’m picking up on placements and synastry that indicates that they just want to give and give gifts and materialism to you. maybe this is their love language. i feel like they’re very much a materialistic person so it makes sense 😂 they really like how natural you are though. i feel like that’s the difference between you and the people that they usually go for. and your naturalism doesn’t just apply to your physical appearance. it also applies to your behaviour and attitude. you don’t force anything. you don’t try to change yourself for anyone.

there’s a longing energy that i pick up from them. again, you guys could have distance between you and you’re in separation. but this person daydreams about you a lot. they’re not anxious during this separation though because they’re convinced that they’ll meet you again. i’m hearing that they’re daydreaming of things that they (hope) they’ll say the next time they see you. they’re not stressing about this distance at all. i heard “i’ve got you already”. 👀👀👀👀 this person’s self assurance is definitely in abundance right now 😭 they’re convinced of this.

[poppitron360]

I FOUND THIS RANDOM INCORRECT QUOTES GENERATOR, AND BC THERE’S VERY LITTLE VALZHANG CONTENT OUT THERE, I DID ALL VALZHANG ONES (+ ONE VALGRACE)

Frank: Leo is restricted to decaf for the rest of this adventure.

————————————————————

Frank: Baby vibes... hold gentle... like hamburger.

Leo: Punt like football.

————————————————————

Frank: Please confirm to your knowledge that you are not a fully robotic being, were born an organic creature, and do in fact possess what many cultures would call a soul.

Leo: What? “To my knowledge”? Do a lot of people not know if they’re robots?

Frank: Thank you for your confirmation.

————————————————————

Frank: Bottling up negative emotions is bad for your health, so you shouldn't do it.

Leo: I know, that's why I bottle up all my emotions, both positive and negative, so it cancels out.

Frank: Th-that's not how that works-

(Baby boy… the way Leo sometimes hides it when he giggles or gets exited over machines because of trauma…)

————————————————————

Frank: Ok so, apparently the "bad vibes" I've been feeling are actually severe psychological distress.

————————————————————

Leo: Can you name a single city in Oklahoma?

Frank: Oklahoma City, bitch!

(Accurate except Frank canonically doesn’t swear)

————————————————————

Leo: Sometimes I get so caught up on being gay that I forget I’m actually bi.

(Honestly same, sister. Mood af)

————————————————————

Frank, at the slightest provocation: I came into this earth screaming and covered in someone else's blood and and I'm not afraid to leave the same way.

(Also mood af)

————————————————————

Frank: Leo and I are no longer friends.

Leo: FRANK THAT IS THE WORST WAY TO TELL PEOPLE THAT WE’RE DATING!

————————————————————

Frank: Smart is attractive. Educate me on something I don't know!

Leo: The mouth of a jellyfish is also an anus.

Frank: Stop.

(Frank refused to turn into a Jellyfish after that)

————————————————————

(THIS WAS ORIGINALLY FRANK BUT I JUST HAD TO CHANGE IT TO JASON)

Jason: *seductively takes off glasses*

Jason: Wow...

Leo: *blushes* Haha... what?

Jason: You're really fucking blurry.

————————————————————

Leo: BE A BETTER PERSON!

Frank: WHY?!

Leo: BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS TO HAVE MORALS IN THIS RELATIONSHIP, AND IT SURE AS FUCK AIN'T GONNA BE ME, SWEETHEART!

————————————————————

Frank: So you like cats?

Leo: Yeah.

Frank: *tries to impress them by slowly pushing a glass off the table*

————————————————————

Leo: I think I'm falling for you.

Frank: Then get up.

[butchbarbieagainstterfs]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

I don’t know why you’re asking me about gay men when I am…not a gay man tbqh, and there are plenty of gay men out there who aren’t transphobic and, I am sure, have spoken about this.

