#and queerness isn’t just for young people

[cressthebest]

every time someone draws aziraphale or crowley as young and not as middle aged men, it brings us a year closer to armageddon 2.0

[wanderingmausoleum]

most annoying thing i’ve been seeing online lately is ppl in the adhd/autistic communities posting benign relatable posts and being inundated with comments from neurotypicals being like ummm everyone does that and you’re literally promoting harmful self diagnosis :// stop acting like everything is a symptom and it takes all my power not to tell them to shut the fuck up because not everything is about you, is the audhd community not allowed to make funny relatable posts without you insufferable cuntbags assuming the worst and reading shit into it that was never meant to be there

[tippexdeluxe]

I don’t think younger me would be as opposed to current me as I think he would be. Like younger me was supporting furries and had such a ‘live and let live’ attitude that I’ve tried to uphold today that I think he would meet current me and think ‘yeah. That’s fair enough’.

And I like that thought a lot more than ‘young me would be disgusted by current me’ like yeah you’re growing but the idea that young me wouldn’t really understand but also wouldn’t mind is one I like. Young me would’ve worn a skort (and did) without a thought to it. Young me wore a dress one time like yeah going ‘oh I use they/them, she/her and he/him’ would be confusing but like understandable. Probably just a ‘that’s weird but okay you aren’t hurting anyone so I don’t care’

Just a thought really. Young me was chill in a world where nobody around me was.

[gently-decaying-flowers]

i literally just dropped my phone and rolled over with my head in my hands and kicked my feet

GODDDDD RRRHWHEHRHRHRJEJRHBSBWNENRBRJRRH

[cartridgeconverter]

STOP PUTTING THE FREAKING ELAGABALUS TRANSGENDER COMIC ON MY DASH.

Do you guys think it was a coincidence that every bad/commonly disliked Roman emperor was considered a sexual or societal deviant, in addition to being paranoid, violent, or insane? Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and, of course, Elagabalus all fall under this category. Of course a young emperor, especially those born and raised in luxury, is going to be unusually indulgent as well as bloodthirsty. But considering many Roman historians’ habit of labeling everyone they didn’t like as a pervert, I don’t have too much faith in this claim!

[yourheartinyourmouth]

older people are a hell of a lot more accepting than a lot of us give them credit for.

many of them don’t care if their children or grandchildren are different, they don’t care that they may not personally “get it”, they just want young people to be happy and healthy!!!

My 90yr old Irish Catholic grandpa doesn’t miss with my gender. He’s never gotten my name wrong, or my pronouns, never even faltered over it.

It’s all so natural too: son, big man, young man…

We’ve never talked about it. He’s the only one who hasn’t pushed for details. He just accepted it and carried on because it’s not a huge deal.

It’s so comforting.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

So I’m a minor (16 to be specific) and I frequently watch and read stuff with explicit sexual or 18+ content in it. I live in an extremely conservative Christian household and things like explicit fanfic are pretty much the only option I have for learning about sex that isn’t abstinence only. I do feel bad about it, especially when I see adults online say stuff like “oh i watched lots of inappropriate things as a teen that i really shouldn’t have” and it makes me feel like I’m ruining myself in a way that I won’t realize until I’m an adult? Right now I don’t see what the big deal is but i get the feeling that when i’m 24 or something I’ll wake up one day and be ashamed of this for some reason i’m not mature enough to know yet. Should I just stop and wait until I’m 18 to continue or what?

hi anon,

okay. I'm gonna hit you with something:

turning 18 does not actually change the way you feel about porn or sex or anything. the difference between being seventeen and 364 days and being 18 is nonexistent. there's not a magical switch that changes you as a person; that comes from lived experience. if you're 18 and your experience is still that porn and smut and what have you i something that you should feel bad about, it's still going to feel that way and a birthday won't change that.

look, the whole notion of "I saw [x] that I shouldn't have when I was young" is like. okay. so you saw something that was a little mature for you that you didn't quite get? awesome. did you die? no. most people's hangups about sexuality don't come from seeing a rogue titty when they were a teenager, they come from the culture that person was raised in that made seeing a rogue titty feel like something to be ashamed of instead of a completely natural part of life.

story time! when I teach my 4th-6th grade OWL classes (Our Whole Lives, great human development program) I always start by holding a meeting with the kids' parents. I've been doing this for seven years, and every time without fail some of the parents will recall seeing porn for the first time as a kid. these guys were kids when printed porn magazines were still a thing, so they were discovering them in all kinds of places - the bedrooms of their parents or their friends' parents, at bus stops, in the woods, once even stowed in some farm equipment. and they remember it feeling illicit and exciting, sure, and possibly making them confused or even horny for the first time in their young lives, but like... that's it. none of these people are irreparably damaged by seeing porn. in fact, they've grown up to be the kind of people who go out of their way to make sure their young kids are enrolled in a queer-friendly, body-positive, diversity-embracing sex ed class to counter stereotypes and misinformation they might receive elsewhere.

