#this other thing is disgusting (hates gay people. Doesn't want to exist in the same space as them)

[iavanr]

im so frustrated every time I talk to my dad and it somehow devolves into him spouting transphobic sentiment (usually in a huge reach leap of logic that immediately devolves our conversation). This is a new development. I'm so tired. Transphobia is what it is but I hate how it's genuinely rotting people's brains and stopping them from having more nuanced conversations bc they think whipping out their transphobia card is this huge gotcha. U fucking dumbass you've gotten stupider. Love how he was using it to argue for eastern culture being superior bc we're more controlling and disciplined etc etc "look what happens when westerners give their children too much freedom"

[akookminsupporter]

You are not really a fan.

I wasn't planning on saying anything, but I'm only going to say this once so read carefully.

I don't think that's Jungkook for multiple reasons, but honestly, that's not the problem here, the problem here is that you are freely talking about and some even celebrating an alleged video that if it were real is a clear invasion of Jungkook's privacy and I can't begin to understand how many seem to be okay with that fact.

Let's assume that the one in the video is Jungkook: do you understand that Jungkook has a stalker? That someone violated Jungkook's privacy and security? That someone didn't mind filming Jungkook in a place where anyone, famous or not, has the right to feel safe. Many of you are celebrating the "final proof" that Jungkook is not gay and that he is a fuckboy.

"His latest songs just tell the truth!"

Have you guys stopped for a moment to think about the fucking bullshit you guys are saying? So many of you are OBSESSED, drooling to "prove or confirm" that Jungkook is not gay and don't mind grabbing at anything, even things that directly harm and endanger Jungkook because he doesn't matter right?

Many in this damn fandom are obsessed with Jungkook being the fuckboy they see in him for what, so they can fulfil the fantasy they have of him or because they think they have a chance of hooking up with him someday?

And that brings us to the real reason for all this: homophobia. Many of you would hate for Jungkook to be LGTBI+, you hate to think that maybe he is, you hate that other people say or think he is and show examples of why they think he is, right? The same can be said about the other members, but especially with Jungkook, many in this fandom have a weird obsession with him; in a way many in this fandom groomed him in their minds to be what they wanted and because Jungkook doesn't do what they want, doesn't behave the way they want, they force narratives at the point of bullshit or violate his privacy to do so.

Because Jungkook doesn't matter. Not really.

This damn fandom romanticizes sasaengs. Those aren't mildly obsessed fans, they're fucking stalkers who don't give a damn to chase, to harass these people who are famous. And you guys don't care in case they "prove or confirm" that Jungkook has a girlfriend, in that case, it's all good, right?

Many of you celebrate every time jungkook mentions a woman, is near a woman etc, you thrive on the possibility that his songs talk about sex because in your minds that means he is straight because obviously an LGTBI+ person wouldn't talk about sex. You treat this like a game you have to win, you come to these blogs to "rub" in our faces the evidence that jungkook is not gay. Ignoring in the process that bisexuality and pansexuality exist because thinking he is gay is what? A crime? disgusting? impossible? It doesn't matter to you whether he is LGTBT+ or not, you just need him not to be.

I repeat, you do not care about Jungkook, you only care about your idea of him. you are not fans. You are just pathetic people pretending to be.

[fallloverfic]

Thinking about how people assuming Seth isn't into men is also a big reason why Osiris is an idiot, and Ra called Osiris out on that line of thinking in S02E78. In fact, she calls him, "Arrogant, foolish Osiris" (among other things) for this. Like that just happened in canon and I guess folks slept through that episode because people keep insisting he only loves Nephthys/is straight/can't like men.

Like people say "Seth isn't gay" and I think that's fair, but I don't think he's het, either. He doesn't evince interest in women generally. Osiris assumes Seth does because Osiris doesn't understand love. To him, Seth must be into goddesses solely because they can have babies.

Osiris does not comprehend that it isn't Nephthys' gender that attracts Seth to her: it is herself as a person. Osiris has no regard for that. He does not fathom Seth as a complex person with agency. To Osiris, "to love someone is to expect something from them." (S01E49). He catalogues people into capabilities: if I could provide the same things for Seth, Seth would love me. This disregards any relationship Seth might have with Osiris, Nephthys, or anyone else. He stole Seth's seed for who knows how many years. He removes Seth's agency in many ways.

This is a really common romance trope with the obsessive non-partner: "I'm better looking, I can provide more/the same, why do you love [love interest] and not me?"

Because the person they're pursuing has agency and love is complicated. This thinking ignores that. It treats people as goals to be reached or objects to be won.

Osiris sees no issue with this, despite his alleged wisdom, because "love" as he understands it, is "a selfish emotion that feeds on personal gain." (S01E49). Osiris is being selfish, and he'll do whatever he has to, destroy whoever and whatever he needs to, in order to achieve the object of his desire that is Seth. As Ra says, Osiris is "a rotting fruit" who "rot[s] those around" him. (S02E78).

So far as we can tell, Seth isn't in love with women generally. The only other woman to whom he potentially showed any sexual advances was maybe Isis? (Seth to Isis, "I had asked you to sleep with me." S01E39). But we don't actually know how he framed that offer/request when he tried to get her to join him in revenge, let alone if he actually wanted to sleep with her or just wanted to get revenge on Nephthys and/or Osiris, or if he just convinced himself that's what he was asking Isis to do and that's part of why Isis rejected him. We do know he's in love with Nephthys (S01E49). Or was in the past. Lately, he cares for Horus. I would argue he's demi-bisexual or demi-pansexual, but also isn't a person who's into labels. Not everyone is. Queerness is a spectrum.

Yes, he calls relations between male humans disgusting in a spur of the moment thought in S02E36, and that's sort of it. Seth generally thinks ill of humans, and he's not given to think kindly of Horus at the time, either. That's also not definitive. He changes (S02E70). He also would not be the first person in existence to internalize bigotry that would possibly target himself. Plenty of marginalized people are/act bigoted against their own people/themselves. At the time, Seth was also ill and trapped in a stronghold of people who hate him, safe on the kindness of humans. There are so many reasons that he might respond weirdly or not in a way that reflects his entire state of mind about his own wants. No one was asking him, "Are you gay?" or even "Would you date and/or fuck a guy if you had a chance?" Horus was carrying on a facade to fool Hanekate in a complex situation that Seth hated for many reasons, and Seth was understandably shocked.

I don't think he likes men generally. I think his body reacts to things (Osiris, Foreign God), as bodies tend to, which doesn't necessarily mean anything about his sexuality. But his being into Nephthys also kind of says nothing about his wants. He wants Nephthys. The person. Not a gender. His lack of being into a specific gender generally does not mean he solely likes women or cannot be into men or must be forced into it or something. He loves people on an individual level.

