#also something something the tendency of these assholes to shame women and queer people for being super into romance

[steppenwolfslair]

This will sound a little bitchy but whatever.

I very much dislike that so many of us have to add the ''henry and hans are close whether romantic OR platonic''. Like i have to watch my words so i don't potentially ''hurt the feelings'' of some bigot online who can't stand to watch two men express fondness in a way that absolutely can be interpreted as explicitly romantic.

When I say I love the Hans/Henry relationship i mean it in a romantic way, i love their ROMANTIC relationship. I won't modify my words to avoid some homophobe gamerbro getting riled up.

These roaches are going to be angry at you no matter what so please don't ever try and appease them. Not that people are necessarily doing it on purpose or consciously.

I did this subconsciously, without even thinking about it and realized now why i did it, to avoid conflict with these idiots whose opinion means dog shit to me.

So when people try and show up on my art that is EXPLICITLY showing ROMANTIC love and go ''i like how even when they're friends they're close <3'' i will just block them. Maybe that's petty and overreacting but queer people are being erased left and right and i won't entertain this thinly veiled bull.

[mermaidsirennikita]

ARC Review: The Notorious Lord Knightly by Lorraine Heath

5/5. Releases 6/27/2023.

For when you're vibing with... Peak angst hours, people who adore each other but oof pain, defiantly proud heroines, and big "I was half a virgin when I met you" energy.

Knight--otherwise known as Lord Knightly--has an issue: there's an erotic memoir circulating around the ton by an anonymous source. And everyone thinks the "Lord K" that corrupted Anonymous in the book's pages is him. Bigger problem: it totally is him, and Anonymous happens to be Miss Regina Leyland, the woman he left at the altar five years ago. After years of avoiding Knight, Regina has had enough; but she can't be revealed as Anonymous, especially if she's to move on with her life and marry a good man. Knight offers to help her on that front--by publicly making nice with her, despite the fraught tension between them. But with every polite and platonic dance, Regina wants to claw Knight's eyes out--and fall into his arms. Both. Both is good.

MAN. Lorraine fuckin' Heath. I don't know if anyone does pure shots of emotion like her. There's just something about a book wherein you can feel how much the leads want each other, where you're actually thinking "Why can't they just figure this shit out and be together?" She does it so well.

Quick Takes:

--Regina Leyland is one of my favorite heroines, maybe ever? She's so proud and so wounded and self-righteous, and so like... in denial. She's not a nice girl who's just sitting there weeping over her broken heart, or a classy broad who's Risen Above in the five years she and Knight spent apart. Nah. She's pissed. And she should be! Her anger and the verbal lashings she gives Knight really serve to underscore how much she adored him and how much she gave him. Like, I don't know, I think we often see this tendency among romance readers to feel like heroines should just get over it. Because we are in the mind of a hero like Knight, and we of course know he loves Regina and has his reasons for acting as he does. She doesn't have that. She's suffered. He needs to fix it.

At the same time, Regina has also done a lot in those five years involving forced responsibility and growing up. She lost her innocence (.... in every way ...) to this man. So you get this sense as you read that you're seeing her reawakened, and kind of... allowing access to a part of herself she's neglected for a long time. What I'm saying is--she is horny. And he's hot. And honestly, the fact that she's so horny makes it more believable to me that she keeps coming back to go "AND ANOTHER THING". Girl is hard up. It adds a dash of humor to what would otherwise be kind of dark, and balances the book perfectly.

--Knight is very hot, and very much worthy of Regina's horniness. Honestly, I kind of get how losing him broke her brain a bit and sent her own a rampage of revenge. This guy is... sexy, in a way that Lorraine Heath nails so well. So many of her heroes are really not asshole alphas, but they're like--smooth as fuck. They rattle off lines or throw smiles or do something that is so incredibly slick that you're like "God, this man FUCKS". Knight is one of those. Also, he does creepy shit like keep her ribbon in his pocket for YEARS.

--This book is actually really fucking meta. Regina wrote a book that is a memoir, but is anonymously written and fictionalized on some levels. What people--especially women--love about this book is its eroticism and passion and focus on women's pleasure. We see attempts to ban the book, attempts to shame the writer and the women gleefully reading it, attempts to dismiss its importance. Reading a historical romance focusing so hard on this during an era when the US at least is becoming increasingly puritanical, with calls to shame ethical sexual content in fiction and to outright ban expressions of sexuality and sexual autonomy for women and queer people in particular... It was really cool. I love that Lorraine's past couple of books in particular have used their historical backdrop to make a commentary about issues that plague us to this day.