looking at things that arouse you is morally neutral. it can be a great way to help you learn about what turns you on, and even if it's not the best source of factual, realistic depictions of sex, it can still help you discover things - hell, I only figured out what the clitoris was by reading Young Justice fanfic (shout out Snaibsel).

you can't ruin yourself, at any age, with the media you like to consume. what makes you uncomfortable and anxious is the attitude you've been taught to have about that media, which is something that has to be actively unlearned, because it's certainly not going to just disappear on its own when you become a legal adult.

tl;dr obviously no one is making you watch porn and you shouldn't if it makes you uncomfortable, but if you drop it right now and come back when you're 18 don't expect to feel any different if you haven't done any more unpacking re: the conservative Christianity of it all.

[lizbetlovesbyler]

my biggest personal byler proof is just how much they remind me of my first queer relationship before we started dating

queer characters are incredibly easy to fuck over, even without intention. often spelled out or intensely sexualised to prevent misunderstandings for a mostly heterosexual audience, queer storylines are exaggerated and thus become unrealistic.

stranger things doesn’t do that with its queer characters. take robin:

this scene is done beautifully. genuinely beautifully.

robin admits her feelings for tammy and how she locked them away, not just because tammy didn’t like her back, but because she is a queer girl in the 80s. her feelings are unnatural and unwelcome in hawkins.

steve’s acceptance of robin in this scene makes people forget how horrifically this could have ended:

As for Mike and Will

you don’t write a perfect representation of mutual teenage queer pining between childhood friends by accident.

queer pining is quiet and suppressed (especially for young people and ESPECIALLY in the 80s). It is unhealthy to suppress these feelings the way queer people tend to, it’s beyond the typical “secret crushes” straight people experience. queer pining can destroy people when they’re not supported.

through robins character, and wills arc in season four, we can see clearly the duffer brothers understand the nature of queer love, and wish to do it justice.

will ending up with some random last minute jock is unrealistic and does not do his character justice.

mike staying in an insecure relationship, constantly worried his girlfriend will grow out of him and leave him, rather than accepting will’s unconditional love for him, accepting his own love for will and letting himself be who he is, does not do his character justice.

even so, if they tried to set up byler in a way that would come across clear to the GA, it would, by default, become unrealistic and unrepresentative.

neither are yet able to admit to close friends and family they are queer, but they are supposed to convey that part of themselves to an (understandably) dense/heteronormative mainstream audience?

queer teenage love is not the same as straight teenage love, it doesn’t shock me that the majority of the audience isn’t able to pick up on byler beyond wills feelings, and they’re not supposed to.

we all say what we see, they don’t see the queer love brewing because they’ve never experienced it, they’ve never been mike and they’ve never been will. they’ve been max and lucas and nancy, steve, jonathan, etc etc

doesn’t make their heteronormative perspective accurate, they are just straight. they understand will and mike the same they do lucas and dustin. mike says they are friends, they have no reason to think otherwise. they do not know what queer love actually looks like, the duffer brothers do. the actors do. we do.

you are not delusional. you are queer.

if byler was widely agreed upon at this point in the story, it would not be an accurate representation of queer romance. that is the point.

my moneys on the latter and they better get every award for it.

[isaacthedruid]

(spoilers for the Barbie movie)

As a trans-masc non-binary person, I saw myself in Allan. I’m a boy but not a Ken, I'm Ken-like but not quite.

Allan’s role of being awkward, unsure and a little out of his element but still trying to help the Barbies through the chaos and events caused by the Kens, is how I feel as a trans-masc person who is still trying to advocate for women and discuss the issues they face.

I don't identify as a woman anymore but I still grew up as a girl, I lived as a young woman for 14 years, and people continue to be misogynistic towards me when they think I am one-- customers will talk to my male coworkers instead of me, when I’m the person with the answers

I wasn’t expecting to see myself, in terms of gender, in the character often described as Ken’s boyfriend, though it is said in a more playful, joking way rather than any attempt at representation. I’m gay and this version of Allan is definitely queer as well. Yet, that’s a separate story which has already been written, here’s an excellent article about that. [LINK]

Allan isn’t Ken, and he isn’t Barbie either. Allan is simply Allan, an idea with both masc and femme traits. He doesn’t fit into anything specific, he just is. Allan can wear Ken’s clothes but also Barbie’s pink jumpsuit-- but when he's not doing that undercover mission with the Barbies, we only ever see him wearing his own clothes. A set of clothes worn only by him, that iconic striped outfit that is signature to the real Allan doll.

