#anti bi is wrong

[gnometa233]

Oh? Someone who thinks that trans men can be lesbians/lesbians can like binary men also thinks that incest is hot? Fork found in kitchen they all run in the same crowd

[musclesandhammering]

True that bi characters in m/f pairings are valid, but like…

Are we just going to ignore the fact that tv writers in the last 10 or so years have figured out that they can continue to pander to homophobes and simultaneously get queer rep brownie points by never showing any actual queer content at all, having a character in 52 different m/f relationships, never once alluding to them being into same sex stuff… and then just giving a one sentence easily-edited-out vague confirmation of them being bisexual?

You guys are so starved for any confirmed queer rep at all that you’re perfectly happy letting film companies get away with this shit and it’s frustrating as hell honestly.

[buddieinmybeddie]

People who only like and support ONE ship and go around sending hate to other ships/shippers are so weird , I as a multi shipper cannot understand..

I love to explore the dynamics my favorites would have with other characters, there are of course ships I don't like but I'm not gonna go around hating on them who DO like them for no reason

[honeylemony]

Post: lesbian erotica, for lesbians, says men do not interact, says specifically for lesbians

Replies: FTM here, what if I was involved 😜

[josephquinncurl]

Eddie Munson is a loser dramatic metalhead outcast judged for dressing a certain way and liking d&d. He is sweet and loud and a bit clumsy and a flirt and a hero. And I love all parts of him. His past and his persistence in graduating, the way he stayed true to himself through it all, how he sacrificed himself for Dustin cause he wanted his sheep's to be save and how much he cared about hellfire and corroded coffin. All of that is why I love the character. Him being so open sincere and safe with Chrissy despite what everyone thought of him was so important for the character for us to see him be flirty vulnerable and sweet like that. I have never and will never care about ships. And him being straight or bi is the least important part to me about his story. If you want to relate to him through that side then I get it but to me canon Eddie is and always will be perfect. And for the writers and Joseph Eddie likes girls that's as much as we know. And if this book is about him finding another person like him who he can relate to and that happens go be a women then that's great. I think some of you need to understand that what you want from a character is not what the writers and actors have in mind. And dont be upset when that doesn't reach the expectations you have over fanfics and headcanons.

[sakuratruther]

it’s so sad that sakura and sasuke relationship is so overlooked by the fandom. i’m not talking specifically about romantic relationship, before everything they were friends; sasuke thinks of both her & naruto when he thinks of bonds, but for some antis (that are mostly sns shippers, sorry to say) it’s canon that sasuke doesn’t give a shit about sakura when?? it’s not true?? and because of association problems of The Brain i can’t stand sns anymore. i think both sns and ss incapsulate naruto’s themes. and even though i love sasusaku so much i think that they all should be together, in a weird toxic polyclue because they are each other’s family. and y’all leaving sakura out of it makes me wonder if you even read the thing throughly

[lastoneout]

*grabbing young queer people by the shoulders* listen to me. radical feminism is inherently transphobic. you cannot rehabilitate it or reclaim it or make it trans inclusive, I don't care what the people on twitter who claim to be authorities on queerness say. the foundation of radical feminism is nothing but bio and gender essentialism and biphobia and aphobia and anti-kink rhetoric and intersexism and yes, misogyny. it does not offer a future, not for bi people, aroace people, sex workers, not for kinksters, or intersex people, cis women, or trans people regardless of gender and you should care about those people. it will never result in queer liberation because it is an ideology of exclusion and hatred. you gain nothing by buying into the idea that half the population is evil by birth or by transition. you gain nothing by acting like women are perpetual victims who can't think for themselves and are tainted by their association with men. being a man or being attracted to them is not a sin. if we truly want to stand a chance of dismantling the patriarchy we actually NEED men on our side especially marginalized men. they are our allies.

the problem with terfs is not just transphobia, it never was, the radical feminism is also so unbelievably harmful. you cannot save it and it will not save you, stop drawing lines between queer people and join hands with them instead. remove people who are actually harmful, not innocent people who happen to have the wrong sexuality or gender or job. we get there together or we don't get there at all. we need each other now more than ever. do not listen to those who seek to divide us even if they are queer. we all deserve so much better than the hell radical feminism pretends is a liberated future.

I do not blame anyone who fell prey to this rhetoric, I know it feels good to have a common enemy and lash out at those you think are siding with them however they do it, but men, especially marginalized men, are not your enemies. and it's never too late to realize that and change for the better.

