#There's a reason I'm bi but technically pan but say I'm queer

[sleeperagentclone]

30, 37, 79 for the unusual asks!

30: Usually I go for citrus but right now I have a coconut and pineapple candle I really like, I think it was bath and body works that had a scent called like "moonlight stroll" or something that I really liked as a kid

37: I used to read a lot as a kid but than I got hit with ocd + whatever is wrong with a lot of peoples attention spans nowadays and I probably haven't read a full book in a decade? Even a mutlichapter fanfic is a bit too heavy of a lift for me now.

I do play a lot of choice of games and hosted games games, which is text based choose you own adventure so very much like reading a book

AND, very exciting, I am very close to finishing my first book in maybe a decade, many thanks to my library card and the libby app for that

As for a favorite book, I have no fucking clue, when I finished Wicked there was an instant feeling of like absence that it was over and I wanted to reread it right away, Princess Bride, Stardust, and Ella Enchanted are all amazing books with equally amazing movies, I devoured the Percy Jackson books as a kid but I'm kinda on the fence with them now given the authors stance on Palestine, Nancy Farmer, Neal Shusterman, and Scott Westerfield all have both series and books that I love, there's a children's(?) biography of Woody Guthrie that I absolutely adore, idk

79: No :( I think it would be cool if supernatural stuff was real but I can't act like I think it is. I for sure think that things and places can be haunted but I think that's all like physiological in our head type of shit

[h0bg0blin-meat]

What hindu gods/deities are lgbt (I'm sorry if this is rude or ignorant I just wish to learn as I've heard some are)

Dw it's neither rude nor ignorant. Now before I start I do wanna say that almost all the queerness we see in Hindu mythology is highly subtextual most of the time, which is like pretty obvious cuz these were the ancient times. So this might lead to a varied number of interpretations, and I can only offer the same. But most of them are pretty convincingly queer, so let's get into it cuz why tf not. (This is gonna be a loooooong post so buckle up)

Vishnu

This fella is probably the most pan-coded deity in the entire pantheon. Extremely comfortable with both his masculine and feminine side, Vishnu can sometimes be considered one of the peak genderfluid icons out there. His avatar, Krishna, despite being referred to as the Parampurush (in other words the manliest man in the entire universe), his physical appearance (which is what is considered to be a very feminine body for a man today, i.e., slender and soft) breaks the stereotype of what masculine man should look like. There are paintings of him and Radha where I've stared for like a hot minute trying to figure out which one is Radha (mostly in grayscale cuz otherwise their complexions are a dead giveaway) and yet, he slays it like a badass.

Then we also have Mohini, the goddess of beauty probably the best seductress out there, and the only female avatar of Vishnu. Through her having a union (yk what they mean by that) with Shiva (AHEM subtext amirit), Vishnu gave birth to Ayyappa, and wouldja look at dat he has two dads, which was actually prophesized. Mohini in one of the versions of Mahabharata (not the original one) ALSO slept with Iravan (Arjun's son) the night before he was gonna offer himself as a sacrifice for the Kurukshetra war. Reason was that Iravan had a wish to get married and spend the night with his wife before dying, and wishing his wife would mourn for him after his death. So Krishna felt bad for him, turned himself into Mohini and married him. The next day she held her husband's body and mourned for him like any wife would. We can also go back to the time where he sported (make of that word what you will) with Arjuni (female version of Arjun) as well as the female version of Narad (for a year in the latter's case).

In short, we can see how chill Krishna is with his fluidity with sexuality and gender, so much so that it's hard to put a label on him sometimes, which is fine. But yes interpreting him as queer wouldn't necessarily be a preposterous claim after all.

Shiva

Tbh Shiva is also pretty queer-coded, given his union with Mohini (and yes he specifically ASKED Vishnu to turn into her and hence he KNEW it was his best friend after all), and him turning into a woman to join Krishna's leela that one time, which also denotes that he's pretty confident in his gender fluidity as well, to some extent. He also has a sort of female avatar, who's actually very underrated. I think it's called Shivani. Also no one can deny the tension between Shiva and Vishnu let's be real here. They even have a ship name- Harihar, PLUS that "Vishnu is in the heart of Shiva and Shiva is in the heart of Vishnu" line. Btw this was a joke, but now you know why they're one of the popular ships of Hindu mythology. I personally have very neutral stance to the kind of bond they share, whether you call it platonic or something else.

(Note that I personally do not consider Ardhanarishwar and Vaikunthakamalaja as any genderfluid thingy because I just see them as literal fusions of the two couples, but yes many consider these two fused versions of Parvati-Shiva and Lakshmi-Narayan respectively to be gender-nonconforming, or non-binary of some sort.)

Lakshmi

Why did I add her here? Because I have a feeling she might be bi, given the fact that her husband is also technically her wife, considering we take Mohini into account, who I'm pretty sure she loves just as much as she loves Vishnu. But again, that's just my take on it.

Agni

Now he's one of the more popular queer-coded Hindu gods, specifically known for his implied poly-esque relationship with his wife Svaha and Soma (the wind god). Now many sites on Google have claimed Soma to be his husband, but I am yet to find a scriptural evidence for that claim, so I suggest you to take their words with a grain of salt. But what IS true is that these two guys do share a pretty profound bond. There was also this one instance where Soma went to a mountain and Agni followed him. Then both of them at the top of that mountain, 'became one' (what does that mean? not sure but it sure as hell sounded romantic. anyways). Also Soma is considered the "seed" and Agni the "progenitor" hence releasing the "seed". Now again what does that mean? Idk but that's sus as hell for sure.

Plus, Agni is also very well-known to be the (oral) receptor of Shiva's (and sometimes Soma's but not sure about the second one) semen, which he then flung into Ganga cuz it was too hot to bear for him, and that's how Kartikeya/Murugan/Skanda (Shiva and Parvati's son and a God of war) was born. So yeah.

Mitra-Varuna

These two.... are another pair of popular queer-coded Hindu deities. They're almost always summoned and worshipped together, and you can say they have canonically.... well had a union, and good news is none of them became a woman for the deed. Their union is recorded in the Shatapatha Brahmana 2.4.4.19, where Mitra is said to have "implanted his seed in Varuna" (hmmm nothing homosexual going on here) during the waning moon. Many people consider this a metaphor for the cyclic nature of celestial phenomena so it's upto you to interpret it however you want.

Now they also give off that sunshine x grumpy vibe, with Mitra being the god of friendship, sun, daylight, dawn and stuff while Varuna is the god of the waters, moon, nighttime, dusk etc. Plus, the latter has anger issues but he has a bubbly Mitra (pun intended) to calm him down for dat :D.