When he rejects Osiris, it's not because Osiris is male, but because Seth cares platonically for Osiris solely as a brother and monarch.

Osiris to Seth in S01E41: "What am I... ...to you? Am I just the king that rules over the land that you protect? Am I just your brother born from the same womb? What about besides that? Have you ever even thought of me as something more?"

Seth: "Why do you need to be more than that?"

Ra to Osiris in S02E78, "You think that Seth turns away from you because you are also a male god? And you think Seth desires female gods because of their power of creation? . . . If that is the conclusion you have come to, then it is proof that you are already breaking down."

It's all right there. It didn't need to be that overt because you can see it in the rest of the story, too, but the overtness is now there. Clear as day. Osiris' line of thinking about Seth's affections is wrong. And to imitate that is foolish.

It's Seth's deep love for individuals that allows him to open his heart to Horus (S02E70). Osiris and even Nephthys do not see Seth for who he is. Horus does. He refuses to forget. And that's why Seth cares for him, because it's Seth's deepest wish (S01E40-1).

In sum, assuming Seth loves Nephthys because she's a woman and this is the end-all statement about his sexuality/interests will get Ra to laugh at you just like she laughed at Osiris for assuming basically the same thing.

(Also assuming all protagonists and/or love interests in boys love stories have to be gay to have relationships with other men is really weird. Plenty of protagonists are bisexual, pansexual, undeclared, or questioning)

[chicken-wayng]

“I need Alicent to regret all her life decisions”

Same, Alicent needs a reality check asap. Daemon kills your grandson, Rhaenyra doesn’t punish him and instead welcomes him back with open arms. You think you, Helaena and Jaehaera are safe around these people?

I know I've said it before, but Alicent reminds me of the basic religious southern woman.

Southern Christian women are raised from birth believing that a man is their savior. That a husband and children are going to be their greatest achievement. A man will provide for them. A man will tell them what's okay to say and think. If a man says gay people are nasty, gay people are nasty - if you have those thoughts you're nasty and need to ask for forgiveness to block them out. If a man says a person's skin color makes them a thief, rapist or criminal then it's best to stay away from that colored person; regardless of the fact that the man has stolen more from you and actually has raped you. Which is another thing, rape doesn't exist between a husband and wife in the southern Christian mindset, and if you're not married according to the bible all you have to do is pay off her dad and marry her but to the SC mindset you can slut shame her and make her think its her fault, and why should he be forced to marry a slut?

I'm going on a soap box so I'll back down but I know these things because I was raised this way. I was raised to believe I was nasty for liking girls, I was raised to believe brown people ("especially Puerto Ricans like your nana and dad!") were bad. I was raised in so many sickening ways I'm still having to unlearn a lot of it. However I have resources that just aren't available in Westeros.

When I wanted to know why brown people were bad, all I had to do was get online and read about real life testimonies from the civil war all the way up to present day. What I learned is that we can't even say America has been segregation free for 50 years! 50 fucking years ago they were lynching not only adults but babies!!! I used to use "gator bait" talking about little children, cuz that's what you do in Arkansas, only to learn the term comes from slave days when they'd throw the slave's BABIES to gators!!! How disgusting

When I wanted to know why gay people were bad, all I had to do was get online and learn about the queer people from the 1600s to now. We've existed forever, so what I feel wasn't a phase, or a sin, or anything bad, it was normal. I was raised with the Holy Bible and the biggest lesson we learn is Jesus' love for us. "Love is used over 500 times in the Bible," is what my nana said. Why would he put it in there over 500 times to turn around and tell you to hate? Well I didn't get an answer to that from church or the bible, I got it from Queer Christians (that I was taught weren't a thing.) who told me love is love.

When I want to know why something I was taught doesn't feel right I can look into it. Alicent and Rhaenyra can't. That's part of the tragedy and why they'll never be able to apologize and stop hurting each other. In this way the patriarchy has deepened the divide between them. However their own choices have also done so. Alicent doesn't need to understand bastardphobia to use it to hurt Nyra and Nyra doesn't need to understand the patriarchy to understand why Alicent has to make the choices she has to use the patriarchy to hurt her. They both know they're hurting the other and that's all they care about. The "if I can't love you, if I can't have you think of my name endearingly then I'll have you hate me. I'll have my name ring in your ears until the void takes you." Is toxic but they can't stop. They regret it, but they won't stop. The love is there, but they won't stop.

I need Alicent and Nyra to regret their choices like I regret being a horrible person for the first 15 years of my life.

[toniyx]

okay I said I wouldn't elaborate on the Alastor thing but I totally will because it would be silly of me

okay so, characters' personalities are not at all influenced by their sexual or romantic orientation, right???

WRONG!!!

sexuality does NOT exist in a vacuum. sexuality DOES influence someone's life, even to a small degree!!!

for example, Valentino being pan kind of helps establish that he's into just about everything. (on that note, sorry pan people). But he also is open to marketing everyone, because he's attracted to everyone, hence why he's the head honcho when it comes to porn in Hell.

But into a bigger and better example. Take Adam. Him being the straightest motherfucker possible is literally a hallmark of his personality. He's the kind of guy to go "straight pride matters" and call himself super straight and say "god hates gays" and shit like that. He is that prideful. He could not be queer, it would literally topple massive parts of his character. He wouldn't hit as hard as a villain- and likewise, with Valentino, it wouldn't hit as hard if he was just your stereotypical cishet pimp. Hazbin knocks out two birds with one stone - queer people can be abusers, and they can also be abused (see: Angel Dust).

So why am I going on about all this? Because Alastor's sexuality doesn't exist in a vacuum; it influences his character in many different ways. To keep his character as it is, he HAS to be aroace. He is driven by bloodlust and thirst for power and that's it. There are certain exceptions he will not make—one of them being disrespecting his own boundaries when it comes to intimacy. If Alastor were distracted by things like that, his character would feel so much more muddled down, and he wouldn't have the proper time to chase his goals.

He views sexuality as a sin—in the sense that, to him, it's a vice that he can exploit. He will never jeopardize his own mind or body, but he's more than happy to own your soul and force you to do boring, gruelling, often menial work. And on top of this, his sexuality & orientation feed into his dynamics with other characters—for example, he doesn't get along well with Angel Dust due to his absurdly promiscuous nature. He doesn't get along with Vox because Vox is pining for him more than the common schoolgirl. And this also helps establish a lot of Vox's motivations in the story; he hates Alastor because Alastor rejected him, and he plans to spite him every step of the way.