[nymph1e]

On Discomfort and Morality

My father finds gay men uncomfortable.

He's told me before that it's like a knee-jerk for him. Something he doesn't consciously control. He sees two men behaving romantically, and his body reacts with mild discomfort.

In the 1960s, when he was in high school, most of the boys in his form thought he was gay on the simple fact that he wasn't homophobic. He wouldn't participate in insulting queer people, he didn't care if someone was gay, he wouldn't have a problem hanging out with gay people. So people thought he was gay. That's how prevalent homophobia was in his formative years.

When I was 10, my dad told me very seriously that Holmes and Watson were gay. That it was obvious from the literature and the time period that they were meant to be a gay couple. When I was 14 and I came out to my parents as bi, when my mum was upset my dad ripped into her for it. Told her that she was being stupid, that it was my life to live how I wanted to and that she needed to get over herself.

My dad formed my views on censorship: that being that it was completely ridiculous and thoroughly evil. He didn't believe in censorship of any kind. If I asked him a question about sex, he answered it honestly. When I was 12 and I asked him about homosexuality, still young and uncertain, he told me that there was nothing wrong with it. That it was just how some people were. That there was likely an evolutionary reason for it. And that for some people it was uncomfortable on an instinctual level.

He taught me that just because you're uncomfortable with something, doesn't make it wrong. He also taught me that most people don't understand this.

I see a lot of this on the internet as of the last few years. The anti shipping movement, the terf movement, the anti ace movement. It all stems from discomfort that people have crossed wires into believing means wrong. Really every -ism and -phobia out there stems from this same fundamental aspect of humanity.

The next time you see something and you automatically think it's disgusting, or wrong, or immoral, I invite you to ask yourself: is this actually wrong or does this just make me uncomfortable?

[original-username42]

I'm so sick of queer spaces being so heavily anti religion to a comical degree. We always preach intersectionality or to look at nuance but then when religion is brought up it's all black and white "hur dur religion bad, you're bad because religion all religious people are going out in the streets murdering trans people and eating gay babies" like do none of us see the irony here? I'm trans, bi and religious and I've gotten hate for it but since I'm a pagan I get less hate than I've seen trans Christians or Muslims get. Not everyone who is religious is bigoted, not every religious person is the strawman in your head. Religion is not inherently bigoted, most of the time the stuff actual bigoted religious people use as justification for bigotry is mistranslations or blatantly wrong interpretations of religious texts. I'm not trying to convert anyone to any religion I'm just begging other queer folk to stop being hypocrites and to stop harassing other queer people for being religious

[icarusxxrising]

If you were someone who was anti-Ace during Ace Discourse and anti-Neopronouns/Xenogenders during Neo/Xeno Discourse and anti-Nonbinary during Nonbinary Discourse, but you've now accepted those things, except now you're Anti-Bi Lesbian, then you never learned why what you were doing was wrong and simply followed the crowd.

You still have internalized phobias that you never addressed, you still have issues regarding controlling other people's queer experiences, and until you actually and genuinely sit back and realize WHY being Anti-Ace, Anti-Neos/Xenos, Anti-Nonbinary etc. Was wrong, you are always going to be the bigot in the community. Learn self introspection, learn why you continued to be against queer identities you didn't understand, or you will always find yourself on the wrong side of the goalpost, and you will never grow.

Take a second to think about an argumentative sentence you've used and replace "bi lesbian" with any other queer identity you used to hate and you'll realize that at the root of it all, it's the same queerphobia but with a new subject to target.

[apollosimps]

I’ve noticed a lot of similarities between biphobia, aphobia, and anti-transmasculinity in the queer community.

Outside of our circles, most hardcore bigots don’t really care what flavor of gay you are, so they tend to group everyone together into a giant “degenerate” or “sexual deviant” pile. In high school (particularly freshman year), I was a cringey Shapiro and SJW cringe compilation watcher and let me tell you: they didn’t care which letter in “LGBTQ” you identified with. You were either trying to destroy the human race with your queerness, or you were hopping on a 'trend' (or both!)

Biphobia and aphobia are linked in that most of the identity-specific comments will come from in-group members---lesbians and gays, trans people too. When it comes from members of the queer community, they both rely on the assumption that bi people and aro/ace people can simply assimilate into our cishet, amatonormative society without push back, which simply isn't the case. Under transandrophobia lies the assumption that all trans men will eventually be perceived as cis men and have the privilege that entails, and that they will assimilate easily too. Also very wrong.