They are also known for siring two sages, Agastya and Vasistha after they accidentally released and mixed their semen into a pot as a result of getting enchanted by Urvashi (one of the apsaras or celestial nymphs).

Budh and Ila

Budh is technically an AMAB non-binary (or intersex) deity (and technically the planet Mercury) born to Chandra (who's also synonymous to Soma most of the time) and Tara, to put it simply, and got cursed to be neither male nor female because Chandra had an affair with someone else's wife -_- (Tara was the wife of Brihaspati, or Jupiter, who was also the guru of the gods).

Ila is another genderfluid deity. Some versions of the myth says they were born a woman, some say they were born a man called Sudyumna, while some say they were born a woman, but since their parents wanted a son, Mitra-Varuna (who they preyed to) changed their gender and Sudyumna was born (but then there was some issue with the rituals, which led to the duo to turn him back to a woman, which is when they took the name of Ila. Ik, too much gendershifting going on, bear with me). Anyhoo they got this genderfluidity from Shiva's spell and every month they'd change sex from Sudyumna to Ila and back to Sudyumna and so on. Budh got enchanted by Ila and married her, and bore the Pururavas with her.

Later on, some versions say Ila permanently turned into a man with Parvati's boon. But personally interpreting, Budh was technically still married to Sudyumna so..... idk what happened to them afterwards tho. I hope they were still spouses...

[nothorses]

A crucial part of the conversation around transandrophobia is the distinction between personal identity and sociopolitical categorization; or, to borrow one of my least favorite made-up grad school words, "positionality".

"Positionality" refers to where you exist in relation to power. It's "white" vs. "person of color" or other race-related classifications, it's gender, orientation, socioeconomic class, ability, "fat" vs. "thin", and whatever other axes of power you can identify.

"Personal identity" is how you choose to describe yourself; the words you prefer, the specific labels that make sense or feel right to you, and the words that may technically describe you, but that you don't want applied for any number of reasons.

The difference between these two things is why, for example, "bi" might technically describe pan people as well, but a lot of them don't actually identify as bi; and why, at the same time, a lot of statistics around bi positionality- the specific oppression that targets bi people- also apply to, and include, pan people.

The issue is a lot bigger than this, and there are a ton of arguments within the queer community based around the conflation of these two concepts in one way or another ("don't call it the queer community" comes to mind). But the one I'm interested in here is the way this impacts transmasc discourse, specifically.

There's a particular confusion that happens with trans people's identity vs. positionality in queer discourse. Cissexist society says that trans people's identities don't matter; that they do, and also should occupy the position of whatever gender they were assigned at birth. Position determines identity.

The common argument to this is to just flip it the other way around: trans people's identities do matter- and that those identities determine positionality.

This makes sense, to some degree:

Trans people face transphobia: identity = trans, therefore position = trans.

Trans women face misogyny: identity = women, therefore position = woman.

But it also concludes:

Trans men identify as men: identity = man, therefore position = man.

"Tans male privilege" is the notion that trans men, upon identifying as men, instantly gain access to the position of maleness.

But this is easy to poke holes in; telling someone you identify as a man doesn't stop them from seeing you as a woman, and that's kind of a vital function of transphobia in the first place. In fact, doing so would immediately subject you to transphobia.

So people think: okay, if trans men don't occupy the position of "man" because they identify that way, what does that say about trans women? Does that mean trans women do occupy the position of "man", despite identifying as "woman"? Does that mean they don't occupy the position of "woman" at all- and therefore cannot be subjected to misogyny?

Obviously, that's also not true! Trans women do experience misogyny; this is a well-documented fact.

And so do trans men.

And that adds to the confusion: if trans men experience misogyny, does that mean their position = woman? (And isn't that just what TERFs believe?)

The problem here is twofold:

We're still conflating identity with position- we're just arguing over which one determines the other.

We're ignoring that "trans" is itself a position. Trans people don't necessarily occupy the position of either binary gender; we are often just seen as "trans", and placed in that position.

This position is also a little bit unique in that it's particularly mobile: society doesn't want to acknowledge that this is a valid way to exist, and so the existence of the position is denied as much as possible. Trans people are, as a result, often categorized as "women" or "men" depending on what's convenient: if the transphobe in question can subject them to misogyny by categorizing them as a woman, or if they can paint them as "dangerous" by categorizing them as men.

If we can understand that position doesn't necessarily determine our identity- our actual gender- we can understand that trans women are both exactly as much women as cis women are, and that they occupy a very different position, and have very different experiences.

We can also understand, through these ideas, that trans men can identify as trans and as men, and that these identities don't necessarily determine position. Trans men don't occupy the position of "man", even though we identify as and are men.

We can also understand that trans men also aren't necessarily women, even if we do sometimes occupy the position of "woman", because every trans person can occupy that position if and when it's convenient to transphobia. The same is true of the "man" position and trans women.

[stormysapphic]

[disclaimer: i have no intention to hurt anyone's feelings or start fights with this post! i would, however, really like it if people of any and all viewpoints on this topic commented on it and shared their thoughts with me in good faith! thanks. <3] i've been thinking about "bi lesbianism" lately - not in terms of whether i'm "for it or against it", because i frankly don't think it's my place to say. and because ultimately i have no problem with someone i don't even know identifying as a bi lesbian if that's truly the combination of words that they feel best describes the complexity of their experiences. but i also think that piling labels upon labels in an attempt to fully encompass something that'll never be fully dissected and simplified anyway - sexuality is complex for everyone in one way or another - is a futile attempt and not really how labels work in wider queer communities outside your super insulated discourse bubble anyway. understand that, while you're out here on tumblr fighting tooth and nail explaining to people why you're valid, there are already bi women out there in the real world who go to lesbian support groups and call themselves lesbians in that context and no one cares. there are wlw who think they probably have some sort of attraction to men but never want to date one so they call themselves lesbians and no one cares. there are wlw who aren't attracted to men but are in long term partnerships with them and therefore identify with the bi community and are welcomed there. and i've seen some people use all of that as an example for why identifying as a bi lesbian is logical and without issue, but i kind of feel the exact opposite. like, we already get that bi and pan for example are overlapping labels and someone chooses which one they use based on their preference and the (social, political...) situation they're in. we don't need you to say you're Bi-Pan, we'll get it from the context. in my mind, that has always also applied to the overlapping of lesbian and bi experiences. in addition, i see many of the people in the mspec lesbian/gay circles say stuff like "sexuality is fluid and not binary or clear-cut" but then treat their own labels as if they're all static identities. shouldn't that philosophy of fluidity and complexity make it easier than most to understand that you can go to the lesbian support group wearing the label lesbian & then go back home to your (male) boyfriend and exist under the bi label? and in the same way, understand that calling yourself a lesbian right after mentioning you're dating a man doesn't really make sense? because i can assure you that in the wider world of queer communities no one minds. when my friend says "i love being a lesbian" even though they're technically bi and usually identify as such, or i say "i'm a lesbian but also kind of a guy", people understand. but if my friend was pushing semantic arguments like "actually, lesbians who are attracted to men exist and here's why" at the lesbian support group meeting, or if i were to write on my dating profile that my gender is male and my sexuality is lesbian, sure, that would confuse and frustrate people & understandably so, imo. and if the reason you use a million different labels at once is bc it makes you feel connected to yourself and your identity and community, more power to you, honestly! i'm seeing more and more dykefags and fagdykes lately, so why not bi lesbians too, i guess. but i hope you know that having words to describe every aspect of yourself isn't what makes your experiences valid or invalid.