Additionally, notice the horse patch on the front of his shirt, he never changed his clothes unlike the rest of the Kens when they discovered the patriarchy and a new version of masculinity, a toxic and destructive one. Allan only added something to his clothes to “fit in” or act as if he did, but he hated what the Kens did to Barbieland. He also wasn't brainwashed and never acted upon those destructive abilities that were laid out for him. He could've just joined the Kens and broke stuff and drank copious amounts of "brewskis" but he didn't.

Allan is different and it's constantly stated, "there's only one Allan" in this world of Kens (and Barbies).

I will never be Ken nor will I ever be a Barbie again, I’m not happy in either. I’ve tried both, neither is my style (or title). I wear Ken’s clothes as well as Barbie’s, and sometimes I wear Allan’s.

But, I like Allan’s clothes best, they fit me well.

[codewitch]

Look the “being misgendered for having short hair” is slightly more common than just the dorms of a women’s college, it’s not a widespread issue but it’s an issue I encounter frequently within my own community (20-30something queers living in San Francisco/Oakland). You’ll encounter these issues in leftist enclaves like NYC, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle. Writing it off as PURELY something that happens in just a select few colleges is dismissive. And just because someone is having a localized issue (still localized within highly populated areas) that “could be worse” doesn’t mean they have an issue that is affecting them.

And for what it’s worth, when it happens I generally direct these discussions towards people within my own community but like what happens in smith college, or in my case uc Berkeley, does not always stay in smith college. I wish it did. Because there are even worse “leftist queer college issues” that do real harm to the community that have not stayed within dorm room walls. I am 30 years old and I haven’t spoken to college students in years I wish I didn’t have to deal with this stuff.

We for real for real for realsies have to popularize the term smith college problem . And normalize telling people they’re having a smith college problem . And if you’re always posting about smith college problems it is your duty to normalize going oh okay never mind once people tell you that you are smith college problem posting

[jacquesthepigeon]

I’m always wondering if it was better or worse for BBT and Young Sheldon creators to say that Sheldon is NOT on the spectrum. But then I see how they treat neurodivergence on shows like Miraculous, and go probably better they keep away from stuff they don’t understand.

I suspect what happened with Sheldon’s character is that they probably modeled him after people they either didn’t know or didn’t care were on the spectrum and by the time everyone was like “hey this guy is obviously autistic” they’d made fun of him too many times to suddenly claim being pioneers of sitcom neurodivergent representation without also having to accept responsibility for their past attitudes towards him

I do, however, think the red itchy sweater episode was fantastic in delivering a message regarding some forms of neurosis

As for ML, it is, at its core, a tell don’t show series. These characters are in love, are close friends, are good at X and Y, are passionate about this and that, hate Z, so on and so forth. We rarely learn about characters and happenstances through actions, to the point where very clear irrefutable events are verbally retconned by random characters and we’re supposed to accept what they say as canon over what we saw. It doesn’t matter if characters are noticeably queer, neurodivergent, good/bad at something, biased about certain people/subjects, struggling with XYZ, etc. If someone doesn’t outright state it, it isn’t canon. This is where the crew loves to claim brownie points for representation but doesn’t actually do anything that might upset the Suits and their bigotry. They have an ethnically diverse character lineup but they’re all perfectly assimilated to white french culture and rarely acknowledge their own supposed heritage. They criticize police abuse but have the victims apologize to their assailants. They have queer characters but their relationships are mostly implied off-screen so they have plausible deniability. They have kids whose parents are clearly mistreating them to the point of leaving lifelong scars and affecting their ability to become functional members of society but it’s obviously not abuse.

I swear there’s some kind of disconnect between the dialogue and the action lines on the script, like no one member of the crew knows what the other is doing and everything is just taped together at the end with no revisions

[maybe-boys-do-love]

It's wild that the whole global trend of gay-focused happy ending romance shows and movies has only been going on for *looks at calendar* a measly ten years!

Just ten years ago. 2014. That's when you get the discovery of a market for queer romance series and films with happy endings. That year the OG Love Sick in Thailand came out. Brazil puts out The Way He Looks, which deserves so much more credit than it receives for influencing the aeshtetics of the genre. Looking premieres on HBO, and although it had low ratings, it's an important touchstone. And, despite Nickelodeon’s censorship and shifting the program from tv to its website, the Legend of Korra confirms Korrasami in its season finale.

The next year, in 2015, we get Love Sick season 2, and China, pre-censorship laws has a few options: Happy Together (not the Wong Kar Wai one lol), Mr. X and I, and Falling In Love with a Rival. Canada, premieres Schitt's Creek. In the US, Steven Universe reveals Garnet as a romantic fusion between two female characters, and will proceed to just be so sapphic. Norwegian web series Skam premieres and sets up a gay protagonist for its third season, which will drop in 2016 and entirely change the global media landscape.