So by taking away his aroasexuality, you're frankly kind of gutting him. He wouldn't be the same character he is if he wasn't aroace. So hey—while I'm all up for people writing/reading/drawing whatever they want—keep that off this blog. Send that in my inbox and you're getting either publicly humiliated or ignored. I don't want your sexual/romantic (platonic is fine) thoughts on him, nor do I want requests.

Not only am I trying to be at least somewhat accurate to canon, but I also just couldn't write/look at that stuff myself without feeling disgusted. Characters' canon sexualities will be respected on this blog, end of story. I'll be somewhat flexible on certain characters (Pentious, Adam, Cherri, etc.) but others (Alastor, Charlie, Vaggie) I'll be more firm on.

[limacogo]

lupin the III relationship headcanons

ok so no one cares but here's what i consider as canon relationships in the lupin verse. this is not just ships,, but mostly.

even if i do like the gang as a polycule, i am very much convinced jigen is gay (sue me) and i mostly think that about goemon too. oh yeah and fujiko's obviously a lesbian. so lupin x fujiko (wait i never realized i do not know their ship name. is it fujipin? lujiko? i actually remember fujilup. i guess ill discover thru the tags.) could kinda work as lupin is genderfluid (TO ME.) so now that this is established.

jiglup are exes. i didn't even watch lupin zero (i should) but i know they were gay in it so yeah. i can definitely see why people ship them, they have chemistry, but still. they are obviously great friends and platonic soulmates. even if they can't be in love, they will always stay by each other's side. the main reason for this is

jigoe. what can i say. they are married and i will not take any criticism.

i don't mind lupgoe as well but like. their relationship is very peculiar to me. i think goemon really values lupin both as a leader and a friend. one cannot exist without the other. as seen in part 5 (one of the last eps, i don't remember which) goemon is lead to think lupin only uses him as a pawn, and this shatters him completely. but at the same time, he finds time to actually be in the gang, even if he's a lone wolf and is often doing his thing, because he respects lupin as a thief.

so. fujiko. she is a mystery. does she love lupin or is she using him? the answer could be both. but i honestly feel as she doesn't really love him, and apart from taking advantage of him, she could just be doing it for fun, or to fill something she's missing. she often looks as she doesn't care about whether he lives or dies. but can lupin really die? so yeah, she still cares about him, in her own way.

fujigoe. apart from my sexuality headcanons and other ships (i can absolutely be a multishipper), i will never see them as a couple. it couldn't work. their relationship is one of pure friendship. they deeply care about each other and are found together even when you wouldn't think you could. if this makes sense. i feel as they're both very protective of the other.

fujigen? also care about each other, even if it doesn't certainly look like it, but i think they pretend to hate each other because that's what they want people to think, INCLUDING themselves. they are like, friends that always insult each other to show affection, pretend to be disgusted by the other and not wanting to touch them, etc.

about zenigata,, i may make another post cause i don't really feel like it rn so yeah. just the gang for now.

[goodluckclove]

I'm writing a new thing!! I don't really need advice I'm just excited about starting it. They're gay and one of them's a shapeshifter the other has a culturally engrained fear of shapeshifters given that as defenders of the wilderness/ basically very local gods they tend to fuck up anyone who's in their space. I also dong know how to start books which is an issue my beginnings are always weak. How do I start a book. Do I describe the sheep? He's a shepherd btw which I think is fun because the shapeshifter often takes the form of a wolf or coyote. It's also set in a relatively high fantasy setting (no elves and shit just weird magic and a different landscape) that vaguely corresponds to the late 17 or 1800s (they've got some guns i think, they ride horses and trains might exist). How do I start a book. What do I start with. Where do I start. There's no real solid beginning I've got in mind, just a dude trying to take his sheep over a large area on his own. Help please I do actually need advice

Well you see, Ghostie, everyone knows that the first sentence of a novel is the most important part of the entire story. It has to contain the main character's name - in fact, it has to contain the names of every character in your cast - and it has to provoke intrigue and resolve it in a satisfying way without being a too long and jesus christ i can no longer keep up this bit.

I'm annoyed by people who say you need to have a super profound first line. I mean, they're good when they happen. If you can think of one that's great. But if you can't you aren't fucked right off the gate. If your first line isn't something people will get calligraphed onto canvases to hang on the walls of their boring houses (Is this a thing? Did I just make up a type of person to hate?), it doesn't mean your beginning won't be good.

You want to hook the reader. That's what all the guides say, right? They describe a person picking your book off the proverbial shelf and leafing through the first page to see if it's something they'd be interested in. That's solid, but then some go on to make it seem like you have maybe ten words before they either buy the book or toss it across the room in disgust. I'm not saying this is never true. I'm just saying that, personally, that type of person is probably not someone who'd be interested in me or my stories to begin with.

Usually when I'm considering a new book I'll skim the first few pages and then a bit throughout the middle, just to see if I like the prose. I do not put that much weight in the beginning, but it's always a good sign when the general scene feels purposeful. It doesn't have to be a car chase/diamond heist/sex scene/murder. I read someone somewhere saying that you have to start with something exciting and it took like an hour off my life I was so angry.

Here's one out of a billion angles to tackle this puzzle from - where does the story start for you? What is the inciting incident to the inciting incident? This feels like something easy to answer, but oftentimes what you come up with might feel a little inconsequential.

A beginning scene - like, for instance, a prologue centered around only sheep and coyotes - does not necessarily sound interesting on its own. But in a world where shapeshifters usually take on those forms it both sets up the world and establishes a mood. You can play with how much information you give people in the world.

Using my book as an example because I've been watching my editor @hoard-sweet-hoard react to it in real time, at one point he commented that he didn't know if the Eddie in my initial prologue is the same guy as the Edgar in Chapter One. And I was like yeah man that's the whole goddamned point of the book you tiny little king of fools. I wasn't at all that mean. I made a really good sandwich for dinner so I'm feeling extra rowdy. But the point is that I focused less on the action and more on the feeling it would create in the reader.

With that mindset the action doesn't really matter. If it's mundane it can be comforting, or tiring, or numbing, or eerie, or unnerving. If it's far removed from the world we know it can be fantastical and whimsical and sexy, maybe? I don't know. God that sandwich was good. I'm getting really into bagels lately.

Also, from purely the perspective of a writer, you might think of a better beginning midway into the draft. So you can also go back and make a weak start much stronger. You can skip the beginning entirely if it's really fucking with your life. Come back to it later. Who will stop you? Me? I don't even know how to find you. And if I did, you could easily kill me. You have that vibe and I am very clumsy.

