#and I Like Women..... in a deeply gay way

[gwemmieee]

Yeah. I have a big bone to pick with women who go out of their way to gatekeep someone out of our club. Most of them are cis and straight, but trans fems who do this unfortunately exist. That instance looks like some disgusting hypocrisy to me, because most baby trans fems really emotionally lean on the willingness of this community to emphasize that you are your gender and you are valid no matter how many steps you've already taken and been successful with. That is a crucial, supportive message, and suppressing it in any way is tantamount to pulling up the ladder behind you. Which, yeah, every community has its assholes who pull up ladders.

It is also a tough line to walk sometimes for women, because most of us have learned that there are certain ways we can't entirely just open up to most masculine folks and let them into our entire lives and every space. Not without a lot of pain. So we are incentivized to wait until someone makes it clear that they're safe, before they're let into our inner lives more. This function has caused me SO much strife, because before I was accepted as a woman, it kept me outside in the cold, alone, really close to an early grave, but now that I am fully living as a woman, and even before I was doing that, my efforts to ignore this function entirely and just let any masculine person into my heart, my inner world, and my safest spaces, have not always gone well, and sometimes those efforts have backfired, made me unsafe, and deeply traumatized me.

These days, the only conclusion I've been able to find is that women need to work on what we recognize as red and green flags, for who is safe. It's pretty easy to see that the average set of red and green flags you see most non-queer white women adhere to are... crap. Truly crap. Delusional, not based in reality, etc. And that sucks because it isolates them more and it gives them more excuse to be really shitty to people, or to gossip about them in ways that really aren't fair to them.

Earlier in my transition, I still had it internalized that I had had so much trouble because I wasn't good enough, because I didn't do enough, and that's why women didn't let me in. But I was literally running around freely saying out loud that I was genderfluid, that I had no concept of manhood and little concept of gender, that I thought it would be cool if I was born as a woman, that I wanted other pronouns to be used on me, that I could be pretty gay/queer, acting pretty gay/queer, openly rejecting most masculine behaviors and modes of thought, constantly openly celebrating femininity, experimenting with gender presentation... I was a very queer little dude. And I've only been able to recognize that in retrospect. Because nobody let me in. Trans fems may have let me in, but they weren't around much in the late 00s and early 10s. I never met one. But I did meet and usually deeply connect with countless fellow eggs, before any of us knew. In situations like mine, trans fems generally didn't even get to find themselves until a bisexual cis woman took it upon herself to date them as a perceived man, and then recognize their queerness and allow them to explore gender with her acceptance and assistance. Because being allowed into womanhood was so rare and taboo that it had to happen behind closed doors as part of a romantic relationship. I was aro/ace, and I unconsciously looked to get the same experience out of a platonic friendship, but all I got was led on. Told I was a close friend but still treated like a stray animal compared to their feminine friends. Not let in.

Meanwhile, cis women, and fem-raised queer folks who at the time universally saw themselves as, yknow proudly not quite men at least, universally treated me like a burly cis man deserving of none of their support or curiosity and all of their suspicion and gossip about how "he's creepy." Consistently. Until I finally came out as a woman in 2022. And that's so 100% on them. They went out of their way to not see me for who I was and just keep me out in the cold. So yeah. The state of gatekeeping of womanhood is *bad*. And in my experience, most of it comes from people who had/have easy access to unquestioned claims of womanhood, whether that's because they're AFAB or because their transition into womanhood was really fast and made them really conventionally attractive.