I’m a lesbian. I like women. One of my first crushes as a kid was on Nicole Kidman in the Golden Compass. When I was looking at her and being attracted to her though, I wasn’t thinking about vulvas. I wasn’t thinking about what she had going on downstairs. I just thought she was very pretty. That…hasn’t really changed much, as an adult. And I don’t get that with men and never have. I’ve never been attracted to them at all and wouldn’t regardless of what they had going on downstairs.

Now if that makes me bi or pan to you, quite frankly I don’t care and I also just want to put it out there: if you in your sexuality need your partner to have a certain genitalia set, that’s perfectly fine. Don’t date trans people. Have this conversation with your partner to make sure they aren’t trans. That’s your business and quite frankly your responsibility.

I also think this kind of question in a failed attempt at a gotcha is just reiterating the idea that being gay is an adult thing, because you never bring up straight people in this same manner. You are implying that the only thing that makes people gay is wanting sex with a certain type of genitals, which is the same exact sexualisation homophobes do to us all the fucking time. Being a lesbian isn’t just about wanting to touch vulvas.

Now I will be pinning this so I do not have to answer this kind of shit again, and you will never be darkening my page again because I will not be answering any further messages from you or anyone else that sends me this bad faith, poor attempt at trying to claim a lesbian is homophobic simply because he disagrees with you about trans people. Have the day you deserve. Now fuck off 😘

[nonconformityhub]

https://www.tumblr.com/nonconformityhub/752900218271547392/a-few-people-had-issues-with-my-friends-use-of

Hi! I like that your blog is dedicated to exploring new language about various identities, but as a lesbian, please know that "bi lesbian" (or "mspec lesbian") is a harmful, lesbophobic and biphobic term.

"Bi/mspec lesbian" erases both identities (implying that bisexuals are under the "lesbian umbrella" and that lesbians are attracted to the opposite gender/men, both which are factually untrue). "Lesbian" is not an umbrella term for all sapphics.

Also, "bi/mspec lesbian" confuses the greater public (including cishet men) who are mislead to think lesbians are into them, therefore contributing to ("corrective") r4pe culture. Lesbians are not attracted to men and do not date men, period.

No need to co-opt "lesbian" by attaching "bi" to it, when terms like "bisexual", "sapphic" and "wlw" exist (not to mention that "lesbian" already encompasses women and woman-aligned nonbinary people).

Erasure and misleading language is the last thing we need in our community. Could you please amend/correct your post?

Thank you!

Hello! I appreciate your views but plenty of lesbians and bisexuals support this term too (see all the reblogs and likes on that post)

You may personally see no need to reclaim a historic interpretation of lesbian or no need for people who are fluid between bi and lesbian, bisexual homoromantic/homosexual biromantic, and so on to use the term bi lesbian - but they clearly see a need to, that's why it exists

The term has come back into use from the 1970s/80s/90s because people needed it to, language doesn't just come back when nobody needs it. People have a use for the word, many of said uses are described in the post and in those 70s/80s/90s accounts (poetry, interviews, all sorts can be found out there)

You'll also notice that the identity is yet to confuse the general public into thinking all lesbians like men or even enter public awareness, and if it does, identifiers provide resources and definitions for their identity like the infographic my friend made to clear these things up

I will not be 'correcting' the post because not only did I not make that infographic, but the information being presented is correct. It correctly tells you why people identify as bi lesbians and it correctly tells you the history of the term, you can think it's a pointless or damaging term but the information there is correct

By far the biggest reason people find use in it is because they are bisexual homoromantic or homosexual biromantic, and they're clarifying that the 'homo' part is lesbian - hence bi lesbian, bisexual lesbian, biromantic lesbian

This is my favourite carrd for talking about the historical and modern reasons for combining the two

Labels are personal and exist for an individual to understand themselves and express their experience of the world in a way that works for them, and we can't just decide what way works for them

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

Ok back to fandom discourse instead of general Tumblr discourse, I saw someone complain about OFMD making Anne and Mary lesbians despite Anne Bonny and Mary Read being, quote, "Historically Bisexual" and I famously do not care about historical pirates in any capacity. Please don't teach me I don't want to learn unless it's funny. However I know Enough to address this and I want to.