Also also start posting excerpts when you get going because that shit sounds rad as fuck.

My bagel had egg and bacon and a hash brown patty and caramelized onion. Man has done a lot of sin, but it is almost neutralized by the insight we once had to caramelize onions. They have a unique flavor that I can only describe as eating the house of a beloved grandmother? Or maybe just the way that house makes you feel?

Yum.

[ooops-i-arted]

Gina Carano Sues Disney and Lucasfilm. According to Just Some Guy at 1 : 36 of the youtube video. Gina Carano was the one who put gasoline into the fire herself by intentionally starting a fight with trans people and mocking them for their importance in society.

I was sick the day the happened and @jennadknowsbest-blog was kind enough to tell me and boy let me tell you, despite feeling like crap I was laughing like this allllllll day

If you too need a good laugh, read the released document thingy. It's badly written on so many levels. (I saw it on Reddit but I think it's floating around Tumblr too. There are some golden comments on both.) Both from just a writing style perspective (it's written like a teenager's Star Wars fanfic) and the fact that her main argument is that "Pedro Pascal said mean things about conservatives and wasn't punished" when 1. most of the posts were apparently before he was hired as the Mandalorian and 2. it seems like pretty common knowledge in fandom that he was asked to tone it down and he did. I follow him on Insta and he rarely posts outside of promoting his own work, and it's largely "support this cause" or "I love my trans sister" instead of attacking/joking at anyone. (I guess his Twitter had more comments, but he's since deleted it afaik.) Overall, it's likely just a stunt to get the right-wing frothing at the mouth and Gina's name back in people's mouth, because she hasn't filmed anything since Terror on the Prairie (one of two Daily Wire films she was supposed to have, the other appears to not be happening anymore) and My Son Hunter (which was straight Breitbart propaganda). Shatpiro has used and dumped her and while I doubt she's hurting for money, I bet she's desperate to get the praise and attention and adoration that the Cara Dune role briefly brought her. Why else would she come crawling back to a company she's publicly trashed and accused of mistreating for the last several years? It doesn't make sense by her own logic! If they were so bad, why does she want back? (And who's gonna hire her now if they think she's a liability who's going to turn around and sue them?)

It's really disgusting though that Gina wants to claim she was discriminated against for being a woman while actively mocking minority groups. Her post appeared on my Insta fyp and I usually don't click because I know she's gonna piss me off, and I clicked and she did. At the time she had a story that said "Still beeping, bopping, booping" with a smirky picture of her. So all she's been told - we know Pedro talked to her because she herself admitted it on Twitter*, and while I'm sure there were plenty of people jumping on the hate bandwagon, there were also people trying to genuinely explain - and explained how this is hurtful to the queer community, she still keeps doing it and thinks it's funny.

That's what's unforgivable to me. Not that she said ignorant shit in the first place - we all have - but her refusal to learn and do better. She wants to say whatever she wants without pushback and so do her fans. The few times I've thought it's worth it to try and talk to someone about it, they always insist it's just her opinion and say something homophobic to me as well (last time I talked to a Cara Dune content creator on Insta, she said she "doesn't agree" with me being gay and "I can't expect everyone to agree with me." For wanting to exist as a gay person. Apparently I should just take it when people mock me or say I should burn in hell.) That's the problem with Gina and her supporters. They don't care, they don't want to think critically or debate, they want to say anything they want without consequence and brush off any conflict with "well it's just a joke" or "it's just her opinion."

Bigotry is not an opinion. You can't "not agree" with someone's skin color and it's the same with their sexuality. You don't get a fucking opinion on whether I have the right to exist as a queer woman.

Let's not pretend the things Gina says are in a void. People who flock to her believe the same things she does. That's why people have protested her attending FanExpo (this video goes into more depth thank you @jennadknowsbest-blog for sharing), when you invite people who, like her, think it's funny to mock anyone like them, it doesn't make a safe or welcoming environment for people like me. Sure one can brush off a comment or two - but where do you draw the line? When does it become harassment? And who is going to protect people like me from that harassment? How can I count on security from an organization that invited Gina and encouraged these people in the first place?

And I say all this as a queer woman who is able to chameleon myself very well because I've done it since childhood. Things are only getting more dangerous for people who are visibly queer. A nonbinary teen was just killed in Oklahoma. I live in a relatively blue area of a blue state, but that doesn't mean I'm completely safe. There are extremists out there, and they're only getting more bold - because people like Gina think it's amusing to fan the flames. Gina, at least, has faced some consequences for it. I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere (either it'll be settled and Elon and Gina have some Own The Libs content, or they'll be dismissed/lose and they'll get some A Woke Judge Discriminated Against Me content). Gina will be happily on her way. Meanwhile, I get to wonder if the people around me who dismissively say "it's just her opinion" are the kind of people who don't think much about social issues.... or are the kind of people who will happily vote my rights away in the next election.

I assure you, if you have friends who are queer, they are listening to what you say about this case. Throughout all her tomfoolery, I've found Gina to be an excellent canary in the coal mine when it comes to identifying homophobes.

-

*She apparently later told Tucker Carlson that no one bothered to explain the pronouns thing to her, so we know she's a liar who twists the story as well, which is why I never take anything she says in good faith.**

**I'm very embarrassed I know this but I can't help but following up on stupid things she's doing. She fascinates me. She's like the inverse of a blorbo to me, like she pisses me off but she compels me. How can one person be this dumb. (Fr tho has anyone in her life talked to her about CTE??? Impulsiveness/aggression are possible symptoms....)

[calypsotastic]

Some of my favourites and least favourite relationship tropes

Enemies To Lovers:

Even though I'll admit it's kinda overrated, It's one of my favorites. The (often sexual) tension between the two characters and how their detestation for each other develops into sweet caresses and cuddles always catch me off guard. This trope also can apply to many different type of media's and fiction which is why I love it so much.

Star-crossed Lover:

Probably the most underrated trope in my opinions. Even though most people indulge in romance for the fluff rather than the tragedy, The Star-crossed really indulges me by how it captivates the determination to defy logic and fate even if it inevitably fails and it leads to an interesting read

Right Person, Wrong Time:

Same at the previous one, but instead, they were always meant for each other yet couldn't due to special circumstances. I quite enjoy imagining how they could've been if that had more time and met eachother earlier or later throughout the story. Again, tragedy is too underrated and needs more appreciation.

Witch x Witch Hunter:

It's such a niche trope, yet I believe we need more of it and have some gay and saphics ones for once. Usually this trope follows an Enemies To Lovers storyline which I already consume once every 5 hours and add magic and tension between the two and you one fucking masterpiece, why is this trope so niche.