But what about trans fems? Well, we aren't perfect with our red and green flags, either. It's hard to be. Personally, I've noticed there is a small contingent (VERY small) of trans fems my age who operate more like the old world transsexuals in that they really are truscum gatekeepers, often also ableist, and borderline psychopathic in the level of emotional labor they expect from you as a friend vs. what they're willing to put up with in return. And that is very unfortunate. My early transition saw a lot of them genuinely help me as incredible new friends, but then hurt me badly and burn bridges for no good reason. And I feel that there is a bit of a schism in the trans fem community between elders who usually just want to stealth out--who look down on baby transes and cringe and don't help us, or even if they do talk to us and help, there is still a very clear line denominating their actual friends and community that we never get to cross into--and the rest of us who openly embrace being queer and not assimilating all the way. But, frankly? Most trans fems I've met are the most welcoming and least gatekeeping folks on the planet. Most are that latter, queerer camp. And we operate exactly the way that we should: we let anyone safe into our inner world, even if that safe person happens to be a man. And some of us STILL see that backfire. And so even we can't be completely carefree. But we can always learn and grow and get better and better at what we actually identify as red and green flags.

wait where are all the trans guys

Historical-anthropological research, especially the work taking place before the 21st century or outside the West, tends to focus entirely on transfeminized groups. So when reading these works it’s pretty natural to ask — wait, where are all the trans guys? This is a reasonable question with a few clear answers; this post is something quick I can point people to.

The central condition of transfeminized groups' absorption into feminist activism has been to accept a kind of symmetry with select TME groups through the understanding of trans femininity as "gender variance." Under this framework, transfeminized groups' social position can be understood as a consequence of gender variance and some abstract violation of cis norms; this was proposed by people like Susan Stryker and Emi Koyama [1], among others, and continues to structure trans inclusion today. It also fails when considering several basic aspects of these groups:

Transfeminized groups are associated with hyperspecific labor practices, most frequently sex work, but also hair styling, drag, makeup artistry, acting, and other forms of 'gender work.'

Metropolitan transfeminized groups appear in the archive as highly clustered and active groups connected with, but usually intensely split from, the masculine men they fucked.

Transfeminized groups become a kind of 'third gender' on an epistemic level; they are Known to wider society before and after “coming out” in a way that USAmerican transmasculinity has only recently vaguely approached.

Transfeminized groups are heavily clustered in labor practice, social organization, and epistemic position, although this is not universal -- certain strains of USAmerican transfemininity have become a bit more labor-agnostic in the last two decades, not-so-coincidentally alongside more general currents of gender-labor liberation. The messy strains of trans male identity recovered from the archive and from current practice tend to lack labor, social, and epistemic coherence. As Aaron Devor notes in FTM, his 1997 history of FTM men, trans men in the 20th century tended to transition out of cities and into the countryside, finding low-profile places they could exist in. These practices, and the earlier "female husband" practices described by Jen Manion, relied on the labor-agnostic nature of transitioned manhood in order to disappear from public life. Transfeminized groups, on the other hand, are categorically restricted from the main form of economic life historically available to women -- marriage. Their labor practices are heavily constrained and have almost always revolved around some form of 'gender work:' as Susan Stryker put it, you need to get people to pay you for being a trans woman. Transmasculinity pushes away feminized restrictions on labor; trans femininity is labor.

Because transfeminized identities are so often labor-identities, and because their specific brand of 'gender work' and hormonal/silicone/surgical embodiment usually requires both specialized training and community support, nearly every metropolitan center in the world developed highly centralized transfeminized groups over the course of the 20th century [2]. As Ochoa notes, this visibility is partially due to epistemic visibility (everyone knows what a trans is), partially due to group structure (people work and train each other), and partially due to the selectively visible demands of finding clients. Fledglings come in with a way of being that is always already visible to society, but changing the body to match and learning how to fully enact and slowly contest the third-gender labor-identity they've been given takes a lot of community support.

So as labor-identities, transfeminized groups tend to a level of labor/community/epistemic coherence that has no clear counterpart. The news archives we have of trans men (as seen in Manion) position them as singular and easily absorbed back into the female gestalt; the cisgender feminist/gayguy/AIDS researchers that form the bulk of historical-anthropological work saw them as unnecessary to their grand theories of gender; the communities themselves have been materially fractured and, for the groups that rise out of lesbian-feminist activism, only partially committed to their own existence. The result of all this is that there is no clear equivalent to the "transfeminized groups" of Jules-Gill Peterson; there is no symmetry to trannydom, and while additional work to unearth trans manhood in the archive remains extremely valuable, sometimes the necessary level of label-coherence and social existence just isn't there.