I want to start with, while Mary Read(OFMD) was probably a lesbian, could be bi but in the same way that Ed could be bi. Firm evidence that she likes women, no evidence she likes men. But Anne Bonny(OFMD) was very clearly portrayed as bisexual. Even before she knew that hitting on Stede would mess with Ed she was rubbing her boob with that cup and she kissed Stede. Man attracted behavior.

But more importantly, the idea that Anne Bonny and Mary Read (real pirates) were historically bisexual is fucking ludicrous. First of all the term bisexual is younger than the golden age of piracy. I'm not as brushed up on my queer history as I could be but I'm pretty sure the term bisexual was coined around the turn of the 20th century. Which is almost 200 years younger than the pirates in question.

But if we're saying there's historical evidence for Anne Bonny and Mary Read having sexual relations with both men and women we sure don't have that either. Anne Bonny and Mary Read's alleged female sexual partners were each other, the claim for which dates back to a book that was written to scandalize the rich people to whom it was marketed and all the claims within are suspect. Anne Bonny had two husbands I think so she was probably into men given that she was already a pirate by her second marriage, but who knows we can't ask her she's been dead for 300 slutty slutty years and I don't think I need to explain why a woman in the early 18th century might marry someone despite being unattracted to them. And as for Mary Read, she has no documented husbands and I think the only thing that suggests she might have ever been intimate with a man is a prison pregnancy which could be the result of rape, but also pregnant people weren't executed by the crown and getting pregnant so you have 9 extra months to live and possibly orchestrate an escape is the most straight for pay scenario I think I've ever heard so... You know... Not very "historically bisexual" of her (paging @piratecaptainscaptainpirates for a fact check)

And finally. Why do you care? OFMD doesn't care about history. It doesn't want to teach to teach you anything it is a romantic comedy about fake guys made up around 2 sentences on a Wikipedia page and a general cultural perception that is based on a 300 year old game of telephone. OFMD is not trying to be historically accurate and if it was it would be bad because pretty much every pirate from that time and place was both a rapist and complicit in the slave trade. Your fav girl pirates are probably not exempt #girlboss

[nerdygaymormon]

The LDS Church & homosexuality

Some church goers are uncomfortable that I identify as gay. They think how my Creator made me is somehow against God, but I’m allowed to stay in my church because I’m single and celibate which means I am following my church’s teachings on sexuality, which also matches historical Christian teachings on sexuality.

You know who isn’t following those historical teachings? Straight couples who use birth control. Also breaking the historical rules are straight couples where one or both of them divorced a former spouse.

By historical, I mean the majority Christian understanding of the past 2000+ years. But we don’t even have to go back that far. I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which I’ll refer to as “the church” or “LDS Church”), let’s look at some of it’s more recent teachings & practices: 

In the 1960′s, at General Conference it was taught that using contraception was a gross wickedness. 

In the 1980′s, the LDS Church told bishops not to issue temple recommends to married couples who engage in oral sex.

Even up to 2020, the Handbook said church members had to consult with their bishop before getting a vasectomy or tubal ligation because this was seen as a moral issue since it would prevent them from having more children. 

This is not ancient history! 

Over the past 50 years, the church has liberalized sex for straight married couples. Current LDS policies are that birth control is considered a private matter for the married couple to decide and bishops are instructed not to ask married couples about their sexual behaviors. Oral and anal sex, or any other sexual act that may not result in pregnancy, are no longer considered moral dangers which the church needs to stop straight married couples from exploring. As one friend of mine described it, once you’re married, anything goes as long as there’s consent from both partners.

————————————————————

For gay couples, there’s been a little bit of movement by my church, but nothing like what has happened for straight couples. 

Gay individuals are now allowed to call themselves “gay” without getting in trouble, they’re allowed to date and hold hands and kiss without having to confess or have their church membership put in jeopardy (unless you attend the church’s schools where you may get punished for those behaviors). However, for gay couples, marriage or sex will both bring discipline and possible expulsion from the church.