Supernatural Being X Supernatural Being:

One pet peeve I have with fantasy is that whenever there is a relationship there is always atleast one who is a basic ol human being. It frustrates me that it's never something like Elf x Tiefling or Dwarf x Changling or Kobold x Dragonborn or a fucking Lovecraftian squid and a biblically accurate angel , on of the individuals is always a human being.Humans are already fucking narcissist. I want to indulge in unconventional romance, romance which delves you in a fantasy vast away from our plane of our existence. I want to see beings who most perceive as vile and vicious being loving with eachother. For me the less humanoid it is, the more intriguing it is for me.

Last Minute Love Interest:

Don't you detest when you're reading about the intimate relationship between two characters, their woes, hopes and vulnerabilities revealed to eachother, the distance between them tightens closer and closer. THEN FOR FUCKING REASON ANOTHER CHARACTER WHO SUDDENLY BECOMES REVELANT SNATCHES ONE OF THE CHARACTERS AND YOU'RE LEFT FUCKING UNSATISFIED. I'm sorry but this is quite possibly the worst trope of all of literature and just a cheap gag that ruins the point of what I'm reading. If you want me to become invested in a relationship between two characters, you need to develop some time, and give each of them revelancy, NOT JUST SOME LAST MINUTE PLOT TWIST THAT DIMINISHES THE 300 PAGES AND HOURS OF MY MISERABLE LIFE. Half of the time the guy who shows up last second doesn't even look conventionally attractive at all.

Arranged Marriage:

Irl Arranged Marriages are one of the sickening things an individual meant to care for you can commit. I hate that this ship glorifies arranged marriages as 99% you're going to end up with some creepy ass middle man and you're viewed as an doll, incapable of autonomy and useful for economic or political gain rather than an individual who should get to love who they actually love.

The Brother's Bestfriend:

In actuality it's not that bad but I personally find it putrid, if you know anything about siblings, it's that them and their friends are viles and disgusting cretins, scruffling around the house like cockroaches, riddled with cheeto dust. There's also usually the weird age gap and don't you think it's awkward to date someone whose also simultaneously your sibling best friend and worse if they become your ex.

Possessive Boyfriends:

Now I'm not talking about the jealous boyfriend archetype or even the protective one but rather the ones who treat their signicant others as possession rather than individuals. I fucking hate the line "I own you" or "You're mine" because it signifies authority and superiority something I believe shouldn't be prevalent in a relationship. It's worse when the individual won't allow their SO to go out with friends or do their own things cause inevitably at the day its say it with me A B U S E.

[laura-the-locust]

I've been doing some thinking about xenophobia, and the limits of tolerance. For the purposes of this post, I'll define xenophobia based on its etymology: it is the fear/distate/hate of otherness.

I have broadened the scope of the definition, because in the end racism, queerphobia, ableism, and many others boil down to one basic concept: "someone is existing in a way that's foreign, and I don't like it."

[The rest under the cutoff, this balooned into an essay]

What is interesting to me, is that there are lots of people who recognize the issue with xenophobia, only to turn around and do it to somebody else. From people who loathe racism, but are homophobes, through LGB folk, to queer people who are disgusted by polyamory. In the end, it seems that they value tolerance, but only up to a point, and the difference is mostly where that border lies.

And on every layer,* there'll be people who point out the similarities: poly people are otherized in the same way trans people are, who are otherized in the same way non-straight people are, et cetera. Because, again, it's all the same thing. Different people have different cutoff points for what they are willing to tolerate.

Or is it really tolerance? Or merely sticking out for yourself? Internalised whatever-phobia aside, a trans man isn't reluctantly allowing for the existence of trans people, he is trans, and has a vested interest in trans rights.

Tolerance is, at least to me, when you don't participate/are something, and maybe it even disgusts you, but you allow for other people to do/be it. For example: my dad is straight, and thinks I'll go to hell for being gay, but he tolerates it, and doesn't bitch and moan that gay people ought to be thrown in jail. He doesn't tolerate me being a trans woman, so he thinks I'm gay when I'm with a guy, and deadnames me.

In my opinion, tolerance requires you do not like the thing you are tolerating. Another example is how one responds to "cringy" behaviour. Are you part of the mob that makes the weird kid from a tiktok the Twitter's main character for the day, or do you simply cringe, shrug, and move on? The latter is tolerance. And the best thing, is that tolerance can be learned! You can train yourself to walk away, even if internally something disgusts you.

So let's bring up the "weird kids" you may have come across on the internet, especially on Tumblr: Xenogender people. Otherkin. Tulpamancers.

A warning light just lit in some of you's heads. "Is she gonna defend them?" First of all, you are the person this post is about and aimed towards, glad you're still around. Second of all, yes and no. Well, yes to xenogenders.

My point is, is that those communities are one of the most controversial, at least from what I saw in the little echo chamber in which I live. I don't really seek them out, they just pop up occasionally when I use the web. But I have seen tons of ridicule come their way, from people at any stage of the tolerance ladder.*

(For this next part, I will assume we all believe xenophobia to be unethical. If you do not, consider this: if punishing Otherness is okay, or even desired, unfortunately for you, you and everyone you love are Other in some way to the Majority. Yes, yes they are. Bigots are extremely good at finding differences to hate, it's their whole thing. Good luck.)

So let's go over what some of those criticisms are:

"Those people believe in something that's unproven, or provably incorrect!" Okay, reddit atheist (not ad hominem, just an insult). While I find the project of encouraging rationality to be important, being wrong isn't a crime, nor should it be. The only circumstances where ignorance should be forcefully fought against, is when it causes the ignorant to do harm. You know, like thinking gay sex causes AIDS.

"But those people are harmful!" Are they? Or does their existence simply make you uncomfortable? You know, like some people don't want black folks around their neighborhood. As stated previously, lack of tolerance is a skill issue on your part.

"But they are harming themselves!" Aha! A valid concern! Let's stop here for a moment.

This sort of starts another topic: what should be the limits of tolerance? Because "being weird" isn't it. Harming others is obviously not to be tolerated.** But with harming of the self, we are going into autonomy territory.

First of, bodily autonomy is, broadly speaking, good. Pursuit of freedom is one of my axioms, and if you think maximizing freedom is not desirable, I cannot have a conversation with you.

But what, if any, should its limits be? Self harm is bad, right? But... why? Well, physical self harm can and often does follow the same mechanism as an addiction, especially when used as a coping mechanism. This means escalation, which may result in permanent injury (which lowers quality of life) or even death (the utility of which is zero at best)(Yes, I am a utilitarian).