[1] Stryker, "My Words to Victor Frankenstein Above the Village of Chamounix: Performing Transgender Rage," Emi Koyama, "The Transfeminist Manifesto" [2] As seen in Namaste, Invisible Lives, Prieur, "Mema's House, Mexico City," Kulick, "Travesti," Newton, "Mother Camp," Ochoa, "Queen for a Day," Hegarty, "The Made-Up State," and plenty more. Most of these works came out in the late 80s and 90s due to a combination of the feminist "third gender" craze, the burgeoning field of masculinity studies, and AIDS.

[jespy-wespy]

The sexualization and mischaracterization of queer (relation)ships: Arcane edition

In a relationship between 2 people of the same gender one does not need to present more masculine/feminine than the other. They do not need to fit into the category of one being purely dominant over the other. This is something I think Arcane has done really well. But just because the show did good, does not mean the fans will.

Something I have noticed within fan art+fiction is the feminization and weakness of Caitlyn. I scroll through Tumblr and pass image and image of Caitvi art where Vi is hugging Caitlyn, taking the lead, being the "dominant one". Vi has her arms, very large, with defined muscles, wrapped around Caitlyn's skinny ones, which have no muscle definition. Caitlyn is drawn with softer, more femmine features, given a shorter stature than Vi, and is usually pictured in the purple camisole she wore once.

This is simply not who either of them are.

In Arcane, Caitlyn is defined by being a powerful sharp shooter. Later by being a ruthless cop, a brutal dictator, and a powerful warrior, even with out a gun. We see her training with Ambessa, while not holding the same level of skill, Caitlyn is able to physically hold her own. Caitlyn has never been shown as weak. She has never been someone to need or ask for protection. She can barely if ever be considered a femme, if people really feel the need to stick some meaningless sub title on her.

Vi is very emotional, she feels deeply. Even though she is this tough pit fighter, she holds a heavy heart, and this is shown throughout Arcane. Vi, repeatedly through the show, has been vulnerable in front of Caitlyn, both physically and emotionally. We see her cry out for her sister, injured, and in need of help through multiple acts and I believe that should make more of an impression on fans.

Sadly it is not surprising fans have taken this approach to their ship. The need for one lesbian to be more masculine than the other is something that people cannot seem to get out of their head. Caitlyn has certainly taken the brunt of the mischaracterization, since she is the one interpreted as "more femmine".

These misinterpretations of their characters are based in misogyny, homophobia, and sexualization. Plenty of the people doing this simply cannot conceptualize a relationship where the characters are not some form of man and woman. Lesbians can never just be 2 women, they have always been expected to present themselves as "almost straight". This form of mischaracterization is typically done by straight people who often don't realize they are contributing to a harmful stereotype.

Sexualization comes into play because girls liking girls simply cannot be talked about without somebody bringing up sex. Lesbianism is not inherently sexual, but is inherently sexualized. This type is (obviously) from mostly men who see lesbians as nothing more than a way to get off, though its not only from them.

Queer relationships are often sexualized within the community by pushing strict top/bottom and dom/sub standards onto characters and even real people. Similar to how some people can't comprehend a relationship that isn't of the opposite genders, some people can't imagine a relationship where the sexual roles aren't just as strict. These expectations are also rooted in misogyny and is mostly just the progression of gender roles into other aspects of queer relationships. Vi is usually pushed as the top, as the dominant one, simply because she is also perceived as the man. In real life, gay relationships and sex aren't about who is going to be doing the work, but instead about mutual love and mutual doing.