[mdhwrites]

I heard Dana gave toh fans the freedom to consider their headcanons canon, or smth like that. There's probably more info on twitter but I don't use the app. What do you think?

So what I've heard is that it's not entirely this. It is just saying that whatever Dana says outside of the show, like in livestreams, panels, etc. don't count as canon. The only things that are explicitly canon is that which is in the show. Otherwise, everything else is her personal headcanons which are just as valid as any fans'. I was introduced to this a few days ago by someone sharing it with me (this was apparently said in a livestream btw so will almost certainly get lost to time) a tweet with me about someone being happy about their fan children being 'canon' It was cute and I didn't check what the ships were. I mostly responded to that person being happy that they could headcanon Lumischa as having eventually happened because that was more fun for me especially with my hands being bad. Besides, I think the statement is dumb on multiple levels that I'll get to eventually. Reading this question, I spent more than a single second thinking about it and went "Wait, but Amity is only a lesbian because Dana says so. This is absolutely going to make 70% of the fandom choose to make her bi because then they can ship her with whoever they want." AND GUESS WHAT SHIP THE TWEET WAS ABOUT!? FUCKING AMITER! It has always been a problem for the show that Amity's sexuality is not stated in it. It creates a similar excuse to what people who have to defend stuff like SasuNaru (my introduction to shipping through my older sister btw) of "They don't have a canon sexuality." Well... No longer does Amity. We do know she's interested in girls but that doesn't mean she isn't pan or bi.

I personally do not agree with this interpretation. For me, changing characters who appear to commonly be straight to gay is fine... Because there's close to zero gay characters in most genres, let alone mainstream popular shows. How many are in Shounen anime in general? Okay now remove the villains who are queer coded and tell me again. If the LGBTQIA+ (which I want to remind you I'm not a part of so I don't benefit from this interpretation) want to tell their stories within the media they like, they HAVE to change sexualities. They have no other choice. Meanwhile, Amity is not a particularly special archtype so if you're a straight dude wanting to ship her with yourself, you can find that elsewhere. Even within the same show, just use Lilith who in S1 was similar to Amity. Though yes, Lilith is technically aro/ace but only by decree from Dana and the show never actually sways one way or another on her feelings on relationships because... Why the fuck would it? It's a comedy adventure. Which brings us to the complicated question of what is right to include in a story or not (which I could go into a LOT more in a different blog). It's not like everyone is constantly stating their sexualities in real life after all. It's a rough place for a lot of creators, just like saying if a character is nuerodivergent. A lot of stories just don't have a place for that sort of exposition and honestly the author letting us know outside of the work IS useful for that. Would it be better if it were stated in the show? In TOH's case, because of how much it stakes its reputation on representation, YES. For most? Not really but most don't court the romance genre, where saying those sexualities is more reasonable, like TOH does.

So that's one reason why I don't like the statement. Dana sticking to her guns on her ideas is one of the few saving graces I could give her and just saying "Fuck it, you all decide what you want to be canon so long as it isn't in the show" is just... not that. Not unless she was going to go whole hog and say that the IP was in the public domain so LITERALLY MAKE THE CANON YOU WANT! Which would have been novel but is also NEVER going to happen. Instead, her statement amounts to "I officially give you permission to make fanworks." Which... Lady, you don't get to decide that. No creative does. If people want to make work off of your story, they're gonna do that regardless of what you say. The creator of Calvin and Hobbes is FAMOUS for how anti-commercial he was of his work and spent much of his career making sure that his strips, panels, characters etc. didn't appear on t-shirts. And he still failed mostly because stopping EVERY avenue was simply impossible.

Also Dana has not really put much authoritatively on the scales besides the sexualities, making the statement even more pointless. If she's dropped giant lore dumps, I haven't heard about them and I've been in this fandom long enough that I feel like I should have heard about them. Instead we got small things like Amity dying her hair because her mom forced her to. That isn't going to break anyone's story and I even personally used it as a bonding moment between the two because I made Odalia neurotic about stuff like that.

So I guess my big question is... Who cares? Unless you actively don't like the few answers we've been given by the crew. And if that's the case... That's what fanworks are for. For when you don't like canon and want to change it. You don't need permission for that. You never have. =========

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead, If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

And finally a Twitter you can follow too!

[elshells]

4 and 5 for the pride themed asks!

Questions from this post! Pride month's almost over now but who cares? Not me!

Gonna answer for my five main characters of Agent Ace bc why not?

4. Is your oc's environment supportive about their identity? How does this impact them?

Generally, yes. I like to imagine that the city of Harmont and the version of Earth it exists on is better than ours in that regard. Individuality is celebrated, in regards to and beyond queerness, and everyone is free to love and identify pretty much whoever and however they want. But that's not to say that it's a flawless society (far from it). When crafting backstories and 'behind the scenes' content, I do imagine that certain characters have had experiences with homophobia, or at least toxicity within the queer community, but it's never the main focus of the story. I guess they're technically headcanons since I haven't written them as words onto paper, but even so, the portrayal of queer characters is prominent and overall positive.

5. How did you figure out your oc's identity?

For the most part it's vibes, but it also depends on the character!

Sophia (she/her) - I knew I wanted Sophia to be on the ace spectrum for two reasons: 1) asexual characters are criminally underrepresented in media and fiction, and 2) it made sense for the direction I was taking with her character. When I started to flesh her out, I started to get the sense that she had little to no interest in sex; she's practical in how she dresses and presents herself, and hates stepping out of her element. However, romantic feelings didn't feel totally out of character for her. She has a partner (Ahren, who is also asexual), and while she's not touchy-feeling and canonically dislikes hugs, she cares for him deeply and would only consider doing anything physical with him (though the most they like to do together is kissing and cuddling). So, I ultimately came to the conclusion that she's not just Agent Ace, but she falls under the category of demisexual!