Okay, so if self delusion doesn't result in bodily harming yourself or others, it's fine, right? Sure, it's upsetting to think that someone is wrong on the internet, but is it really worth fighting over?

I'd argue that every time you go to someone that has "ghe/ghem | I am the reincarnation of Winston Churchill's cat" in their bio and tell them about how much they are not that, and reincarnation isn't real, or whatever, you are actually doing more harm. That catkin is not changing their mind. Do you honestly think that you are the first person that informed them that gheir views do not find evidence in objective reality? Obviously not! Ghe heard that already most of the times ghe spoke about it to anyone outside gheir community! And all you're doing is adding on to a pile of hate that gathers dust in gheir inbox, and possibly pushes ghem one step closer to doing something really inadvisable, even suicide.

"So what, delusions are okay, as long as you don't harm anyone?" Delusions are something one should work through with one's therapist, not with a NEET*** from Utah who has his own religious trauma he should be dealing with instead.

In conclusion: leave "weird people" alone, don't yuck other's yum if it doesn't influence you, and get a therapist. We all need one these days.

Footnotes:

*People don't always support minorities according to the steps I've laid out, but they usually do. Your non-binary mutual probably isn't racist.

**the specifics on when violence is permissible are a whole doctorate thesis on their own, but the general sentiment stands. Violence usually results in suffering, which is axiomatically bad.

***not hating on NEETs, I'm one myself. But you wouldn't have enough time to hate on christians on reddit if you had a job.

[opinated-user]

I mean. I knew Lily was ignorant and dumb but this hay’s code thing is another level. Alright gonna out myself, I’m a film major mostly in production and theory. Now the code was implemented in 1934 (though some say 1933). And it didn’t end (well there are debates as to whether we count the actual enforcement or the fact while the code existed but wasn’t enforced) until 1968. A 34-35 year not ten… 34-35 years of enforcement.

During that time there were directors who did sneaky things to fight back against the code. Have multiple kisses shorter than 3 seconds. Have suggestive imagery but blame the dirty thinking on the agent who saw the film to ensure the code was followed. And countless other examples. Not to mention the red scare also Played a BIG part of enforcement. The MPAA has done some things (like granting films with LGBT themes R ratings a rating with that excludes a lot of people) but it’s not as bad as the Hays Code who thought interracial love stories were a big no no, and in 1968 Star Trek had an interracial kiss that said F U to Jim Crow and Hays Code era thinking

my point was more going through the notion that even if it was "only 10" years that it was enforced, that's still a lot of movies, directors and creative people who saw all their hard work go to waste because it didn't meet some ridiculous criteria. for as many success stories you can count of people creatively managing to get around the hays code, there's as much if not way more stories of people and movies that never got made and no one saw. that's a tragedy, whether we're speaking 10 years, 5 years or the actual 30+ years that it was. a human being could have been born and die without ever seeing nothing else but hay's approved movies. it's a tragedy that something so simple and basic like a kiss between two people had to be revolutionary at all, it's disgusting that anyone ever said that two people shouldn't kiss because of racism. especially when we know that before that code existed, movies with queer people being queer already existed and they disappeared for 30+ years. some of them have been erased entirely. i don't understand how anyone can say that blaming the code hays or being mad about it is not only fair, but completely logical. it's not only deeply ignorant from her part to minimize the impact this had on cinema, but it's repugnant considering this is the same thing that LO always does: blame the individuals, never the institutions. the code hays was never implemented, but if it was then it wasn't a big deal and if it did it doesn't matter because these other movies came out, meaning that if your movie didn't it can only be your fault and not the people who enforced those absurd rules in the first place. it's not the fault of Disney that people are done with their "a person close to the production" always goes to the media to try to hype up movies around "our first ever gay character". it's the media, and the people who read that media, on the wrong because they just like to hate disney. it wasn't the fault of Disney's homophobia that TOH was cancelled, everyone just wants to hate Disney for no reason. it wasn't the fault of Netflix's tendencies of cutting queer shows short, the cancellation of First Kill was entirely because it was a "enemy to lovers" sapphic story. it wasn't the fault of Nickelodeon that the production of LOK was a mess, it was the writers and the people involved the only responsible because they should have known better, somehow. it wasn't the fault of Cartoon Network that SU went into hiatus more frequently than any other show at the time, no matter what the people who actually work for the company could say. it was the fault of Sugar for not magically knowing that a hiatus was coming and writing around it somehow. it's always the creative individual people who have the fault, not the companies who used them and disposes them whenever they please for whatever purpose. why do you think she doesn't speak about the big cut of HBO more? why do you think she isn't angry about how CN treated any other show that wasn't Teen Titans Go like utter trash? why is that when she wants to talk about WOW, she still talks far more about her white fantasy favourite female character being mistreated by a mere novelist writer than about the actual victims of harassment from the company?

because LO, for all her talk of being the only good leftist left, it's a capitalist anti-intellectual convenient tool whose true feelings will always have more in common with conservatives that she'd like to admit it.

[thelesbianpoirot]

genuine q about ur pinned post: if a woman is only attracted to womyn, ie expressly not attracted to men, and has romantic relationships with womyn only, would only ever be with/marry a woman, but isn’t interested in having sex with Anyone, how is she not a lesbian? she is still an adult human female attracted to adult human females, she just doesn’t want to have sex. i don’t see how that isn’t still being a lesbian

The attraction key to homosexuality is sexual attraction. If a woman admit she doesn't experience sexual attraction to women, she is not a lesbian. A lesbian is a female person who experiences exclusive sexual attraction to other female people. For all gender critical or radical feminist women decry liberals inventing genders and sexualities, some have really bought into this asexual lesbian silliness and the split attraction model to some degree. You will never meet an asexual gay man. You might meet a celibate one who admits he'd very much like to be having sex with men but does not because of his religion, health, mental health, his high standards or for his safety. But you will not meet a man who genuinely doesn't want to fuck men, but calls himself gay because he wants a best friend and a roommate. It is a neurotic female invention. I see no difference between this era's asexual lesbian, and political lesbians of the 60s/70s, many of which admitted to not being sexually attracted to women, and thinking lesbianism is about centering women and removes the SEXUAL component of being a lesbian. If you do not want to eat pussy, you are not a lesbian. I genuinely think asexuality can exist, there are people who don't want to have sex, and I don't think those people are capable of being homosexuals, but are their own little fourth thing. I think these asexual "lesbians" are women who long for deep and meaningful female friendships that can last a lifetime. But I feel absolutely no connection to them as "lesbians". People don't want me dead in my country because I am living with a woman, even helping her raise her kid, they hate that we might be having sex. Where I am from many women cohabitate with other women for years, or til death for financial reasons and genuine friendship. I have had women who says they want to live with me, and spend the rest of their lives as my roommate, because I am reliable, clean and kind. If they raised a kid they would love for me to co-parent. But these women admitted to being disgusted by vaginas and do not desire to have sex with women. Some of these women were asexuals, lifelong celibates, that intend to live sexless lives. They are not lesbians and I feel no community with them. Many people do not agree, but I don't care. Homosexuality isn't criminalized/illegal/or discriminated against cuz two people of the same sex want to live together, it is because we want to fuck each other. Being gay is about fucking. Who you want to fuck. People are getting so bogged down by theory and inclusiveness that common sense facts are being obscured.