I wanted to also bring up Jayce and Viktor in this post but a lot of their perceived dynamic isn't simply just gender roles. The mischaracterization of their ship lies heavily in the fact of Victor being disabled and therefore "the weak one". Viktor being oppressed in their world while people ignore how their perception of Jayce is altered by the fact that he is an oppressed minority in ours. I just don't think I can apply their ship to only the issues I brought up previously and instead, they need their own discussion.

I will also specify, there is nothing wrong with seeing Caitlyn as the bottom in their relationship, there is nothing wrong with wanting to draw Vi with bigger muscles than what she has in the show. It's simply important to understand that this expectation and wanting of them is not an original thought, and is often caused by the misogyny that has seeped into every part of our world without our knowledge, including the brains of queer people.

[self-shipper-snowdrop]

A story in three parts

[biblicalhorror]

Aroace Riz real but also Fabian is SO clearly in love with him and Riz has no idea

[glittery-sublime-perfection]

i respectfully disagree somewhat

i think society has this obsession with being against pedophilia and preventing it when its theoretical, while at the same time they also turn against actual victims quickly.

so in this way, yes i agree that pedophilia is basically de-facto accepted against girls with the justifications you say.

is similar how to they DO care about pedophilia of men on girls... if its against a group of men they want to persecute. lots of weird racism or politics centers on stopping "pedophiles" of the opposing race or political party... like the americans with pizzagate, or blood libel, using accusations of pedophilia to justify lynchings, etc.

does not mean they care about girls. they care about weaponizing it.

and when men rape boys, they are weaponizing it for homophobia. they use this as an excuse to keep ppl scared of homosexuals and justify oppression. they use it to create disgust for homosexuals.

but if you notice, those boys are not given support. they are still the target of jokes. ppl make crude jokes about altar boys and shit all the time.

also. they dont care when females rape boys. so its not caring for "innocence" or humanity of boys that drive things. AND if boy was already gay/bi you can see caring also drop off entirely even if abuser was man or women - sexual abuse of gay/bi boys is very high but they never make a big thing of those cases.

this does not take away from how bad it is for girls, bc abuse of girls is way more rampant. but i think essentially conservative view of society is selfish and self-justifying... if someone is a victim, they deserve it, and wanting pity is pathetic. but they are not above using them for their own agenda is all.

I think this is very mixed into just world fallacy that conservatives have. bc even ppl with genuine compassion just treat it as like... well its not an issue to look too deeply in, itll work itself out. and ppl with no compassion instead use it for their agenda.

call me crazy but i genuinely think most people (conservatives) only care about pedophilia as long as its adult male on boy . once it is a man doing it to a girl all you hear is batshit insane justifications like "but she looked much more mature" "dont ruin his life" or will write the creepiest things abt how actually its normal for men to be pedofiles becuase fertility or women become unattractive after 30 blablabla. its disgusting . what are your thoughts radblr ? someone who is more articulate than me ?

[greasydumbfuck]

thinking about frank and sex (in a sad way)

[chaoswillcalmusdown]

re-watching the bear with mom bc it's finally out legally and we got to ep 6 today and oh my god honestly the way mikey and richie talk about claire is somehow worse than i remembered. the chubby girl who you likedd when she was ugly is now acceptably fuckable (to our standards) so you should really go fuck her and be a normal guy, carmen!! say 2 adults who are definitely not in healthy relationships and who only want carmen to get with claire so they can......what....... stop being uncomfortable with him not being like them? not have to worry about a possibility of carm being gay?

[felinenthusiast]

sigh. realising an understanding about one of my favourite characters of all time has just greatly shifted. i need to reconfigure my entire brain because this character has changed sexual orientation to me lol

[cicadaknight]

the weird workout ads are evolving they know i only respond to cowpoke propaganda

[ceilidhtransing]

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

[carelesscuriosity]

thinkin im a bonafide lesbo

[child-of-the-danube]

Agatha All Along in general but especially Agatha and Rio are so fucking special to me and I cannot be normal about this...