Janus (he/him) - In the past, I've described him as bisexual, but now I think I would actually call him bicurious. He's only ever pursued relationships with women, but is nevertheless open to the idea of being involved with a man. I've debated back and forth with the idea of writing in a love interest for him in the future, and I think I've since realized it could go either way. It opens a lot of doors for me to choose later on down the road, since he's more uncertain than other characters in terms of the endgame, despite having a more established background.

Harley (she/her) - Harley is bisexual mainly because I myself am bisexual. In my writing I tend to follow the philosophy of 'when in doubt, they're bi,' but for Harley I knew from the beginning that's what I wanted for her. Unlike Janus, however, her first and only real relationship is with another woman, although she's had fleeting interest in men in the past.

Jade (she/her) - When I first started writing about Jade, I knew immediately that she was a lesbian. As a character who slightly-unintentionally takes after multiple IRL friends of mine (most of whom are gay) and as Harley's eventual girlfriend, I had STRONG vibes that she had only ever had eyes for women and had never faltered in that regard. A true icon and an absolute queen in my eyes.

Max (he/him) - Max was the trickiest to figure out. For a while, I couldn't decide how to identify him, and that was how I realized that, as a character, he would probably prefer no labels at all. I guess he would technically qualify as pan in that regard, but I think if you were to ask him about it, he would probably just say 'not straight' and leave it at that. He's also another character that I've thought about giving a love interest; there will likely be some serious tension (most likely gay, the way I'm leaning at the moment), but I haven't decided for or against a relationship.

[youthoughtiwasserious]

Love having my sexuality invalidated by my queer friend group

So I'm bisexual & maybe bigender (still figuring it out), my friend is pan & genderfluid, & two of my other friends are bicurious.

One of our friends was showing us some characters from BG3, & he was like "oh so and so character takes being bi to a whole other level." I joked, "Bi? On another level? Can't imagine it, I'm already there."

My pan & one of my bicurious friends immediately were like "What are you talking about, that's just pan!1!1!" and started laughing. I had to try so hard to not to start something bc they know how I feel abt shit like that.

So I guess if you absolutely needed to """properly""" categorize me, I'm "technically" pan. I am attracted to people regardless of gender, & I have no gender preference. If I think you're hot, I think you're hot - end of story.

I choose to ID as bi for a couple reasons, but the main one is that I'm comfy w it. Plus I want to fight against biphobia/bi erasure by IDing as bi & showing people that it doesn't mean "bi ppl only means attraction to cis men & women."

My friends have heard my explanations about the different mspec labels numerous times. They know they're all different and nuanced but they're all under the same umbrella. I've even tried to educate my one pan friend to stop using pan to say "I'm attracted to men, women, AND trans people!1!” bc it implies that trans people can't be categorized under men & women.

It's just so hurtful to think that my friends have bought into the rhetoric that my sexuality is ""basic"" or "on a lower level" than pan bc it's "not woke." Because it "only includes 2 cis genders." That's not what bisexuality is, & it's never been that way since the term was coined.

I've explained this to them numerous times & it feels like it always falls on deaf ears - even though I'm always respectful & cognizant of their sexualities and exploration of such.

I sincerely wish it wasn't so painfully obvious that my friends still don't understand bisexuality - a fundamental part of who I am - and make hurtful comments that invalidate me.

[chokecherrylore]

It doesn't really add anything to the discourse, and honestly, my opinion is just one of many, there will also be those out there that are far more articulate with their thoughts and opinions than I am.

Bi/pan/mspec lesbian discourse, my low grade take.

I don't enjoy the label, I think sapphic as a descriptive label for those who find attraction to multiple genders but prioritize their "non men" relationships was perfectly acceptable.

I also don't love people just going around saying things like "absolutely lesbians can be attracted to men sexually." For a number of reasons this statement makes me, a lesbian, uncomfortable, and I say this as a lesbian who has a transmasculine partner who uses he/him pronouns, who's partner is trans and defines their gender with the word butch. That still doesn't make my partner a man. Ya know?

I also think it's quite frankly, a wee bit misogynistic, that from all the research I've done and the discussions I've witnessed as part of the larger "queer" community, that lesbian is often the MOST debated and divided identity. Apart from bisexuality and pansexuality I suppose, but even then, why is lesbianism often targeted with this line of thinking. Why is lesbianism so often hit with, "yes well just remember sexuality is fluid, and you could find a man attractive"? Genuinely, I swear I don't see this hot of a debate surrounding gay men and their "ability to be attracted to women."

BUT

Here's the caveat to everything I've said above, I don't think people who use the label bi/pan/mspec lesbian should be treated as automatically transphobic/lesbophobic/biphobic ect. Do I personally feel like a label that as far as I'm aware, surfaced because of transphobic people calling lesbians in trans relationships bi, can be "reclaimed"? No. But it's also not my life.

I used the label bisexual for a really long time because of comphet. Technically, from my own gender perspective, I'm not a "woman," so according to lots of people, I can't even use the label of lesbian. Gender and sexuality are incredibly complex, and there are a lot of reasons why someone might prefer one label to another. I just don't think it's my place to tell how people how to identify, even if I don't love the implications it might have on my personal identity.

Locking yourself into a complete echo chamber and deciding that every single person who even hints at being okay with bi/pan/mspec lesbiansim makes people act like goddamn Puritan witch hunters.

This was long and rambling, and it's full of contradictory feelings because those are my honest feelings. Sometimes our feelings aren't black and white, sometimes they're messy. Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're not an indication of our morals. Sometimes they just are feelings.

[nectaric]

@kallistcs asked: 🥑 for Zeus (present day and past!) and 🍍 for both Zeus and Hades!

🥑 Do they pass for straight, or do people take them for gay at a glance?

zeus has always had a little bit of a fruity vibe, as far as i'm concerned. however, in the past zeus had a far more masculine appearance -- bigger beard, more traditionally masculine clothing, a reputation as a seducer of women and nothing more. so if you only saw zeus on occasion or knew him only based on reputation, it would be extremely easy to assume that he was straight. the fact that his wife is often with him also leads people to believe he's straight.

however, in more modern times, especially as zeus gets to play around with expression a little more, i can see it being possible to assume he's fruity. not that clothing is an indicator of sexuality, but he does tend to be more expressive with clothing, with makeup, with jewelry. he's more comfortable with femininity of course, and so that often leads people to believe he might not be straight, which is ofc accurate!