Then, 2016! This is the MOMENT. That aforementioned Skam season happens. Japan puts out the film version of Ossan's Love and anime series Yuri!!! on Ice. China has the impactful Addicted Heroine, which directly leads to increased censorship. The US has Moonlight come out and take home the Oscar. In Thailand, GMMTV enters the BL game and Thai BL explodes: Puppy Honey, SOTUS, Water Boyy, Make It Right, plus, the Thai Gay OK Bangkok, which, like its influence, Looking, is more in the queer tradition but introduces two dramatically important directors to the Thai BL industry, Aof and Jojo.

By 2017, Taiwan enters the game with its History series. Korea’s BL industry actually kicks off with Method and Long Time No See. Thailand’s got too many BLs to mention. Call Me By Your Name, though not a happy ending, makes a big splash that will send ripples through the whole genre, and God's Own Country offers a gruff counter-argument to problematic age differences and twink obsessions. This is also the year of Netflix reboot of One Day At a Time bringing some wlw to the screen, and the Disney Channel has a main character come out as ‘gay’ on Andi Mack ( I’m am ready to throw fists with anyone who thinks the Disney Channel aesthetic isn’t a part of current queer culture). And I'd be remiss not to mention the influential cult-following of chaotic web-series The Gay and Wondrous Life of Caleb Gallo: "Sometimes things that are expensive...are worse."

All this happened, and we hadn’t even gotten to Love, Simon, Elite, or ITSAY, yet.

Prior to all this there are some major precursors some of which signaled and primed a receptive market, others influenced the people who'd go on to create the QLs. Japan has a sputtering start in the 2010s with a few BL films (Takumi-Kun, Boys Love, and Jujoun Pure Heart). Most significantly in the American context, you have Glee, and its ending really makes way for the new era that can center gay young people in a world where queerness, due to easy access to digital information, is less novel to the characters. And the QL book and graphic novel landscape was way ahead of the television and film industries, directly creating many of the stories that the latter industries used.

There's plenty of the traditional queer media content (tragic melodramas and independent camp comedies) going on prior to and alongside QL, and there are some outlying queer romance films with happy endings that precede the era but feel very much akin to QL genre tropes and goals, many with a focus on postcolonial and multicultural perspectives (Saving Face, The Wedding Banquet, Big Eden, Maurice, My Beautiful Launderette, and Weekend). I don't mean to suggest that everything I’ve listed ought to be categorized as QL.

Rather, I want to point out how all of these new-era queer romance works are in a big queer global conversation together, in the creation of a new contemporary genre, a genre that has more capacity and thematic interest to include digital technology and normalize cross-cultural relationships than other genres (there's a reason fansubs and web platforms are so easily accepted and integrated to the proliferation of these series).

You're not too late to be part of the conversation. Imagine being alive in the 1960s and 70s and participating in the blossoming of the sci-fi genre. That flowering is where gay romance sits now. Join the party.

[apollos-boyfriend]

i get that it’s like. often young queer kids who are still really excited about recognizing other queer people. but i honestly get so tired of being called “gender” or “genderfuck” or whatever for just existing. me being someone who’s male-presenting in a dress isn’t a huge statement for me. i just like wearing dresses. and while logically i’m aware that what i do is in no way the norm, but it just gets so grating to have the constant reminder that my existence is Weird and Unnatural.

and again. it’s not the intent. these kids aren’t saying it with any malice or disrespect. but the inability to just exist without being made into a whole Spectacle is so so tiring

[writingwithcolor]

My alternate universe fantasy colonial Hong Kong is more authoritarian and just as racist but less homophobic than in real life, should I change that?

@floatyhands asked:

I’m a Hongkonger working on a magical alternate universe dystopia set in what is basically British colonial Hong Kong in the late 1920s. My main character is a young upper middle-class Eurasian bisexual man.  I plan to keep the colony’s historical racial hierarchy in this universe, but I also want the fantasy quirks to mean that unlike in real life history, homosexuality was either recently decriminalized, or that the laws are barely enforced, because my boy deserves a break. Still, the institutions are quite homophobic, and this relative tolerance might not last. Meanwhile, due to other divergences (e.g. eldritch horrors, also the government’s even worse mishandling of the 1922 Seamen's Strike and the 1925 Canton-Hong Kong Strike), the colonial administration is a lot more authoritarian than it was in real history. This growing authoritarianism is not exclusive to the colony, and is part of a larger global trend in this universe.  I realize these worldbuilding decisions above may whitewash colonialism, or come off as choosing to ignore one colonial oppression in favor of exaggerating another. Is there any advice as to how I can address this issue? (Maybe I could have my character get away by bribing the cops, though institutional corruption is more associated with the 1960s?) Thank you!

Historical Precedent for Imperialistic Gay Rights

There is a recently-published book about this topic that might actually interest you: Racism And The Making of Gay Rights by Laurie Marhoefer (note: I have yet to read it, it’s on my list). It essentially describes how the modern gay rights movement was built from colonialism and imperialism. 