Where this book is better over The Counterfeit Scoundrel, in my opinion, is in its ability to maintain a searing romance. Counterfeit's romance was good, and it was a very romantic book. But this book had me feeling the way books like Waking Up with the Duke and When the Duke Was Wicked did. The romance is that good.

--Another interesting thing this book brings to the table is its focus on illegitimacy. Regina is illegitimate, but her mother was her father's long-term mistress, essentially his wife of the evening, and he was an involved figure in her life who recognized her. Bastards and mistresses are often a thorny topic in historical romance. The goal of most historicals is ultimately marriage--but the reality is that, among the nobility at least (which most historicals still focus on) love was reserved for paramours. Bastards were perhaps more likely to be born of love, or at least passion, than legitimate children. And while we often scorn mistresses to this day, mistresses functioned (and... let's be real, still do) as different types of wives. In this case, Regina's father's wife was the one who hosted balls and attended functions (important!). While her mother was his emotional refuge and partner (also important!).

Lorraine executes a really interesting analysis of these roles. Regina is not to be pitied--she's had loving parents and her father always made sure she had cash to spare. But she also has three siblings she's never met, who resented her. She's also shamed more for losing Knight because she is a bastard. Her mother was a badass woman who taught her daughter to prioritize and not be ashamed of love and sexual pleasure (a note I adored) but she also didn't get everything she deserved from the man she loved. The gray is explored really well here.

--I've seen some criticism re: the "why we broke up" of it all... And I suppose it could've been a bit more high stakes? But I personally love an internal conflict, where people kind of act stupid because they're human beings and human beings rely on emotion and issues like insecurity and the sense of obligation and can ultimately make a big impact. So for me, it really didn't affect my enjoyment of the book. I love it when people make realistically bad decisions and have to deal with the consequences.

--You do get flashbacks to Regina and Knight's original courtship so--two romances in one! I really adored the contrast to the heady, innocent days of the virginal Regina's seduction by this rake, against the more jaded Regina trying so desperately to deny her feelings for Knight, who clearly loves her and has always loved her. Them coming back together as angsty people who've Seen Shit was everything.

The Sex Stuff:

There are a few different sex scenes in this book, scattered among the flashbacks and the present. I always feel like Lorraine's books are truly sensual. The sex scenes aren't as explicit and are somewhat more euphemistic than those by other authors I love, but she conveys passion and wanting so well that I don't need it to be as graphic. It's hot. One of the sexiest scenes in the book is literally a kissing scene.

But also, he fucks her real good. So. No worries there.

She's done it again! I loved this book, and recommend it wholeheartedly. Peak second chance.

Thanks to Netgalley and Avon for providing a copy of this book. All thoughts and opinions are my own.

[rotationalsymmetry]

In an attempt to not overload one single post: Feminism has been a major theme in fantasy and science fiction for longer than I have been alive. Identity politics have been part of geekdom for generations. I freaking learned feminism from science fiction and fantasy books.

Lack of representation, it’s not an anger thing. It’s not an offense thing. It’s a *hurt* thing. It’s an, “am I really a person?” thing. “Do I really exist?” Lack of representation isn’t, you know, something people get angry about? I mean, it is, but it takes a while to get to the anger. Before the anger, there’s “wait, am I really a person? Am I really who I think I am? Why don’t I see anyone like me?” And there’s the intersectionalities: I left out the queer aspects. I saw queer characters in my dragon books long before I saw them anywhere else, or knew any queer people in real life. I got my first queer *protagonists* in speculative fiction. Not only are not all geeks men, the geek men aren’t all *straight* either, and the geek women aren’t all straight, and sometimes nonbinary people find their representation in speculative fiction when it isn’t anywhere else. (Although that might be changing, so that’s pretty cool.)