We are finally not being queer-baited. Whether they seal it with a kiss or a flashback scene or a happy ending it doesn't matter. We have confirmation that those two women were and still are deeply in love.

It's two mature women. No weird age gap, no mentor-pupil dynamic, no disproportionate power play. I find coming out and setting into your queerness stories incredibly important but it is so refreshing to see a story where the discovery and accepting that you're queer isn't the focal point. They just are who they are and neither them nor the people around them had a big dramatic reaction to it like it's something strange or unexpected. They just ARE and my god is that beautiful to witness ❤️

Their softness, connection and care for eachother is so heartbreaking. Agatha smiling and leaning into Rio when talking about her scar cause Rio already knows, Agatha melting just by having her hair played with, Rio refusing the kiss cause that would be taking advantage of Agatha's weak moment, making sure she knows that Teen isn't her son, Rio regretting what she had to do for centuries. I am losing my mind over here

The whole cast is mature women (well, + Joe haha) which again, refreshing as hell to see. And I love how the focus isn't just completely on Agatha. We get constant glimpses into everyone. Jen saved the day twice already. Alice had her beautiful moment in e4, Teen is basically their spirit guide with his spell book. Adore that lil funky boy Agatha technically kidnapped but whom she very obviously cares for more than she would like to. Lilia is my favourite of this new found coven family. Her and Agatha are the oldest and have seen the most and suffered through so much. I think that's why she softened up to Agatha and vice versa. Beside Teen, Agatha seems to be the softest towards Lilia like when she had her hallucinations and she didn't mock her but reassured her it's ok and Lilia's constant blurting out of prophecies like "Protect Agatha" 😭😭. I could go on for ages about all of their dynamics.

And everything about the production and the actors themselves being SOOO invested into the story and clearly loving what they do.

I don't give a shit about Marvel in general but damn, they got me with this one. Canonically gay witches, Kathryn Hahn and Aubrey Plaza, musical numbers and then they throw in miss icon legend mother Patti Lupone on top of it all. I am in every possible way the target audience

The talk about how witches, monsters and in general creatures feared by the wider population are so very deeply queer coded is for another day but AAAAAAAAAAA I love everything about this show so much I might just explode

[sweetshuga]

Argument ✰ MS

───~𓆩♡𓆪~───

bf!matt! Arguing until you ask him "what did you just say?" and everything escalates from there.

Warnings! Smut!, strong language!, pet names (baby, pretty), p in v, unprotected sex (not recommended), jealous!matt,

Word count. 946

Note. English is not my first language!

"No— okay, you’re being completely unreasonable," you yelled from the living room to your boyfriend that was now fast approaching, his steps heavy and angry, "I’m being unreasonable? Me?" He said in a disbelieving tone, "I’m being unreasonable?" He repeated, frustration evident in his mannerism and tone, eliciting a heavy sigh from you.

"Matthew, I’m telling you, you’re misunderstanding everything! Why won’t you listen to me–" A harsh bark of laughter cut you off, "right, I’m misunderstanding, I’m the one being unreasonable and not my girlfriend who was seen parading around with another guy, laughing like he was the funniest man on earth."

Your eyes narrowed, the anger simmering just above the surface as you sighed in frustration, closing your eyes briefly before opening them again, looking straight into his. "Look, let’s not fight over something so stupid like that, he’s gay, he has zero fucking interests in women–" he cut you off, but you couldn’t quite make out what he said.

"What did you just say?" You asked, to which your boyfriend gave you a deadpanned look. "You heard me." He simply said, causing your eyebrows to shoot up in surprise, "I didn’t, what did you say?" He groaned – almost growled – in frustration, "you fuckin’ heard me!" a shudder of desire shot through you like electricity at his tone and words, despite the scowl on your face.