🍍 Has this muse's sexuality changed over the course of playing them?

the actual label's themselves haven't changed at all since i started writing them when dinosaurs still roamed the earth. zeus is still pan and hades is still bi (gender, on the other hand...) however, i can say that my understanding and interpretation of those sexualities has changed. i think many of us have been guilty of the "make everyone queer!" phenomenon mostly as a way of creating representation for ourselves where that can often be lacking, which of course is not a bad thing at all, just a tendency in the rpc -- i know i'm guilty of it. so when i first started writing these two i envisioned them as queer for that reason.

unfortunately, i think that meant that the nuances of their sexuality were fairly non-existent at the time. as i've written them (and grown myself), i've come to understand what being those things means to each of them individually. for example, zeus has very different levels and types of attraction depending on gender of his partner. and i don't think hades would ever actually define himself as bisexual, even if technically on paper that's probably what he is. he's mostly content with his wife and therefore doesn't think about sexuality very often at all. tl;dr is that, while they have always been the sexualities that i write in their bio, the complexity of that has become more apparent to me over time!

[randomjreader]

Thank you @azfellco for explaining to me the situation

Honestly, if you want my opinion? I think this whole thing is so stupid, because how is it that after all these months Kit STILL has queerbaiting allegations??

First of all, STOP. ASSUMING. KIT'S (OR ANYONE'S). SEXUALITY. PLEASE. How many more times must the poor guy say that he's comfortable with his own sexuality and just doesn't want to disclose it to the public for personal reasons for people to LEAVE HIM ALONE. Like my god, how can someone watch a show like heartstopper then immediately start contributing to this toxic culture of forcing people out of the closet for your own selfish reasons? There's literally a whole storyline of how badly affected Charlie Spring was after being outed, but that CLEARLY flew over their heads for some reason. It's ridiculous. We're not his friends. We're not his family. We. Are. Just. Fans. We are entitled to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about his personal life.

Secondly, if for all those who are just so insistent that Kit just HAS to be straight because he held hands with someone of the opposite sex, and therefore should not be playing a queer character, do you even hear yourselves? I've already spoken in depth about my views on straight actors playing queer characters, my general message being that I think it's completely fine so long as they have been handling it respectfully and giving the community the respect it deserves, something I believe Kit has done wonderfully. But more than that, what's up with this weird assumption that someone is definitely heterosexual if they are in a heterosexual relationship??? There is more to sexuality than gay or straight. Take Maia for example. She is openly part of the LGBTQ community, so are y'all going to tell her she's straight and has been lying the whole time, simply because of that few second clip? I DIDN'T THINK SO. This is literally just promoting bi erasure, pan erasure, erasure of any sexuality that isn't simply attracted to the same sex (AND ON BISEXUAL VISIBILITY MONTH TOO???). Once again, how did you watch heartstopper, hear nick nelson say "I still like girls, but I like boys too." AND THEN GO AND DO THIS. I'm convinced some of these people just didn't watch the show and became fans through tiktok edits or something.

Finally, say that they are dating. So what? How does Kit and Maia's personal relationship affect Kit's job as an actor in heartstopper in any way shape or form? Were these people expecting Joe and Kit to get married or something? Or for neither of them to be in relationships with other people ever? I know that they're both the perfect portrayals of Nick and Charlie, but at the end of the day THESE ARE CHARACTERS THAT THEY ARE PLAYING. None of the relationships in shows or movies, romantic especially, need to be translated to real life for us to enjoy the work. If you're that type of person, then by that logic Kit and Maia are technically bringing on screen romance off screen, since they're starring in ACGGTTAT together. Seriously, you can't expect actors to bring every single romantic relationship they portray on screen into real life, that's entirely unrealistic. Also, while I understand the curiosity behind our faves' relationship statuses, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't guilty of that, at the end of the day it's really none of our business (going back to the point of how we are just fans and are owed nothing by public figures). If they're dating, that's great, I'm happy for them. If they're not? Also cool, we love to see a wholesome friendship. Speculate if you must, but don't go digging around the internet for evidence or god forbid, start harassing Kit or Maia about this. Just keep your theories to yourself or at most talk about it casually in a little chat with friends or something. Let's not blow this up into a huge thing and just let them be yeah?

So that's my two cents on this whole situation. Dating or not, I can't wait to see them both in ACGGTTAT, and ofc, I can't wait for season 2 of heartstopper <3

[toastling]

uhm, sorry to bother but the post about the qu*er terms and umbrella was made by a bi/pan lesbian supporter which is a super hurtful ideology! just a heads up!

You know, not long ago, I argued the same position; bi lesbians couldn't exist because the terminology was fundamentally contradictory. Bi and lesbian both mean different things. But when you look back in queer history, when you talk to our remaining elders, you start to realize - none of this was ever so rigid in the past.

It's only in recent years - and I'm talking mid 00's at the earliest - that all these different terms we use solidified. And then there was an explosion of labels and microlabels in the 10's, and they made everything even more solid, more rigid, more defined. And looking back at the state of the community these past 10 years, particularly online? I think it's pretty safe to say it hasn't done a single good thing for us collectively.

Individually is another matter entirely, though. And ultimately, individual experience is the whole point. The queer community was never supposed to become some rigid classification system for what it is to be human - our queer elders knew better than anyone that one's individual experience and the richness of life and human sexuality all defy categorization, simplification, or identification.

We have terms to help get the gist of our identities across to people who know what they mean - but they're not supposed to define you. They were never supposed to define you. They're a shorthand, at best.

Some people are more organized, and rigid, as individuals. I'm one of them - I like very much that words have rigid definitions, and prefer to believe objectivity is a thing that can and does exist - but a lot of the growing up I've done in my 20's has been gradually coming to accept that the richness of life defies any attempt to capture or define it, that the random fluctuations of quantum mechanics are as manifest and fundamental to our macroscopic internal experiences as they are to the fabric of the universe.

Because of my nature, I fought for a long time that labels were mutually exclusive, that they had to be. They couldn't possibly both describe the same thing, when by their nature they're supposed to be exclusive. But do we not all contain countless contradictions already? Do we really expect something as fluid and nebulous and ever-changing as our sexuality to be any different, to be free of what seems like contradiction, of unnecessary complication?

Our elders figured all this out decades ago, but it's been lost to the sands of time. AIDS is a big part of the reason why. But like...