The book covers Magnus Hirschfeld, a German sexologist in the early 1900s, and (one of) his lover(s), Li Shiu Tong, who he met in British Shanghai. Magnus is generally considered to have laid the groundwork for a lot of gay rights, and his research via the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft was a target of Nazi book-burnings, but he was working with imperial governments in an era where the British Empire was still everywhere. 

Considering they both ended up speaking to multiple world leaders about natural human sexual variation both in terms of intersex issues and sexual attraction, your time period really isn’t that far off for people beginning to be slightly more open-minded—while also being deeply imperialist in other ways.

The thing about this particular time period is homosexuality as we know it was recently coming into play, starting with the trial of Oscar Wilde and the rise of Nazism. But between those two is a pretty wildly fluctuating gap of attitudes.

Oscar Wilde’s trial is generally considered the period where gay people, specifically men who loved men, started becoming a group to be disliked for disrupting social order. It was very public, very scandalous, and his fall from grace is one of the things that drove so many gay and/or queer men underground. It also helped produce some of the extremely queercoded classical literature of the Victorian and Edwardian eras (ex: Dracula), because so many writers were exploring what it meant to be seen as such negative forces. A lot of people hated Oscar Wilde for bringing the concept to such a public discussion point, when being discreet had been so important.

But come the 1920s, people were beginning to wonder if being gay was that bad, and Mangus Hirschfeld managed to do a world tour of speaking come the 1930s, before all of that was derailed by wwii. He (and/or Li Shiu Tong) were writing papers that were getting published and sent to various health departments about how being gay wasn’t an illness, and more just an “alternative” way of loving others. 

This was also the era of Boston Marriages where wealthy single women lived together as partners (I’m sure there’s an mlm-equivalent but I cannot remember or find it). People were a lot less likely to care if you kept things discreet, so there might be less day to day homophobia than one would expect. Romantic friendships were everywhere, and were considered the ideal—the amount of affection you could express to your same-sex best friend was far above what is socially tolerable now.

Kaz Rowe has a lot of videos with cited bibliographies about various queer disasters [affectionate] of the late 1800s/early 1900s, not to mention a lot of other cultural oddities of the Victorian era (and how many of those attitudes have carried into modern day) so you can start to get the proper terms to look it up for yourself.

I know there’s a certain… mistrust of specifically queer media analysts on YouTube in the current. Well. Plagiarism/fact-creation scandal (if you don’t know about the fact-creation, check out Todd in the Shadows). I recommend Kaz because they have citations on screen and in the description that aren’t whole-cloth ripped off from wikipedia’s citation list (they’ve also been published via Getty Publications, a museum press). 

For audio-preferring people (hi), a video is more accessible than text, and sometimes the exposure to stuff that’s able to pull exact terms can finally get you the resources you need. If text is more accessible, just jump to the description box/transcript and have fun. Consider them and their work a starting place, not a professor. 

There is always a vulnerability in learning things, because we can never outrun our own confirmation bias and we always have limited time to chase down facts and sources—we can only do our best and be open to finding facts that disprove what we researched prior.

Colonialism’s Popularity Problem

Something about colonialism that I’ve rarely discussed is how some colonial empires actually “allow” certain types of “deviance” if that deviance will temporarily serve its ends. Namely, when colonialism needs to expand its territory, either from landing in a new area or having recently messed up and needing to re-charm the population.

By that I mean: if a fascist group is struggling to maintain popularity, it will often conditionally open its doors to all walks of life in order to capture a greater market. It will also pay its spokespeople for the privilege of serving their ends, often very well. Authoritarians know the power of having the token supporter from a marginalized group on payroll: it both opens you up directly to that person’s identity, and sways the moderates towards going “well they allow [person/group] so they can’t be that bad, and I prefer them.”

Like it or not, any marginalized group can have its fascist members, sometimes even masquerading as the progressives. Being marginalized does not automatically equate to not wanting fascism, because people tend to want fascist leaders they agree with instead of democracy and coalition building. People can also think that certain people are exaggerating the horrors of colonialism, because it doesn’t happen to good people, and look, they accept their friends who are good people, so they’re fine. 

A dominant fascist group can absolutely use this to their advantage in order to gain more foot soldiers, which then increases their raw numbers, which puts them in enough power they can stop caring about opening their ranks, and only then do they turn on their “deviant” members. By the time they turn, it’s usually too late, and there’s often a lot of feelings of betrayal because the spokesperson (and those who liked them) thought they were accepted, instead of just used.