"You’re fucking mumbling, I can’t hear you-" A gasp left your mouth when he suddenly pinned you to the couch, his face mere inches away from yours, "can you fucking hear me now? Or are you so fucking deaf that I have to get closer for you to hear me better?" The tone itself made you soaked—you could feel yourself getting wetter by the second.

You shook your head, your anger fading completely. "No, I uh... can hear you," you mumbled, now being the quiet one. A smirk plastered on his lips, almost trumphiant.

"That’s what I thought," he murmured, his gaze flicking down to your lips before travelling up your face and to your eyes, his pupils dilated. "So? What were you saying about that guy again? He’s gay? So what? Doesn’t mean he can’t appreciate a pretty woman," he leaned forward until his breath ghosted over your lips.

You gulped audibly, a stutter in your voice, "Matt." Is all you could say – or rather, whisper – your brain already getting fogged from his proximity. The heat pooling down made you shift slightly, trying to get the slightest bit of friction.

That didn’t go unnoticed by him, a chuckle rumbling out as he leaned further down and nuzzled in the space where your shoulder met your neck. You shivered when he let his warm breath ghost over that spot. "Matt—please," you begged without thinking.

"Hm? Please? Please what?" He taunted on purpose, lifting his head to look at you. His smirk slowly widened as he took in the way your chest rose and fell, the shallower, shakier breaths.

Obvious arousal evident on every fiber of your being.

"Please, touch me— please Matt," he exhaled deeply at your needy tone, "don’t have to ask twice." His hands caressed your sides and up your body, slowly fondling your tits.

Your breath hitching and body arching towards his hands only fueled his own desires – the way you were reacting to his touch was intoxicating – making him let out a low groan as he leaned forward again and started to leave soft kisses down your neck and collarbone.

His fingers, deftly, unhooked your bra under your shirt. His movements were more hurried now, wanting— needing to see you bare. Breaking the kisses on your neck just to take off your t-shirt before diving down to your chest.

He lavished attention to your tits, after all, he loved them. One of his hands held your waist, and the other one sneaked into your cotton shorts, rubbing you through your panties.

Your lips parted to let out breathy moans, your fingers tangled in his hair, pushing him more into your tits. He hummed in approval, his hand snaking inside your panties, rubbing your clit directly, groaning at just how soaked you were.

Your hips jerked and moved, only to be held tightly by his hand, causing your moans to turn a slight bit more louder. He left a few longing kisses on your chest before sitting back on his haunches.

You whined at the loss of contact, your body burning with unfulfilled desires, "Matt-" He cut you off, "shh— I know baby, c’mon, lift up those hips fo’me pretty." You lifted your hips, letting him take off your shorts and panties.

You were left bare to his hungry gaze, only averted when he took off his own t-shirt. His tongue darted out to wet his lips, one of his hands held your thighs apart while his other hand unbuckled his belt with expert ease.

Matt kicked off his pants and boxer briefs before settling between your spread thighs. His hands slowly caressed your sides, admiring your beauty, making your body shiver in anticipation.

He leaned in, his lips brushing against your earlobe as he whispered, "This’ll make sure you can hear me... and only me." He chuckled lowly in your ear – sending goosebumps up your body – before pushing the head of his cock inside, stretching you deliciously, inch by inch.

Breathy moans left your lips as he started to move, each thrust making him go deeper, brushing against your cervix. Relishing in your moans as he lost himself in the feeling of your pussy almost sucking him in, gripping him like a vice.