————————————————————

The Biblical viewpoints on sexuality come from a time and culture that valued women for their ability to produce children. Infant mortality rates were high and overall population growth was slow. Any kind of sex that couldn’t result in a pregnancy was forbidden (even if not the intent of the original text, that’s the interpretation made by Christians and taught for centuries)

Today, infant mortality rates are low, life expectancy is high, and the world’s population is at a whopping 8 billion (it first reached 1 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, and has continued to expand at a quickening pace). The reality of our lives has changed.

Biblical understandings of orientations were very different from today’s. Even modern understanding has evolved as prior to the 19th century, the concept of a sexual orientation was absent from Western culture. 

————————————————————

Let’s take a look at the evolution of the LDS Church’s positions on homosexuality.

Labels

In the 1960′s church leaders took a hard stance against even identifying as gay. Calling yourself gay or a homosexual could result in excommunication. 

In the 1980′s, the church separated having gay feelings from behaviors. Feelings and attractions were no longer a sin, just the behaviors. However, what labels queer members should use was still a hot topic. Same-sex attraction was the preferred label.

I remember being told in the 1990′s that the terms gay, lesbian, or bi should only be used as adjectives to describe behaviors or feelings, not people. People were encouraged to say they experience same-sex attraction (SSA) and not call themselves gay. 

While calling yourself lesbian, bi or gay is still not encouraged, in 2016 the church finally said it’s okay to do so.

—————————

What causes someone to be gay

The church taught people developed homosexual feelings due to a variety of reasons. These reasons changed over the decades, but here are some of the things the church taught as causing homosexuality: masturbation, sexual abuse, wearing gender non-conforming clothing, or even just talking about homosexuality. In other words, having gay attractions was a mental disorder for which someone needed help. 

Gay people have been disagreeing for decades, explaining we didn’t choose to be gay and it isn’t the result of abuse or other such causes, it’s just how we are.

Since 1990, there’s been a steady accumulation of research to show that a person’s sexuality is determined before birth. Yet the church resisted change. Recognizing that it’s previous statements on the causes of homosexuality conflict with the research, in 2006 the church stated that it has no opinion on what causes someone to have homosexual attractions. 

In 2010, Boyd K. Packer taught in General Conference that since God’s Plan is for men & women to have sex with each other in a marriage, God wouldn’t give people same-sex attractions without a way to change them while also prohibiting them from being able to act on these attractions. "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" That is a damn fine question to which the church has yet come up with a good answer. It leaves the church in a quandary that it acknowledges people are gay, they don’t choose to be gay, and they can’t choose to not be gay, and yet they're still prohibited from having sex or getting married

—————————

Reparative/Conversion Therapy

Given the way the church thought about what causes someone to be gay, it’s little wonder it also taught someone could be ‘cured.’ The 1960′s saw a big increase of statements from top leadership in the church teaching this.

In Sept 1969, the BYU Psychology Department begins electroshock aversion therapy research against ‘sexual deviancy.’ 

In 1978, gay students who attend BYU are still required to do conversion therapy, but no longer will aversion therapy be used.

In 1992, the church discouraged leaders of local congregations from encouraging members to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual as that generally leads to frustration and discouragement.

In 2016, the church created the Mormon and Gay website which declared conversion therapy or sexual orientation change efforts are unethical. It seems that it’s around this time that BYU ceased conversion therapy 

It took until 2019 for LDS Family Services (the church’s therapy arm) to say it no longer tries to change a person’s sexual orientation, in other words, no more reparative therapy.  

—————————

Mixed-orientation marriages

In the 1970′s and 1980′s, gay men were actively encouraged to marry a woman with the promise this would "cure" their homosexuality (the church is focused on gay men while barely showing any concern for lesbians). I suppose this could be seen as another attempt at reparative therapy.