You said it yourself that this colonial government is even stricter than the historical equivalent—which could mean it needs some sort of leverage to maintain its popularity. “Allowing” gay people to be some variation of themselves would be an ideal solution to this, but it would come with a bunch of conditions. What those conditions are I couldn’t tell you—that’s for your own imagination, based off what this group’s ideal is, but some suggestions are “follow the traditional dating/friendship norms”, “have their own gender identity slightly to the left of the cis ideal”, and/or “pretend to never actually be dating but everyone knows and pretends to not care so long as they don’t out themselves”—that would signal to the reader that this is deeply conditional and about to all come apart. 

It would, however, mean your poor boy is less likely to get a break, because he would be policed to be the “acceptable kind of gay” that the colonial government is currently tolerating (not unlike the way the States claims to support white cis same-sex couples in the suburbs but not bipoc queer-trans people in polycules). It also provides a more salient angle for this colonial government to come crashing down, if that’s the way this narrative goes.

Colonial governments are often looking for scapegoats; if gay people aren’t the current one, then they’d be offered a lot more freedom just to improve the public image of those in power. You have the opportunity to have the strikers be the current scapegoats, which would take the heat off many other groups—including those hit by homophobia.

In Conclusion

Personally, I’d take a more “gays for Trump” attitude about the colonialism and their apparent “lack” of homophobia—they’re just trying to regain popularity after mishandling a major scandal, and the gay people will be on the outs soon enough.

You could also take the more nuanced approach and see how imperialism shaped modern gay rights and just fast-track that in your time period, to give it the right flavour of imperialism. A lot of BIPOC lgbtqa+ people will tell you the modern gay rights movement is assimilationalist, colonialist, and other flavours of ick, so that angle is viable.

You can also make something that looks more accepting to the modern eye by leaning heavily on romantic friendships that encouraged people waxing poetic for their “best friends”, keeping the “lovers” part deeply on the down low, but is still restrictive and people just don’t talk about it in public unless it’s in euphemisms or among other same-sex-attracted people because there’s nothing wrong with loving your best friend, you just can’t go off and claim you’re a couple like a heterosexual couple is.

Either way, you’re not sanitizing colonialism inherently by having there be less modern-recognized homophobia in this deeply authoritarian setting. You just need to add some guard rails on it so that, sure, your character might be fine if he behaves, but there are still “deviants” that the government will not accept. 

Because that’s, in the end, one of the core tenants that makes a government colonial: its acceptance of groups is frequently based on how closely you follow the rules and police others for not following them, and anyone who isn’t their ideal person will be on the outs eventually. But that doesn’t mean they can’t have a facade of pretending those rules are totally going to include people who are to the left of those ideals, if those people fit in every other ideal, or you’re safe only if you keep it quiet.

~ Leigh

[missbliss12]

Just letting you know, there's an anon going around messaging people that you ship a child with their caretaker and urging them to reconsider interacting with your posts

Thank you to the anon who messaged me about this, and thank you to the anon who is unhappily engaging with my work! As a fine artist, comic artist, and person who likes to think about culture, stories, and history, I’ve been wanting to write about the Dynamic Duo for a while. This is a good opportunity for getting those various drafts together. And for anyone who’s curious about DC comic dynamics and likes, like me, to play with comics… I hope this can be an interesting little read into the various ways of reading Batman and Robin, and why one might choose to engage in a queer reading of “Brudick.”

Bruce and Dick: Father and Son, Brothers in Arms, Partners Fighting Crime

First, Bruce and Dick can certainly be read as “Father and Son.” There are several Dynamic Duo stories from various decades that do this, some of which I quite enjoy.  

Like in Batman Vol. 1, No. 20 (1944), where Bruce has to fight Dick’s corrupt blood relations to retain guardianship of his almost son/best friend.

And in writer Tom Taylor, artist Bruno Redondo, colorist Adriano Lucas, and co.’s Nightwing comics, including Nightwing Vol. 4, No. 100 (2023).

But “Father and Son” isn’t their only definitive relationship.  

Dick wasn’t adopted by Bruce at first for logistical reasons inside and outside of text (the difficulties of single men adopting kids during the 40s, when Batman and Robin was first published, for example.) There are comics that describe them as brothers for example, including when Dick first leaves to attend university as a young man and when he dons the Batman cowl after Bruce “dies.”

Batman & Robin Vol. 1, No. 7 (2009) by Grant Morrison, Cameron Stewart, and co.

Batman Vol. 1, No. 217 (1969), by Irv Novick, Dick Giordano, and Frank Robbins.

(Said vow of manliness was then followed up by Dick crying like a heartbroken heroine of a 1960s romance comic.)

Young Romance No. 125 (1963)

Dick and Bruce have even, on significant occasions, denied being father and son (though one could choose to read that as the first step of a cautious, tsundere journey towards patrilineal bonds)

Batman Vol. 1, No. 439 (1989), by Marv Wolfman, Pat Broderick, Adrienne Roy, and co.