Okay, just think for a minute. What could somebody possibly be trying to convey by describing themselves as a bi lesbian? Are they trying to invalidate you, or are they trying to validate themselves? Do you think it is more likely they seek to cause discord, or that they are trying to make sense of who they are?

Think about it - bi lesbian - what could that possibly mean? Is it possible it could be an apt description for a woman who has a 90/10 (or higher!) attraction heavily in favor of women?

To all outside appearances, they would be a lesbian - in almost all instances they would be a lesbian, in fact - but that's not their whole truth. There's still that lingering attraction to men, that teeny-tiny amount.

They could call themselves bisexual, and yes, technically speaking this would be correct, but it's also not at all what anybody who isn't already bisexual thinks bisexuality is. They expect the attraction to be at least vaguely even. Maybe 70/30 at the most extreme. But to be almost entirely weighted in one direction? Bisexual feels like the wrong shorthand to use to convey that, doesn't it?

But bi lesbian. If we approach things from a rigid point of view, that makes no sense. But from their perspective it is a better, more honest description of what they are than either term is on its own. It very much gets the point across that they have a strong preference for women, because lesbian, but there's also a slight chance they could find attraction in a man, because bi.

Perhaps it really is a contradiction - but everybody is a contradiction. We are all made of fundamentally opposing views and experiences in every facet of who we are. If it really is a contradiction, is that really so bad? If they find peace in this designation, is that really such a horrible thing?

The queer community used to be all about individual experience. It was founded on this, it was its core tenet. Nobody could tell you what you were but you - and you could use any terms you wanted in any combination that you wanted, anything that made sense to you, individually, and nobody could tell you otherwise. It was about self-expression, self-actualization, self-understanding.

Yes, these words had meanings, and acted as a shorthand to signal some common traits to fellow queers and any allies who put forth an effort to try and know us - but these traits and meanings were intentionally nebulous, because human nature and human experience is nebulous. It cannot be so easily pinned down. They understood this, and they were proud of it.

Why do you think our community used to proudly call themselves queer, a word that essentially means 'different'? They celebrated their differences, they weren't afraid of them. They didn't try to reign them in or rigidly define them, to tell other people how they should think or feel or live their lives. They already lived in that oppression under cishet society, the whole point was that their community was different in every conceivable way. It was free. It was messy. And it was beautiful. And I'd like to think, slowly, we are starting to understand that again.

Some people take great comfort in rigidly defining themselves. They use microlabel after microlabel because they like categorization, they like rigid self-definition, they are personally comfortable with a list of things they can use to - to the best of their ability - summarize themselves as easily as possible for anybody else in-the-know, familiar with their self-designations.

But just as valid, some people are radical abolitionists who use labels with reckless abandon. They're temporary, or they're suggestions, not rules.

Neither is wrong. In fact, both are right, but only for themselves, and that's okay! They figured out what makes sense to them, what makes them happy, what they feel describes them best. What a victory! That should be celebrated! That's what our community is supposed to be all about!

Who are you to tell some separate soul who they are, what they are, what they can or cannot be, or do, or feel? Haven't the cishets already done that to us for centuries? Sexuality is fluid. Gender is fluid. Attraction is fluid. Even love is fundamentally fluid. It's all nebulous. None of it is rational, none of it makes any sense, it's never the same thing from one second to the next, it's rife with contradiction. It's a total fucking flaming disaster. And it's beautiful. It's human.

I think, if this is the label they feel best fits them, if this is what makes them happy? Good for them. They should absolutely be allowed to identify that way.

It's okay for you to disagree with their experience, and assert that yours is different, your friends are different. Nobody is forcing you to concede that. All you need to do is respect it.

Respect our differences, respect our individual experiences. It's okay to think differently from them - your experience is your own - but I really, really do not like this growing trend of dictating to other people what they're allowed to be or feel or call themselves. It's only doing our community more and more harm, and creating more and more room for our oppressors to hide amongst us and sow discord, pitting queer against queer so we tear each other apart for them.

That's not a game I'm comfortable playing anymore. I've gradually started to come to another understanding. I'm slowly starting to stop giving a damn what labels people use to describe themselves, and only worry about my own experience.

Reject definition. Live and be free. Be human. And so long as they aren't hurting anybody, so long as they aren't forcing their experiences onto anybody else, let other people do the same.

[disappointed-and-depleted]

My Headcanons For One Piece Characters Sexualitys Because I'm Gay and Refuse To Believe These Fucky Pirates Aren't Queer Too: Sponsored By My Bestfriend Who Planted The Idea In My Head:

Luffy: Asexual and Demiromantic (basically as Aro/Ace as I can get him except for those moments when I see really cute fan art for LawLu)

Zoro: sword sexual and also Trans ('cause why not, I can see it)

Nami: Bisexual and Demiromantic, preference for women (girl just loves money and who can blame her really?)

Usopp: Also Bi with a preference for women and probably not Cisgender

Sanji: "Straight" but really a closeted Bisexual (with, let's be real, a lot of fuckin issues regarding the gays™ and in general) and also EVERYONE knows it except him

Chopper: pronouns are Dr/Baby and I refuse to go anywhere past that (I don't care how old he is TECHNICALLY, he is an 8 y/o CHILD and also a literal deer so I'm not touching it)

Robin: A Bisexual queen (and is probably pretty kinky, she's good with her hands after all)

Franky: Nobody knows, if anyone asks he just says "I'M SUPER" probably Pan

Brook: Omnisexual and probably not Cis, idk what's going on there

Vivi: Lesbian. Yup.

Ace: Ace and Biromantic

Jinbe: Asexual and Demiromantic (I don't ship him with anyone, but I don't think he's fully AroAce)

Law: Also Ace and Demi for the same reason as Luffy

Doflamingo: so flamboyantly Queer he's circled back and became straight again, homophobic

Hancock: Demisexual, obviously

Perona: Pansexual or a lesbian, idk

Mihawk: gay, he just has the vide

Crocodile: deeply in the closet and homophobic

Moria: vampire grade homophobia

Iva: do you even need to guess?

Sabo: 🎶Bi Wife Energy🎶

Yamato: AHHHHHH, MY LOVE🥰💖💘💝💗 ..... what was I talking about?