𓆩♡𓆪

Isa's notes. Inspired by last week's video. Also, Matt shouting/yelling does something to me. Am I getting the hang of writing suggestive content? Yeah... no.

xoxo 𓆩♡𓆪

© sweetshuga

[wolfisland]

like primarily i identify as a butch - which is funny bc i remember when most ppl were sooooo against bi women using butch/femme one of their arguments was literally that we only ever claimed femme which wasnt ACTUALLY subversive since apparently femme just means feminine? like okay tell me how you REALLY feel about femmes then, if you truly think its just presenting feminine and that its so easily erased by who you are or arent dating. fuck off.

but i primarily identify as butch and its almost laughable bc like people genuinely did just act like i didnt exist in the 2010s and early 2020s. fuck for most of my teen years i was INSISTENT i couldnt use my own language. very frustrating since even as a teenager i resonated with butch and femme (both for separate and quite personal reasons) like... there are absolutely butch bi women. you just didnt and dont listen to us.

dont even get me started on how people treated futch. i swear some of these bimisogynists screaming and crying and throwing up about protecting the SANCTITITY of butch/femme truly just think butch means masculine and femme means feminine. like by that logic, if taylor swift came out tomorrow she'd be femme. like? futch absolutely is not as simple as androgyny. chill the fuck out.

i make a lot of jokes about futch just being some random word starting with f + butch for someone who does sincerely identify with the intersection of butch and femme and who has always campaigned for the recognition of futch as a legitimate expression of gender and role within lgbt relationships. like i am dead serious about futch and i always will be. futches rise.

[tirfpikachu]

are we just crazy or are lgbt spaces getting legit deranged?????

every unusual experience of sexuality/gender is a valid part of the bootiful qweer biodiversity of the world by default, but you can't be gay/bi/trans and not want to be called the q slur or see cishets say the q slur. and you can't say that you're afab4afab or amab4amab, that's just a creepy bigoted fetish you freak. unless you're transmasc4transmasc or transfem4transfem ofc, you get a free pass. but also kinkshaming is evil and deeply harms the most marginalized. but also make sure you don't have a fetish about genitalia... if you do, it's a "preference" not an inborn trait and you really can therapize yourself into liking it, just try hard enough. if you fail to you're a bigot, so just keep trying!! make sure to feel guilty abt it at least, you dirty homo. but getting beat up can be a cool sexual thing and bestiality or noncon is fine. but actual genitalia "preferences" are bigoted. if you don't call the genderqueer person pansexual instead of bi they'll chew their own arm off and hit you with it and call the cops but don't say you're a female trans man or that you're a trans guy lesbian or link it to being a female homosexual in any way ever okay?! you can't be at peace with acknowledging your sex/agab as a trans person!!!! or feel a connection to lesbian spaces as a trans man or gay male spaces as a trans woman!!! that's BIGOTRY and that's just feeding terf cunts you dumb theyfab. you can't link your cis womanhood to being afab AT ALL either bc that's transmisogynistic and dangerous rhetoric but every other group of gender marginalized folks can define their own identities and have a billion microlabels. you can't say you're not into girldick because not all trans women have dicks dumbass, surgical vaginas are defo the exact same as bio vaginas anyway so if you only like afab pussy & afab bodies you're a gross pervert mocking bottom surgery. and someone's upbringing as a male/amab or female/afab person definitely isn't a huge part of why homosexual ppl are into the same-sex/agab so you shouldn't give a single shit if a transbian flirting with you hasn't grown up facing misogyny or going thru afab/female body struggles or any of that, that has NOTHING to do with lesbianism between female ppl and has no bearing whatsoever on attraction you absolute psychopath. sexes/agabs is just a mix of detached body parts and you can play mr potatohead with it all and if you glued it good enough homosexuals wouldn't be able to tell at all that he used to be a mrs potatohead!! so they'd still hit that, right? homosexuals will go for anything anyway right?? homosexual love obvs can't be any deeper than genitals and fetishes. amab4afab ppl can be homosexual too anyway if they pass as gay irl too so homosexual isn't even a real tangible thing anyways it doesn't involve sex/agab at all and those ppl don't get to be their own specific oppressed class and do their own activism and have agency over their own identity bc they're super privileged worldwide and the enby living as a gender conforming woman in society dating a neckbeard looking for a third is more oppressed than a visibly gnc crossdressing bio guy holding hands with his normie bf. they might be gay but they're not qweer... except to the rightwing ofc!! oh and if you're trans and recently started passing as straight you're more privileged than an afab4amab couple who has lived as hetero til they transitioned! so shut the fuck up and listen to the New Gays. don't call yourself homosexual anymore or you're a cis bootlicker and if you're transmasc you're oppressing every transfem, including ones who have never faced misogyny irl a day in their fucking life!!! just be valid the RIGHT WAY!!!!!! be more queer you dirty normie homo!!!!!!