Radfems, trans inclusive or no, find the idea of trans men uncomfortable because it breaks apart their idea of men vs. women--the non-oppressed vs. the oppressed. They can't understand that you can hurt others while also being hurt yourself.

There's this inherent sense of entitlement with these groups, that if you can assimilate, if you aren't oppressed, if you aren't clocked on the street, then you cannot be queer and you don't belong here. That's what I think ties biphobia, aphobia, and transandrophobia together in my mind.

A friend of mine said that she found the idea that you have to be oppressed to be queer very depressing. I completely agree. Bi people, aspecs, and transmascs absolutely experience oppression and pushback, especially specific to their identity---but, that doesn't define us!

Queerness can be horror. It can be debilitating. It can be heartbreaking. But it can also be joyful and powerful. We shouldn't gatekeep the community based on whether or not our experiences reflect oppression or not.

[imagopirateversion]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales; Why It Shouldn’t Exist

Or how I invested time and energy into an analysis of a relatively dead franchise instead of doing it for my actual media analysis university course.

An essay by: a bitter and obsessed PotC fan since they were 7, with a lot of free time.

Lads, this is going to be long. You have been warned.

The Beginning

At the very beginning of the movie, we see a young Henry Turner looking for his dad.

Now, we're not talking about characterization problems or how likely it is that a ten-year-old child would risk his life to look for a man he technically only saw once; we're talking about plot problems, actual logical fallacies. My questions are:

How? The Flying Dutchman is a legendary ship, impossible to be found unless She wants to be found. The only reason we see Her in Dead Man's Chest is because Davy Jones himself is looking for Jack to collect his debt, and in that occasion the Dutchman's captain wasn't even doing what he was supposed to do, so he was most definitely in the living world. Will otherwise, he's doing the job Calypso gave him, so he's constantly in between. Is the movie trying to convince me that a kid was able to do something no one in the history of piracy was ever able to do? And even if he did, why hasn't anyone explained me how? He simply looks at a map and throws himself on the bottom of the ocean. How did he know The Dutchman was there? How did he know it would've come to surface?

Where is his mom? We got to know Elizabeth in the first three movies; we know she's a smart woman and we can assume she's an attentive mother. She didn't notice her son preparing himself for a trip in the middle of the ocean to go look for his dad? Was she distracted? Was she outsmarted by a 10ish-year-old? Or is she just not contemplated in this scenario?

Why does Will look like that? Will is doing his job, so... why does he look like he's slowly corrupting? That kind of corruption is the punishment Calypso reserves to The Dutchman's crew when the captain fails her, which isn't the case. Did they forget about it? Was the idea of putting algae on Orlando Bloom's face just impossible to resist to?

Alright, this isn't actually from this movie but it's bothering me, so I have to write it; also, it would make this whole movie unnecessary, so it's somehow related to it. Why (and I can't stress this enough) can't Elizabeth be on the Dutchman? Why can't they do the job together? Is it because she's not a pirate? I'm pretty sure se actually is. Is it because she's a woman? Last time I checked she was the KING. She wants to stay with Will forever, Will wants to stay with her forever, they can literally live forever on the same ship. Why aren't they?

Whatever the Hell Happened to Jack Sparrow

Imagine creating a character that is so iconic whenever you ask a person who was a kid in the early 2000 to imagine a pirate, they imagine said character.

Now imagine fourteen years pass and you decide to ruin that character by making him the most hideous, annoying, idiotic person in the whole saga, and we're talking about a saga that has Philip the Missionary in it. Why? Jack Sparrow is THE anti-hero. Never on the right side, but never on the wrong one. You can tell he's doing something morally questionable, but you still find yourself rooting for him. He's stupid enough to make you laugh, but he's secretly clever enough to always get away with it. Now he's just... drunk. And that's not even an excuse for this horrendous new characterization, because he was always drunk. The guy FORGOT HE WAS ROBBING A BANK, the same guy just one movie earlier was able to escape from the King of England's palace and steal a lady's earring (by pretending to be a literal slut) in the process. He just switched from the iconic drunk bi bestie everyone loves to my cringe uncle that drinks too much at Christmas parties and makes everyone uncomfortable. Please, if the risk is ruining an entire generation's beloved character, either don't make the movie or find a better explanation than "Bad luck dogs you day and night".

The Pearl in The Bottle

So... what you're telling me is that Jack Sparrow, the guy who was able to defeat Hector Barbossa, Davy Jones and Blackbeard thanks to his slyness, and who loves his Black Pearl more than anything else in the world, had said ship in a bottle in his pockets for FIVE YEARS... and he never thought about breaking the bottle to free Her. That's what you're telling me. This is the pivotal point upon which the entire Jack's plot hinges. I... I don't even know what to say. Was this supposed to be funny?