In the April 1987 General Conference, Gordon B. Hinckley said marriage shouldn’t be used as a way to cure homosexuality. But for men who were able to have some attraction to a woman, or who had a great desire to be married with a family in spite of who they are attracted to, mixed-orientation marriages were still encouraged.

In 2006, it was stated mixed-orientation marriages are no longer encouraged as therapy or a solution to deal with homosexual feelings. It’s a little more expansive from the 1987 statement which was only about using marriage to cure homosexual feelings. While this is the official policy, many leaders still encourage gay people to enter mixed-orientation marriages, and not just at the local level. David Archuleta shared in 2022 that an apostle had encouraged him to marry “a good girl.”

Mixed-orientation marriages don’t have a good track record, even for LDS couples, about 70% of them end in divorce. This is why I think the church stopped encouraging them.

—————————

The fight against gay marriage

In the 1990′s and 2000′s, the LDS Church’s fight against gay marriage invoked the fear that if gay marriage was legalized, within one generation the world’s population of humans would be wiped out. 

Somehow they thought homosexuality was so alluring that everyone would choose it and no more children would be born. Makes me wonder how many repressed gay men were in the ranks of the church leaders. 

Once gay marriage was legalized, the church moved to explain why it still wouldn’t allow gay marriages among its members. Here’s some of the attempts:

The church has continued to teach that God only approves of a man & a woman who are married and sealed together. They will sometimes refer to scriptures as if that settles the matter, but even a casual reading of those verses will leave a person wondering what they have to do with a gay couple, or why a verse about polygamy is used to support 1 man + 1 woman. 

With the growing acceptance of gay people and calls for change, in 2019 Elder Oaks introduced the idea that the 2 great commandments are in conflict and we need to not accept our gay neighbor too much because it would conflict with obeying the 1st command to love God. Later in a 2023 YSA fireside, Elder Oaks  backed off of the idea that there's tension between the 2 great commandments.

In 2021, Elder Oaks introduces the idea that the church is only about helping people aim for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and that requires a straight couple being sealed. Queer people can’t fit that, so they will go to a lower kingdom, and those are really good, so they’ll be fine. (it feels like an attempt to placate those who want more, like how the idea of civil unions was meant to satisfy gay couples and keep them from wanting to get married)

In 2023, Elder Oaks added the idea that everyone who “keeps their covenants” are assured of having a sealed relationship. I think this is his way of saying gay marriage isn’t needed because that won’t last and eventually after you’re dead you will get to be in a straight marriage so just be patient.

In 2023, a survey by PRRI shows that as of 2022 50% of active LDS members of the church in the United States approve of gay marriage. So I would say these attempts against accepting gay marriage are not yielding the hoped-for results 

—————————

Status of children of gay couples

In 2015, in response to the legalization of gay marriage across the United States, the LDS church implemented a new policy which forbids children from joining the church, or advancing in church, if one of their parents is in a gay relationship. Sadly, this mostly affected children who grew up in church as they were born to a couple in a mixed-orientation marriage which had broken up and the gay spouse found a same-sex partner. 

In 2019, as part of undoing the 2015 policy, it was shared that many exemptions to the policy had been granted since 2015, and that the policy against the children is no longer in effect.

—————————

Law of Chastity

For many decades, “acting” on same-sex attractions was considered against the law of chastity. Many took this to include not just sexual acts but also dating or even hugs and holding hands. 

In 2019, as part of undoing the 2015 policy which banned the children of gay couples from joining the LDS church, the statement was made that "immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way." Many interpret this to mean dating, hand holding, and other activities that single heterosexual adults are allowed to engage in before marriage, these are now allowable for gay people. Not all local leaders agree with this interpretation, and in 2023 the BYU Honor Code was updated to forbid “same-sex romantic behavior.”

————————————————————

Within my lifetime, the law of chastity restrictions on straight couples have gone away as long as they’re married.

For gay people, the church now acknowledges they exist and it isn’t a choice to have these feelings. You may be allowed to date and hold hands and kiss but it is not encouraged because it can lead to a gay marriage.