[crazycatsiren]

hi, i'd like to ask a question. my mother language isn't english and i don't want to be ignorant.

i have been bisexual since i was 10. i dated a trans-man when i was 10 for 2 years, a cis-man when i was 16, and a trans-man when i was 18-21. some women in between. (i identify as my birth sex, female)

many times over my life has people told me i am transphobic because i identify as bisexual and not pansexual. i hate labels they're too confusing, i just say bisexual because it's either or and most people know what bi is.

also, people have told me bisexuality doesn't include trans folks but i have dated trans folks..for long time. when I was with my ftm boyfriends, i was there for one of them when they went through hormones during our relationship, therapy for that stuff. i think i am very supportive and understanding, i had to comfort them when they felt angry or sad about their born body. I had to correct people at our job and tell people off when they were being mean about him being trans.

but they tell me that bisexual only means man or woman, not trans or non binary. but to me, if you WANT to be a man, then you are a man? I don't care if your body does not match. I don't live every day thinking "trans boyfriend" "trans husband" "trans friend", when they tell me they're a man or woman I just think of them that way, even if I know they're changing their body and they're not born that gender.

my question is, isn't it technically transphobic to say trans men and women are not included in bisexuality??? you're basically telling me that HE is not a real man or SHE is not a real woman... right? I don't want to be ignorant and your posts seem very educated and well said so I figured you're someone who can give me an answer.

thank u so much if you answer,

moo🖤

Gods people are stupid. All this gatekeeping and policing have got to stop. It's doing nothing but hurting queer people and I'm sick of it.

The bisexual community has always included trans people. Always. To say bisexual excludes trans is transphobic. We were the LGBT. We have always been a part of the movement together.

There really isn't all that much difference between bi and pan. It's totally up to you which one you want to call yourself. The latter may have been around not as long as the former but it doesn't make it less valid. Sexuality, like gender, is not an either/or binary but a spectrum.

The reason why I kept the bisexual label for myself is because I got married before I had a chance to "explore" other identities that are not man or woman. Nonbinary, genderqueer, GNC, agender, etc., I didn't become aware of these identities until after I was married. Keep in mind, I'm a millennial, and many of these labels are new to me. But I'm not going to tell anyone what they "should" include in their bisexual or pansexual identities. That's none of my business and I have no right to exclude anyone, period, when I don't own any of these labels and who am I to tell anyone what to do when they aren't hurting anyone.

[transmasc-wizard]

@letters-to-lgbt-kids' 22 Questions for Nonbinary November!

1.Which labels do you use? Transmasculine, nonbinary, genderqueer, nonbinary trans guy, transmasc. (only counting gender labels)

2.What are your pronouns? he/they! No preference.

3.How old were you when you came out to yourself as nonbinary? Uh... idk exactly but it was like a year ago? ish? depends on whether you count the other 3 times i came out to myself lmao.

4.What’s one thing you’d like to tell your younger self? "hey there's actually a Reason you hate being called pretty and avoid mirrors like the plague and really want a flat chest. Wild, right"

5.Is there a myth about nonbinary people that annoys you the most? that we're all unaligned and want to be androgynous. I DO want to be andro, in the sense of being fem and masc at the same time, but others don't. Also, i'm masc-alligned.

6.Is there a nonbinary celebrity you look up to? This might be cheap lol but Demi Lovato, i like their music, so... yeah.

7.If you’re out, how did you come out? I am not ~technically~ out. But my friend knows; i was like "hey i think im transmasc" and she said "ok cool". but i came out to my family and it was. interesting lmao

8.Is there a gender-related pun you like? non-beenary. Also: trans people should handle the money because everything we do is a transaction im so sorry

9.Do you have friends who identify as nonbinary, too? friend-ish people, yeah. Also i have a friend who jokes she's "{name}gender" and says he is ok with literally any pronouns so... we may have an egg here.

10.Do you have a favorite lgbt+ character? Hmmmm Nico Di Angelo is my namesake but i honestly can't pick lmao.

11. Lgbt, lgbt+, lgbtqa+… which one do you usually use? Queer. I have a long, long post explaining why, but i hate being called LGBT unless you also call me queer lmao

12. How do you explain the term “nonbinary” to people who have no idea what it means? "i do not vibe with gender". or, "boy is here, girl is here, no gender is here, and i am here" *points between boy and no gender*. they usually get it

13.Tell us a fun fact about yourself (gender-related or random!) i am absolutely obsessed with books and if you want a book of any genre or type or trope just ask me via asks or anon and i will throw ALL THE RECS at u

14.How did you find your name? I stole it from Nico Di Angelo <3

15.If you’re in a relationship, how did your partner react to your coming-out? I'm a single pringle who doesn't wanna mingle lol, but my FRIENDS were all pretty good (except one. she's a transphobic asshole and i kinda hate her now)

16.Do you prefer partner, datemate, significant other or something else? i mean i've never dated and don't really wanna but my theoretical partner would call me boyfriend or partner in crime. the "in crime" would not be optional and i would not date someone who would object to it

17.A piece of advice for questioning kids? don't treat labels like they own you. E.g. if you ID as straight then really wanna date a boy/girl/ur gender, don't jump thru hoops explaining away that emotion--just use bi or pan or something else that fits. Also, it's ok to change labels!! i did like 20 times before i settled on my labels i've been using for about 8 months now!!

18.Which flag(s) do you use? nonbinary, genderqueer, aroace, bi, trans, transmasculine, asexual, aromantic. Look em up urself, tumblr won't let me post the images

19.Any tips for bad days? read a book. write a story. draw a picture. it doesn't have to be good, just do it. it helps

20.Do you have a favorite nonbinary blog on tumblr? i like @neopronounsmybelovaed, @lgb-positivi-t (not NB specific tho), and @letters-to-lgbt-kids (also not nonbinary specific tho). idk i havent seen a lot of NB blogs--reccomendations are appreciated!

21.Feminine, masculine, androgynous - or none of those things? i would like to be all of them at once but also femme but also manly masc boy but also 'my gender is gay and my sexuality is nonbinary' but also do not percieve me but ALSO-- (u get the idea)

22. What are your three favorite things about yourself? ah fuck uh. i like my writing. I like my ability to usually find good friends. i like how i will literally consume All The Information related to the things i like (in other words, talk to me about the raven cycle or writing pls).

[diamondcitydarlin]

what are your thoughts on how s/yki fits into queer rep? I realize that it's not a het ship but I feel like that somehow makes it worse, considering it gives me the heebie geebies

You're not wrong, anon- sy/ki is both not a het ship and also its poorly written, things that can and (unfortunately) do coexist and have been part of the struggle for good queer rep for decades now.

Of course, S*lki is not-het because both characters are different variations of the same person, therefore both presumably bisexual and genderfluid, the former of these two I think they both more or less admit to being in the bar scene (I'm pointing this out because a lot of the people who feel the need to mention that it is a queer ship and therefore deserving of consideration/mercy, I guess, somehow also want to believe they are NOT the same person and that's not how logic works!)