There’s race: I used to think “fantasy racism” was a good way to explore the topic, you know, and...I mean it’s a way to explore bigotry in the abstract? But a lot of race issues is about specifics, and a lot of fantasy racism reinforces the idea that white people are normal and people of color are other. Most of the speculative fiction I’ve read has been heavily white with POC characters showing up as a small minority, often exotified/appropriative. The fantasy equivalent of the Chinese-American who grew up in LA and barely speaks two words of Chinese almost never gets seen. But, some speculative fiction books have an actually diverse cast (where white people aren’t the majority or always the protagonists) and some fantasy is based on a non-Western culture without being all weird about it. It can be done well. Religion is complicated: I’m not thrilled about how Brandon Sanderson handles religion in the Mistborn Trilogy for instance -- so many different religions, and they’re all basically just palette-swapped from the same “one god with one focus” template. Which kind of reinforces the idea that religions that aren’t Christianity are still basically Christianity, just a little different (and/or, just not true) whereas in the real world, what it means to be a religion varies a lot. (Some religions are a lot more tied to culture and/or geographic location, one deity/many/none, focused on faith vs focused on practice, etc.) And there’s sometimes anti-Semitism and/or Islamophobic stuff (Tolkien’s dwarves, C S Lewis’s Tash worshippers, Mercedes Lackey’s Karse.) OTOH fantasy can be a great source of inspiration and guidance for pagans, even fantasy that wasn’t written by pagans, and science fiction is often a home for atheists. There’s some Jewish influence in Star Trek: TOS although none of it is overt. TV shows in particular tend to have non-Christian Christmas equivalents, which again normalizes Christianity and downplays real religious diversity. Disability...dunno, I’m still pretty new at analyzing ableism. I know some books etc handle it really badly. Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra do some interesting things with disability and disabled characters. There’s a widespread tendency across visual media but especially in superhero stories to use disfigurement to indicate villainy. More generally, the “outsider looking for a place to belong” trope comes up a LOT in speculative fiction, which can be a real magnet for people who are marginalized in all sorts of different ways. Look at Harry Potter: the magical/muggle dichotomy could be seen as an analogy for all sorts of different ways people are marginalized, minority cultures and being queer and being neuroatypical. The idea that geekdom is the natural habitat of people who are privileged on every nameable axis -- white, male, able-bodied, straight, non-immigrant, English-speaking, not a member of a minority religion, often middle class and affluent and well-educated -- and only those people by default, that’s just...so wrong. I mean, people who are very privileged do have a place in geekdom, but if that’s you, you gotta share, OK? Lots of other people find our home in geekdom and need that home as much as you do, if not more. Anyways: if you’re reading this and thinking “well, you’re preaching to the choir, but what do I do?” It starts with deliberately introducing more diversity into what you read (characters and authors), then into what you recommend to other people (including people who are privileged on axes where you’re marginalized.) What you write, if you write fanfic or original fic (but: sometimes bad representation is as much of a problem as lack of representation, so do some research.) The general advice for writers is to have beta readers of whatever marginalized identities you’re writing about when you’re writing about other communities -- in general, if *you* get paid a significant amount for your writing you should pay your beta readers, if not, swapping labor is fine. Sharing articles or posts about this stuff. Writing letters to publishers, TV producers, people who put on cons etc. I tried to write this and especially the other post to be accessible/not too offputting to people who aren’t already in the choir, so if you know someone like that who might be open-minded feel free to pass the post on. Thing is: yes, there are total assholes, but there’s also people who aren’t assholes who just, their worldview is missing something. Some people are persuadable. I think. (Other people can be shamed out of siding with the bigots; I’m not saying that the shame approach is wrong, but that works best on people who haven’t already staked a claim; for people who have and might get talked down, talking about feelings and appealing to empathy might be more effective than an “if you take this side, you’re a misogynist” approach. That’s not how *they* see themselves.) OTOH I’ve never actually been able to talk someone down on the gender front with the gentle approach, so idk. I’ve heard it’s doable though? One thing I’ve heard about that is, it does tend to be more effective when someone from a position of privilege is doing the talking. Men talking to other men about feminism. White people talking to other people about race. Basically: when you’re privileged, you should 1. read/listen to what marginalized people have to say and 2. pass that message on/amplify their voices to people who are privileged in the same way that you are. This is kind of counterintuitive: I know I’m a lot more motivated to talk about gender and sexual orientation (things that affect me) than about race or culture. It takes some intentionality to see onesself as part of a broader movement for inclusivity, and not just fighting for the things that affect you personally.

[usamyzonians]

Q Redux

And I’m just going to go ahead from the start and say that I’m going to be using a certain q-word, because it’s unavoidable.  I’m also going to bring up trans violence in media.  If that bothers you, don’t read below the fold.

I probably undersold my issues with the word “queer” before, in part because I actually try and avoid conflict until the anxiety kicks in and then I will fight people for almost anything.  And it’s sort of fitting that I’m talking about anxiety, because that’s what this is about.