HAHAH i love it here

[0-therw-0-rldly]

I’ll preface this by saying I’m not really a shipper. I just enjoy canon couples on TV Series/films.

Terms I’d like B*ddies to remove from their vocabulary because they don’t know how to use them correctly:

Media literacy: For a group that uses this term a lot you sure do misinterpret everything in this show.

Queerbaiting: Going to expand on this one. A show that’s already been pre established for having queer characters simply cannot queerbait.

Ship baiting: While sometimes you can argue that they could be doing that, that’s only if you look at the show in a very biased manner. You might think this is the case but the general audience doesn’t think the way you do.

Ship war: This isn’t a one tree hill situation where there was Team Brooke Vs. Team Peyton where the middle guy (Lucas Scott) had canonically been with both women. This is people not understanding fanon vs. canon and not being able to just watch the show. It’s like playing quarterback on Madden and thinking you could be better than Patrick Mahomes.

Plot device: everything’s a plot device. Move tf on.

Predator: You sound like crazy MAGA supporters calling everything regarding the LGBTQIA+ community as predatory. Sit down.

Co-parenting: I know this is a big one and discourse was brought up during the hiatus. Oliver and Ryan have loosely mentioned this years ago but it was never to be taken this seriously. Do y’all even know what co-parenting is or are you that big of a donut? Buck is someone who loves his best friend deeply and by extension, his kid too. Him taking care of him frequently does not make him a co-parent. Maybe he is a parental or uncle figure, but he isn’t a co-parent. Also, I swear y’all need to learn how a will works. He is a GODPARENT, not a GUARDIAN. Stfu.

Hag: This especially applies to women, but to say that someone 25-30+ is a hag for still being in fandoms or enjoying tv shows/films is inherently misogynistic. Men are never held to this much criticism for enjoying fictional media, but women aren’t allowed to?

Queer Coding: people of the same sex “looking at each other”, hugging, or having intimate moments all together doesn’t make them queer coded. It could mean that they just love each other that deeply platonically. While representation is amazing and just because you interpret a character as queer coded (just like my ship baiting comment) doesn’t mean others interpret it that way as well. In addition, network TV has stipulations, and also actors are allowed to decline storylines. Ryan has mentioned his character is heterosexual an abundance of times which means (at least for now) that he isn’t willing to go for this storyline.

Dead naming: Y’all construing the fact that Buck wants people like coworkers and some of his former love interests, to saying Evan is his dead name is inherently transphobic because do you even understand what a dead name is? Evan Buckley is shown as being fine with being called Evan by both Tommy and his sister. I’m pretty sure some of his love interests have called him Evan as well.

Fetishizing: You guys saw two hot guys who “looked at each other” and for 6 seasons have wanted nothing but to see those two make out with each other. Those of us who enjoy Tevan saw Buck giddy at the thought of Tommy and have wanted domestic fluff for them since.

Anything to do with racism, homophobia, and misogyny: I’ve seen the way you guys have conveniently weaponized Henren and by extension Aisha/Tracie when you didn’t get the Ryan/Oliver interview, don’t try to act like you’re morally superior. Not to mention wanting a canonically gay man to die in a show and not even holding those who use your ship name to write CSA fics accountable because you’re petty and want to throw hissy fits. Anyone looking at your comments as an outsider would think you’re homophobes and yes queer people can be homophobic.

I do hope you can expand your vocabulary. 🤍