[alexbkrieger13]

DN interviewed Finland's all time top goal scorer Sällström after her critique of Fifa.

Finland's superstar rages against Fifa: "Feels disgust and contempt"

Fifa banned rainbow armbands during the men's World Cup in Qatar.

It has caused Finland's top women's soccer player, Linda Sällström, to rage – and to completely lose confidence in the international soccer federation.

In seven months, the women's World Cup will be played, with several openly gay players.

- How should this be interpreted other than as a big "fuck you" to all sexual minorities? says the Vittsjö striker.

She decided already a year ago; she does not intend to watch a single match from the WC in Qatar.

- I have stuck to that, says Linda Sällström when DN reaches her by phone.

- I think this WC represents everything that is wrong in the world. I just feel so much disgust and contempt for Fifa right now. I can't watch football and enjoy it, there is no way to justify this World Cup.

She recently signed a new contract with women's club Vittsjö. In Finland, she is the women's national team's top scorer of all time.

Finland will miss the WC next year, but there were EC games this summer. The Finnish-Swedish striker has donned the national team shirt 122 times. Now she questions her love for football.

With reference to the rainbow armbands stopped by Fifa - and the fact that the international football association in the men's World Cup threatened to punish teams wearing the armband - the 34-year-old wrote a long post on Instagram in November.

Her conclusion, she wrote, is that she "as a gay player is unwelcome in the football world, to the extent that other players must also be punished for standing up for my right to exist".

- For me, football is about joy and inclusion, doing good together, says Sällström.

- But all this that Fifa has done is very strongly against that. It doesn't feel good at all.

In several posts in social media, she has chosen to mark. So also in several interviews in the Finnish press.

It is about many things, says the star: the corruption behind Qatar being awarded the World Cup, the situation of migrant workers, LGBTQ people and women in the country, that Fifa moved the World Cup to the middle of the season and about how stadiums have been blown up in the middle of the desert.

The discussion about the rainbow colored bandages, as well as the fact that national teams were not allowed to wear shirts with the text " human rights for all" or " love ", makes her both frustrated and angry.

Linda Sällström links to the upcoming women's World Cup, which will be played in Australia and New Zealand this summer:

- Fifa is really doing everything in its power to exclude the rights of homosexuals in this ongoing World Cup, but then there will be a women's World Cup in just over six months... and there will be several openly gay players playing. It will be very wrong.

- Fifa wanted to punish the teams that wanted to wear the rainbow armband... how should we interpret that except as a big "fuck you" to all sexual minorities? And it's not just about me or my rights, but this is so much bigger.

Why is it important to you to mark?

- I hope that people will become aware of all this stuff, that they will be able to put pressure on Fifa.

- It is clear that individual people, and the little I do, will have no significance, but if there are enough people who put pressure, it can make a difference. Then I think sponsors can do a lot. Because Fifa has really made it clear that the only thing that matters to them is the money.

She has received a lot of support, she says.

- At the same time, you have also received a bit of hate, on social media. As you usually get when you raise your voice. But it is also just a sign that there is still a lot of work to be done.

In Sweden, center back Nilla Fischer, who announced on Monday that her career is over, has long been at the front line in the fight for everyone's equal value in football.

She too has reacted strongly to Fifa threatening yellow cards to team captains who wear rainbow armbands.

- I cook inside, said Fischer in SVT's WC broadcast the other week.

- That Fifa once again shows its power and decides over the armbands and Belgium's shirt, that it cannot say "love" on them... How can they think it's not okay?

The decision not to allow demonstrations for inclusion in Qatar also disturbs Sweden's national team captain Peter Gerhardsson. Also that the WC is played where it does.

- To me it is incomprehensible, Gerhardsson told DN last week.

His team captain has been in the habit of wearing rainbow armbands. Gerhardsson hopes that the bandage to be or not to be will not be a question to deal with during the women's World Cup:

- It's not the same way. The World Cup in Australia and New Zealand will certainly be different.

- The girls are very far ahead when it comes to many of these issues. We'll see where we end up, but it's nothing we're discussing at the moment.

[sidebaxolotl]

I should start this by saying I'm also side b (maybe side x?)

is it bad if I do/don't respond to homosexuality like I would other sexual/marital sins like adultery, incest, polygamy, etc.? (with disgust I should say)

it feels hypocritical if I don't, but that's exactly what most people call homophobia, and I don't want people to think I hate them or am disgusted by their mere existence.

Honestly, this is a doozy cause I'm not really grossed out by gay stuff myself. I know its wrong, I believe what the Bible says about it but I don't have that same visceral reaction either... But I mean ya can't force yourself to feel something you don't?

I have complicated feelings about homophobia as a concept because yes its not good to hate people because they're gay or anything like that, of course. But the ideological shift of claiming sexuality as identity makes it so that someone who treats everyone with basic decency but goes "hey i don't believe that's ok" or "im not comfortable with that" qualifies as hateful. And that just doesn't seem right to me. Like the word is just starting to mean people saying things I don't like or people not 100% acquiescing to what I want and that's just kinda bad???

And I'm not sure if its worth even trying to like convince people like that that you don't hate them when they're determined to claim that you do.

Iunno if any of that made sense my brain is in knots.....

[evil-ontheinside]

Ok so I haven't seen a single episode of stranger things (this has been fixed in the future shdhhd) but I'm invested so I'm gonna share my idea on Mike getting vecna'd. Buckle up this might be a bit longer.

So I saw a post where Mike's song and seeing all those memories doesn't actually help him but makes things worse. I would love that a lot because he sees all those memories and it works at first, he's reminded of the people he loves and how much he loves them and is just so lucky to have them in his life but then there's vecna telling him something like "imagine if they knew you lied to them all this time. They would be disgusted by you." not only focusing on him being gay but also on the whole 'friends don't lie' aspect and that's when all those memories turn painful.