Now everyone is different, everyone is going to see themselves and their experiences reflected differently in media and what might work for some won't work for others, but as bi/pansexual woman that has been routinely gaslit and slut-shamed my entire life for the fact that my attraction/feelings for people were not contingent on one gender identity, I find this take on a queer/bisexual pairing...worrisome, to say the least, particularly when you consider it against the history of how bisexuality gets represented in mainstream media (when it is portrayed AT ALL, that is)

For me, it is troubling that a queer pairing of a fem presenting person and a masc presenting person has the following qualities:

- Possibly incestuous to some degree and if that isn't the case it is never concretely disproven, which doesn't do a lot towards dispelling the commonly held notion that bi/pansexual people are sexual deviants with no morals. (that's not to say bi/pan people shouldn't be depicted as always as nonsexual, non-promiscuous as possible, but there are ways to depict a queer character's sexual liberation without engineering ways for it to be 'kinda weird' or shameful or morally ambiguous, case in point)

- It is impossible to incorporate the full extent of the bi/pansexual experience if one is only exploring the facet of it that is most palatable to homophobic markets/investors. We hear Loki vaguely allude to maybe having sexual/romantic relationships with both men and women alike and that is where it starts AND stops. We never hear either Sylvie or Loki even, say, talk more concretely about relationships they've had with men and women which I have no reason to believe they wouldn't have done. (Loki: Did you ever have a...summer fling of sorts with the dignitary's son? Sylvie: Only summer? Ours spilled over into winter. With some meetings in the spring. Loki: He was beautiful, wasn't he? Sylvie: I suppose, in that sort of perfectly coiffed kind of a way. But I like a good mess. Give me a gorgeous Valkyrie with wild, untamed hair any day.)

- This is a relationship mostly written by a cishet white dude with no talent, so while it was directed by a queer woman (who I would argue managed to incorporate more of an organic feel as much as she could) this is bi/pansexual relationship through the lens of someone who has no idea what he's talking about, nor does he care. Like, I promise you Michael doesn't give a shit, I would confidently bet a great deal of money on that.

The bottom line being, just because a pairing is technically queer does not mean it is inherently good or constructive queer rep, and that's where we have to consider it against the context of queer rep in mainstream media as a whole.

[pain-somnia]

hi! can i just say how much i adore your story "all our yesterdays"? jackie & hyde are so well-written, but i'm here to give a special shout out to your boi BUDDY. omg he is so sweet & amazing & i'm a total simp for him lol. he's such an incredible (and necessary!) friend to jackie, & he works so well with the rest of the group, too (esp fez 👀👀). when you decided to add him in, was it for an additional dynamic or did you just want to explore the character or? either way, EXCELLENT decision :)

hello! thank you for your ask

I first added Buddy because I really liked his one episode and I had read a Buddy/Eric fic that rewrote the series (and it’s not a fic for Donna fans at all so I’m not going to name it) and I saw some headcanons that I really enjoyed and I just sort of fell in love with the concept of Buddy becoming friends with everyone. I just got really attached to him.

I wanted to explore more about Buddy and create some headcanons for him because he was the only queer character that was explicitly stated as being gay. I have headcanons for a Pan Fez, a Demi Jackie, and a possibly Bi Eric, but Buddy was gay in canon even if his existence only lasted one episode. And as someone who is queer, I like to explore those identities through fanfic ‘cause it’s typically a safe space for me.

I really wanted him to be a friend to Jackie because it just made sense to me that they should have been acquainted somehow. They were both rich kids in a small town and Jackie was such an odd character as part of the basement group ‘cause even if she didn’t like her peers she probably should have had more stories of hanging out with them even if it was forced association.

Like she threw a dinner party and invited Donna and Eric, but who were the other kids she invited? She wanted to keep it a small affair and Donna and Eric were obviously invited as her newer friends (and because of plot) and she had become attached to Donna and they were also Kelso’s friends. But Jackie had to have other kids that liked her enough (or thought highly enough of her to like being deemed worthy to attend) to want to go to a small, classy dinner party at her house. And those kids couldn’t be just anyone. This is still Jackie we’re talking about.

s7!Jackie had stated that she was voted most popular despite everything that had happened to her so it made me think that she was still probably playing the games of high school society and even without her money or being a cheerleader I can see her still being a queen bee because of her attitude and her being a fashionista. I mean, think of when Hyde weaponized Jackie against Angie. She was the center of attention and everyone hung on to her every word as she gossiped and spread rumors.

So even though Jackie clearly knows who her friends are and who aren’t when she is sent to the past, she still knows how to run shit, especially when she still has her cheerleader and rich kid status. After that it was easy to create a reason why sweet Buddy who is technically supposed to be one of her peers was just dropped from the story and re-introduce him into Jackie’s life (and that of the basement gang). As Hyde had stated in Buddy’s episode, everyone likes him and what little we saw of him, it seems understandable that he is well liked. That made it easier to try and tie him to Jackie as a friend. Future Jackie knows the girls she used to hang out with aren’t her friends and that she had outgrown her relationship with them and she also knows that Buddy is a nice, decent person or someone she would view as a “better Eric” that also happens to be of the same economic and social rank as her.

It is of my belief that only a Jackie that had matured due to her new life experiences (dad going to jail, dating Hyde, living and being closer friends with Donna) could have been a friend that Buddy would have wanted. He can connect with her because of the fact that they are children of wealthy adults and the fact they don’t really care for their peers even if it’s for completely different reasons.

Being queer and closeted myself, there was nothing more special than having a friend I could be myself around, just truly myself and never had to hide who I was. Jackie is a compassionate character with a lot of love in her even if it’s hidden under her queen bee, bitchy attitude. I could see Buddy being able to open up to someone that cared about him and for Jackie to latch onto him fast the same way she did with Donna. I can see their friendship being like Jackie’s with Donna where they might get irritated with each other but still love each other a lot.

And in the case of Buddy, we might not have gotten a lot about him but he reminded me of someone I once knew who was nerdy and much better off than everyone in our friend group. It was easy to sneak in bits of him into Buddy as someone who typically is down to earth but slips and reveals his privilege as a rich, white man on occasion. And that would probably be something he doesn’t have to be on guard about around Jackie because she understands being able to get whatever material possession she wanted. And I can see it being something he jokes about when it came to his friends who weren’t as rich.

They just seemed like a good match to me.

in the next chapter I’m going to explore some Buddy PoVs and also more friendships for Jackie outside of the basement group. I kind of headcanon Leslie Cannon as one of Jackie’s friends from cheerleading that she lost after Leslie graduated.