Church leaders and members from a few decades ago would be shocked at the current teachings and practices of the LDS church in regards to sexuality, both for straight and gay people.

It is odd to hear church leaders claim the law of chastity isn’t subject to change, that doctrines never change, our teachings about homosexuality will never change, and yet we have a history of change. What's the point of being a church of continuing revelation if we say there will be no further revelation?

I hope for our leaders to receive "further light and knowledge.” We claim to be a church of revelation, so let’s get inspiration on how God’s queer children fit into God’s plan, on the blessings available to them, on how they bless the rest of the church, and their purposes in life. Let queer people have joy and hope in this life. 

[generic-sonic-fan]

Happy pride! Here's some headcanons.

In-depth explanations beneath the cut (please keep in mind that these are personal and that I actually don't really stand by any that strongly! This is just for fun.)

Sonic: okay do I really need to explain this one?

Knuckles: What can I say, his gender contains multitudes. He's definitely a member of the "I don't care" camp for both gender and sexuality. He is what he is, loves who he loves, and doesn't give two rips about what other people might say. I like to imagine he plays around with both genders of clothing from echidna culture.

Amy: oh Amy, my sweet summer child. It's so autistic and queer of you to relentlessly declare your love for someone of the opposite sex because it's what is expected of you. I did the same in third grade before I realized that the other girls meant what they were saying about their target boy. Heteronormativity is a bitch, get well soon <3

Rouge: I think she fucked around with being she/they for a while before settling back on she/her. And bi icon, of course.

Blaze: okay do I really need to explain this one?

Silver: That is one nonbinary hedgehog if I ever saw one! He's a he/him by convenience alone. He hasn't had the chance to explore his sexuality yet unfortunately.

Big: He's good with he/him and that's all he cares about. Not a super strong connection to his assigned gender at birth but he likes being a boy well enough. As for his sexuality, he never figured out what everyone was going on about when it came to sex, and only recently figured out it was because he was literally missing that 'sexual attraction' thing.

Shadow: is nonbinary as fuck and has no idea. Honey, seeing masculinity as a burden you have to bear is not normal!!! He's also demi-ace. It takes a very close relationship with someone to even consider sexual attraction.

Cream: happy being a girl! Hasn't really thought about crushing on anyone yet.

Tails: Internalized homophobia + transphobia from being bullied go brrrrrr. Besides, Sonic doesn't spend much time thinking about these things, so why should he? (Tails. Tails listen to me. Sonic's aro and knew he was trans at an unusually young age. he's a statistical outlier with how early he figured it out PLEASE consider that and don't base your self-discovery journey on him. . .)

Metal: You all know my headcanons for this one. Metal was assigned male by Eggman from its earliest iterations and gender dysphoria is literally 98% of all of its problems. Please get this robot some estrogen. As for sexuality, full romantic attraction is definitely on the table but jesus christ this robot needs to do some work on itself before that. Please read Complex Inquiries if you want me to elaborate that's like my master's thesis on this subject

Vector: Gave his gender a really good thinking before shrugging and sticking with his assigned gender at birth. Also pan as hell, definitely dated some femboys in high school I think.

Espio: Currently in the process of speculating if he's nonbinary. Keeps very quiet about it though. But he knows he likes dudes, so there's that.

Charmy: He's bit-sexual. Whatever he needs to be for the punchline of the joke to land, frankly.

Omega: For narrative parallel reasons to Metal Sonic, I love to headcanon that Omega wasn't programmed with a gender, but then discovered that masculinity is traditionally associated with aggression and violence and went ham. Doesn't mind getting she/her'd, doesn't exactly like they/them, but it/its is of the highest offense. He will kill you for that. As for his sexuality, (I know he's a robot but PLEASE hear me out) he's demi-aro! He'd have no idea that any sort of feelings on his part are happening until it was too late. He'd hate himself for it and promptly bury said feelings beneath so many layers.