Instead of helping Mike get out, they make him want to give up. They make him hate himself even more because yes, he lied to them this whole time and every single of those memories might as well not have existed if they knew about him. How can he be their leader, their friend if all he ever did was lie to them and deceive them about who he actually is?

On the other side, everyone is trying to safe Mike of course, and I'd love if Eddie is the one who realised that Mike is gay before everyone else (maybe there were comments in school, and Mike's little crush on him, and the fact that he won't shut up about Will, (his natural gaydar as a fellow fruit) etc.) And he and Mike had a conversation about music and when Mike said he liked small town boy (or whatever other song you imagine would work for him) he teased him a little and Mike immediately denied liking the song so Eddie got suspicious. So it was his idea to use the song and it works! (just not how it should)

And while Mike is about to die, something else is going on and someone attacks the rest of the group and through his little window Mike can see them panic and THAT'S what gets him to fight back. He sees his friends, his family is in danger and can only think about how he has to protect them, how he can't be a burden to them right now.

He fights his way out of vecna's grip and joins his friends back in the world of the living. And someone is like "so the song did work!" and Mike just smiles and nods and everyone moves on but then there's Nancy. She looks at her brother and sees the lies because she knows him. They might not be the closest of siblings but she know when he's lying but right now they have other things to worry about.

They escape the attack (maybe the angry mob or other monsters you decide) and when everything calms down a little, Nancy confronts him. Not in private but also not in front of everyone. They're in the same room as everyone else but she drags him to the side and corners him (literally).

"You lied. The song didn't work. What happened?" and Mike, of course, gets defensive. He insists that the song worked just as it did for everyone else but Nancy stares at him until he just caves (it's been a long day, the boy is tired, give him a break please). "It did work Nancy. Just not how it should have" (just like I'm not how I should be). And he admits that he did see those memories but they just made things worse.

Nancy is confused because for her, those memories were everything she needed. "but that doesn't make any sense. Those were your best memories Mike, how could they make things worse?" And Mike gets angry, mostly at himself for being different, for being wrong and because he's reminded that he lies to everyone he knows. And his voice gets louder for the next part. When he tells her that he lied to everyone and that if they knew this about him, they would hate him and all those memories are build on lies and how is that supposed to make anything better?

Nancy is stunned, just like everyone else in the room who heard what Mike said. His friends are confused, what do they not know about their best friend? What did he never tell them that would make them hate him? And they want to reassure him that, 'no Mike, me wouldn't hate you' (especially Will who hasn't made a big secret of him being gay but still hasn't told any of them even though he's pretty sure everyone knows) but before any of them can say something, it's Eddie who steps forward.

He grabs Mike's shoulder and tells him that he knows. He's known for months and that he isn't disgusted by him, that it's ok, that it's not his fault that society thinks of them as less and wrong. And Mike has never heard that before (not because his friends wouldn't tell him the same thing, but because he couldn't imagine anyone being ok with it, with just accepting him without everything changing) and he just starts crying, which he hasn't before and Eddie hugs him and tells him that he's fine, that he doesn't need to be fixed, and fuck everyone else if they don't accept him for who he is and.

Yeah. That's all I have for now. He probably has a talk with Will later who might have caught on during Eddie's little speech and Robin definitely understood as well so she talks to Mike too and it ends in byler being happy and that's it

[stormblessed95]

Hi Storm!! This has been on my mind so I thought I would send in an ask. Idk if you are a swiftie, but I am. Taylor has a new album coming out next month (crossing my fingers that PJM1 doesn’t drop the same weekend because I want Jimin to have his own moment) but onto my point…

There was a major uproar from fans after the speculated that this album would have even more queer undertones and a possible “coming out” from her with Midnights. And there was even a Rolling Stone article talking about her rumored queerness which brought a huge twitter controversy and a shit ton of homophobia. I hate that people are assuming that she will come out with this album release or pressuring her too, I really hated even more that people were so homophobic adamant that Taylor is straight. The homophobia and heteronormativity extends beyond the BTS fandom into other huge fandoms too. It really made me mad and sad. And I’m sure Taylor is aware of both sides of her fandom.

Idk what my real point to this is other than this is a huge patriarchal society problem clearly. The way some swifties dismiss any possibility of her being apart of the LGBTQIA+ community is giving the same energy that the members of BTS receives when someone speculates that *cough Jikook* could be in a romantic relationship and it’s disgusting. This is why pressuring anyone, especially those in the spotlight, to come out is never okay.

Hi! So I do really enjoy lots of Taylor's Music. But I am generally not involved in the fandom nor do I keep track of what goes on with her. I just enjoy the music when it drops. I do have friends who are Swifties though and you best believe my bestie will be getting a call asking why they didn't share their fandom drama with me this time. Lol

Honestly though, I did go look this all up and read through some threads and see reactions to things etc and wow. Yeah, there is a lot of uncomfy discourse happening. I don't know Taylor enough or about everything to honestly give my own opinions over it all though. I don't feel informed enough. Sorry!

I will say that the Bi colors show up alot around Taylor though that I've seen. Her lyrics has raised my own eyebrows here and there on occasion but can also be easily brushed off at times too. So again, I don't know enough. I know she writes all her own stuff though I'm pretty sure and is huge on Easter eggs and clues and hints etc. And there are so many queer coded hints that I've seen and I wouldn't even consider myself part of her fandom. But again, who knows. This music video DOES exist though lol

And yeah, hardcore ally all day. I love it. But the gay song during pride month and she did it with Bi colored hair? 🤷🏻‍♀️😂

I don't know anything about her upcoming album release though honestly. But no one can force someone out and no one can assume someone's sexuality. So the people insisting she has to be straight aren't in the right. She has the right to her own privacy though as well. She doesn't HAVE to say anything to anyone about anything either. I do think there is a difference between assuming she might be coming out vs pressuring her to come out too. Talking about the queer undertones in her music and gay fans being excited about it, relating to it and wondering if this means she might say something diffinitive about it now. Isn't the same as insisting she say something about it or come out. I'm sure there are people doing both because fandoms can suck sometimes, but don't downplay every queer fan for hoping for a more queer album or maybe a coming out as them insisting she do so either.

But again, I don't know enough so Idk how much I can really say! All I know is that she seems happy in her relationship, my hardcore swiftie bestie tells me she is and that she has been throwing herself into these latest albums. So I just hope she stays happy and enjoys her life to the fullest and if nothing else, I hope she is a good ally.

Sorry fandom drama and homophobia is everywhere anon. That's nothing new 🥺