The bond that Bruce asserts with Dick in this compelling story is based not on him replacing Dick’s parents, but on bonding with him as a similarly traumatized and wounded child.

This resonates with the words of David Mazzuchelli, fantastic mainstream and indie comic artist behind Batman: Year One. In the “Afterwords” section of Year One, Mazzuchelli describes the pair as being a pair of innocent, un-sexed twelve-year-old boys (Bruce mentally) who connect as best friends pretending to be heroes. 

(Take a look at Austin Kleon’s blog for the full post where this comes from – all photo credits to him)

This reading of the Dynamic Duo who are mainly partners, fighting against the crime that destroyed their parents, vibes with Darwyn Cooke’s beautifully rendered DC: The New Frontier (2004).

As Batman explains, they are “two lost souls who found each other”... romantic, no?

2. Bruce and Dick: Romantic Partners

With all the various interpretations of Bruce and Dick over the decades, from the perspectives of various writers and artists, there is also room for a romantic reading. Not just the comic panels taken out of context and spoofed on the internet. From this Reddit post… 

…To “A Brief History of Dick: Unpacking the gay subtext of Robin, the Boy Wonder”, a great summary by Glen Weldon, author of The Caped Crusade: Batman and the Rise of Nerd Culture. The comics themselves are ripe for various – *eh-hem* – creative readings and misinterpretations.  

Canon Jokes about Batman and Robin’s Relationship

But Bruce and Dick’s ambiguous relationship is also referenced in DC’s canon comics, like World's Finest Year 6: The Imp-Possible Dream (1999) by Karl Kesel, Peter Doherty, and Robert Campanella.

By aligning Dick with Lois Lane, damsel in distress, DC’s officially published comics pokes at the stability of a purely platonic father and son relationship between the Dynamic Duo.

Then there are the much more disturbing jokes from the Joker in Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (1989) by Grant Morrison and Dave McKean. 

Joker makes plenty of insinuations about Batman’s mental wellness and his attraction to a Robin. Queerness as pathological isn’t new to Batman – it’s embodied in the Joker, a lipstick and acrylic-wearing man obsessed with another man. Joker not only evokes drag queens; in Batman: The Dark Prince Charming (2017-2018) by Enrico Marini, he even dresses as one.

It’s easy to forget the Joker’s queerness with Heath Ledger’s highly popular elemental Joker, Joaquin Phoenix’s sad boy follow-up, and the heterosexual, Harley Quinn-touting Joker of the Batman animations. But I think Joker has lasted – and surpassed Robin in popularity – because Robin was a good boy who was scandalously attached to gay jokes while Joker was a bad guy, who one, historically, could easily accept as being evil.

And then Robin became the Joker.

Like Sin City, Frank Miller’s infamous Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again is a testosterone and titty fueled extravaganza. And it makes Dick a Joker mutant targeting Bruce’s new sidekick, former female Robin, current lovely Catgirl, Carrie Kelly. A side-by-side comparison shows who is more desirable and healthy amongst them.

Dick envies Carrie, going so far as plotting to steal her body by skinning her alive. 

It’s not a good look on Dick. It is also sad, twisted, and one of the most fascinating ways Frank Miller could have acknowledged Dick’s mixed cultural legacy within DC published comic (even one set in an alternate universe). Here is a panel of Dick declaring his wicked love, driving Bruce to (lover’s) suicide.  

So there is room for laughable and sick interpretations of romantic Brudick. Now let’s take a look at a healthier option for these not-quite lovers, enemies, partners, and family members.

3. Batman’s (and Robin’s) Queer Liberation: Fredric Wertham, Feminism, and Kevin Conroy

I’m personally captivated by a romantic reading of Bruce and Dick. Stories revolve around conflict and that poses A LOT OF PROBLEMS. It also has led to plentiful interesting fanart and fanfiction that tries to make sense of decades of stories with a cohesive narrative. While there’s plenty of porn (which, no anti is entitled to shame others about), it also involves strangely compelling coming-of-age stories that few other slash pairings can inspire.  

Also, Bruce and Dick’s queer potential is really important for Western comics history – it’s part of what Fredric Wertham M.D. took comics to task for in the 1950s, leading to a (flawed) study, a Senate Hearing, censorship and comic codes, as well as the creation of family friendly female characters! Wertham clearly read the comics as queer – and that still holds currency for other LGBTQIA comics fans who see themselves in Batman and Robin. 

Excerpts from pg. 190 of Fredric Wertham’s Seduction of the Innocent (1954):

Wertham also accuses Wonder Woman and her friends of loving women to the detriment of men on page 193:

DC superhero media has a history of deviant queerness – to say no is to deny an important facet of comics history. 

Mining said queerness can give room for female characters to be more than objects of men’s violence/sexual objectification. One of my favorite Batgirl comics gets Batgirl away from Dick Grayson, putting her on her own journey of friendship, love, and self-fulfillment in the capable hands of Babs Tarr.