I literally have an anxiety response to the word “queer,” because I have been the victim of violence under it as recently as a couple of years ago.  When people insist I’m “queer” to meet their worldview that we’re all one big and happy umbrella group, they’re not particularly different to me from the edgelords who go around opposing “political correctness” by using racist or sexist or homophobic words because they like hurting “liberal” feelings.

If you insist I’m queer, or all LGBT people are queer, then I see you as an asshole.  Not just to me, because there’s a ton of other people who have the same response for the same reason.

It amazes me that people who themselves have experienced trauma and need “trigger warnings” for all sorts of things I would find innocuous suddenly become edgelords over this one word and tell other people with a history of trauma to “deal with it” or similar because they lack any sort of empathy.

In short, people who demand that I show them consideration are suddenly all “lol snowflakes!” over this issue.

This raises a pretty important issue:  many of you who insist on calling people queer are hurting people as you wouldn’t want to be hurt, and you don’t care.  The word is precious to you, moreso than the well-being of the community you clam you’re encompassing.

Honestly, I distance myself from people who say “queer.”  This is a word that has been used to abuse me, a word that invokes anxiety and trauma responses in me, and if you can’t be arsed to care, I don’t want to be anywhere near you.  I have a tendency to block people who say it on here, and I tend to not reblog things which use the term, and if you have a problem with that, you can simply not follow me.

I stopped following Steven Universe when I saw the article where the show runner planned to make the show “as queer as possible.”  I am unlikely to resume the show, and no longer really care if it stays on the air.  And no, I will not support someone who says “queer” just to support LGBT representation at the cost of my own mental health.

You can argue whether or not this is the “right” thing to do, but here’s the thing.  It’s not your choice.  It’s mine.  You don’t have to live in my head.  I do.  I stopped watching Law and Order after a transwoman was beaten in prison, and when people start throwing “queer” around I have a similar response.  Both evoke memories--visceral ones--of the violence I have experienced in my life.  I have no desire to humor peoplke at the expense of my own well-being.

And if you don’t like that, I don’t want you around.  If your desire to use a word is more important than the people it impacts, you’re probably a shitty person.

And since I’ve seen posts like this bogged down with notes and reblogs literally abusing and berating people, allow me to preemptively say a blanket “fuck you” as I will be blocking you without response.  It’s amazing to me how quickly LGBT individuals, who hate it when straight and cis people talk over them, will talk over victims of abuse.  Well, other victims of abuse.

This really is one of the biggest problems I have.  In a community where you have to  “trigger warning” everything, people are outright abusive when you have a trauma response to the word “queer” because they want to use it and they are apparently incapable of acting better than a petulant two year old or a gamer.  If you have a trauma response to the word “queer,” suddenly the LGBT “community” turns into a bunch of edgelords who will tell you to deal with it and not be so offended/fragile/sensitive.  “You’re too easily triggered” is not a phrase the LGBT community should have in common with Milo (I’ve updated this since Milo went on Realtime).

I sometimes get messages because I forgot to tag something like homophobic language or misogyny.  Fair enough, I often forget to tag things, especially my own writing.  It’s worse when I’m writing about something that stresses me out, like...most of the stuff I write about.

But then when you say you’re uncomfortable with “queer,” especially being branded it, the tide turns.  I’ve had a couple of the same people asking me for consideration (which I think is fair) turn around and be all “you are queer, deal with it” or words to that effect.  Now, where have I heard that before?

Oh, right.  The straight people who are upset that they have to consider others.  The cis people who are upset that they have to consider others.  The men that are upset that they have to consider others.  The radfems.  The people who complain “cis” and “white male” are slurs but will use pejorative terms for women and LGBT people unironically.

They’re hypocrites.  And so are you, if you take this route.

I have continued to include content warnings out of a consideration few will reciprocate.  I will continue to do so for as long as I run this blog, because there are some lines I won’t cross.  It’s just a shame that the “queer” community so so narcissistic it won’t hesitate to not only cross those lines, but abuse people who have lived through trauma and have a negative response.  If you expect me to “get over” my trauma so simply, first get over yours.  And if you’re really sincere, stop asking me to tag my work.  Oh, I’ll still do it, but by the “queer” argument, you should all just “get over it” like you’re asking me (and others, but this piece is not to speak for others) to.

So, a blanket “thank you” for the reminder of why I will never feel like a part  of the LGBT “community.”