From Batgirl, Vol. 4, No. 40 (2015):

Other female characters who have flourished when given the ability to be more than love interests include Batgirl’s bestie, Supergirl, in Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (2021-2022) by Tom King, Bilquis Everly, and co.

Superhero stories are so big, full of questions about what makes a person moral and how/whether they can ever truly belong. Do stories that play with Bruce and Dick as romantic connect to those ideas? They certainly do.

And, as we see from the autobiographical comic of Kevin Conroy, iconic voice of various animated Bat-men, these questions and deviations can enrich our superhero stories too. Excerpts below from “Finding Batman” by Kevin Conroy, J. Bone, and Aditya Bidikar, published in DC Pride 2022.

The Batman and Robin stories are so strange, plentiful, and varied – there’s room for various interpretations, none of them “wrong.” 

If the anon who’s messaging other social media users to stop looking at my art wants to tackle issues like child exploitation, or if they want to support girls and women who are in danger of incest or rape, they can donate and spread awareness of organizations like Save The Children, Planned Parenthood, and others using ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer.

And for wholesome DC comic recs with gals of color, I recommend DC comics like Diana and Nubia: Princesses of the Amazon (2022) by Shannon Hale, Dean Hale, and Victoria Ying and Girl Taking Over: A Lois Lane Story (2023) by Sarah Kuhn and Arielle Jovellanos. My twin collaborator and I are also working on stories that tackle superheroines and intersectional feminism – stories which criss-cross with our platonic and romantic Brudick stories!  

[pigfartsviatardis]

Was discussing queerbaiting recently with a friend because we’re watching Once Upon A Time (trash, but shockingly well written trash in the first 3 seasons) and obs we both ship swan queen. I mean. Come on.

But we noticed that from the start of s3 onwards, there was noticeably less shippy stuff between these two. There’s still a bit here and there because a) lesbian mums and b) chemistryyyy… but it felt like the writers were intentionally backing off from that pairing and putting genuine effort into the male love interests for both characters.

You might think that becalming the swan queen ship would have annoyed or disappointed my friend and myself, the shippers. But tbh we both agreed that it was actually nice to see a writing team see a popular queer fandom ship, go ‘oh whoops that’s not endgame’, and actively NOT bait it.

Obviously everyone here is aware of the Golden Age Of Queerbaiting, the late 2000s/early 2010s; even if you’re too young to have actually battled through it, it’s deep tumblr lore. We all know the repeat and egregious offenders from that time - destiel, merthur, johnlock, whatever the main one was on teen wolf - and how gleefully these shows would dangle queer rep in front of our twitching little noses.

Recently, I’ve noticed a more insidious trend: the Male Friendship Scarcity Myth. The most glaring recent examples are nandermo (WWDITS) and jayvik (arcane), both of which were popular ships after the first season(s) of their shows aired and were subsequently given increased screen time and shippy scenes/storylines. In the case of nandermo, the romantic feelings (at least from Guillermo) were textual. Both pairings were given ambiguous endings where they were together, but not confirmed as, yknow, together.

And then both showrunners, after the shows ended, decided to step up to the mic and give a heartfelt little speech along the lines of ‘men are allowed to be friends without it being sexual, and it’s actually really important that we show this, because we need more representation of close platonic brotherly male friendship in media’.

Anyone who was around during the aforementioned Golden Age Of Queerbaiting, or in fact anyone who consumes popular media at all, knows that this is horseshit.

It’s only ever close platonic brotherly male friendship. Or at least, 95% of the time. Everywhere you look, from major fandom shows to mcu movies, platonic male relationships are often front and centre. That’s nearly always the canon. How often does a major mlm ship actually go canon??? Hardly ever. Even destiel didn’t; cas’s feelings were confirmed last minute, but the official canon dynamic between him and dean is still brotherly bffs.

Are these friendships often the subject of intense fandom shipping? Yes, as literally any close relationship between any two characters of any gender always will be. People like shipping! But the official canon, and the gospel truth held up by poorly disguised homophobes in fandom, is nearly always strictly platonic bros.

Anyway. All this to say, I’ve been disillusioned recently seeing this myth pop up in every comments section on any jayvik-related content, that we have a lack of male friendship in media (we don’t, we have a lack of male friendship that isn’t queer coded to super turbo gay hell and back in media). I was even more disillusioned seeing the exact same rhetoric being spewed by those involved with WWDITS, which is ironically a show jam packed full of close male friendships THAT INVOLVE CASUAL SEX. The call was truly coming from inside the coffin on that one.

So, unexpectedly and somewhat depressingly, swan queen and OUAT have been a balm for the soul in the midst of all this. No queerbaiting (at least not where I’m up to), just good old fashioned straightwashing. At least it’s honest 🤷‍♀️