What an Incredibly Lucky Coincidence

A guy needs a treasure to save his father. To find it, he needs the help of a notorious and legendary pirate. He looks for him everywhere, sailing on dozens of ships just so he has the remote chance to stumble across the pirate. The last ship he's been on has sinked, he's the only survivor. He's been found in the middle of the ocean and someone brought him to the nearest city. Which city? I mean, the one that has both the pirate he was looking for and a lady who's the only person in the whole planet who's able to find the treasure he was looking for! And, oh my... he finds the both of them! In that same city! Without even LOOKING FOR THEM! A hell of a coincidence, if you ask me. Also known as lazy writing.

What's Wrong With the Guards?

Now, I know Pirates of the Caribbean isn't exactly known for its accurate historical reconstructions, but why are the guards in this movie acting like they're some sort of hellhounds ready to kill anyone in sight? Even pirates and traitors as Jack and Henry were supposed to stand trial before being sentenced to death. It would've probably been an unjust and barbaric trial, but there should've been one. We literally saw it, in the previous movie. Why's Jack been sentenced to death for simply existing here? He gave pirate vibes and they decided that was enough?

Paul McCartney

This is not an actual point of the analysis, I just wanted to remind people that Paul McCartney is in this movie and that's the only valid reason to watch it.

Salazar

I am confused. Once again, I have questions.

El Matador Del Mar was so good at his job he had almost defeated piracy. "The last ones joined together to try and defeat me". The last what? Pirates? There were no pirates left? This happened when Jack was young, so a lot of time before the first movie, right? Where were, I don't know... Blackbeard? Davy Jones? Barbossa? All the other Pirate Lords? I might be wrong, but I guess Salazar didn't kill them, did he? Why weren't they there during that "last battle" in which "the last ones joined together"?

The Devil's Triangle. I just don't understand what's the logic behind it. So, this is a cursed place. Whoever enters there, can't get out. One would think it means that if you get there, you die; and Salazar does die, but he somehow also becomes a ghost whose only purpose is to find Jack Sparrow and have his revenge. So, do people become ghosts when they get in The Devil's Triangle? We have to assume people have gotten stuck in there before; otherwise, there wouldn't be legends around the place. So why isn't it like full of spirits ready to haunt people? Why are Salazar and his crew the only ones?

Poseidon or Calypso?

What's the Trident of Poseidon? Does Poseidon exist? Isn't Calypso the Goddess of the sea? Breaking the Trident, you break all the curses of the sea, so the Trident must be more powerful than Calypso, which leads to a question. Where is she? She IS the sea, right? So she must have known someone was about to find the Trident and brake all curses, including her one. She just decided it was okay? It really feels like someone decided to suddenly change the world's mythology without giving explanations.

The Compass

This is possibly the most blatant plot hole in the whole saga. Probably the most blatant plot hole I've ever witnessed, and man, I watched all the Harry Potter movies. In Dead Man's Chest, Jack meets Tia Dalma in her "shop" and he tells her he's looking for the Davy Jones' key. She asks him "The compass you bartered from me, it cannot lead you to this?", making another pivotal point of Dead Men Tell No Tales factually senseless.

That man couldn't have given his compass to Jack, because that wasn't his compass.

So either Salazar is lying while telling his tale or they forgot about that line in the second movie. Anyway, let's pretend that line doesn't exist; even if that captain gave Jack his compass in that exact moment, why would it be the key to free Salazar, exactly? How is the compass in any way related to The Devil's Triangle or to Salazar? In the movie, they try to explain it with a sentence: “if you betray it, your greatest fear comes true”. So, is Salazar Jack's greatest fear? I really doesn't seem right, Jack almost didn't remember Salazar when Henry mentioned him. To Jack, he's only a guy he outsmarted decades earlier. Also, Jack technically already gave the compass away, twice: to Elizabeth in Dead Man's Chest, to make her find the chest, and to Beckett in At World's End, when they're negotiating.

That's... That's Just Body Shaming, Mate

Let's talk about her. So, the woman's ugly. It can happen that a woman is ugly. Was it necessary to build an entire scene around some blatant body shaming? This scene wants to mimic the similar scene in Dead Man's Chest: Jack's on an island, running from the main villain, and he's forced to do things he doesn't want to do until someone saves him, then it was Will, now it's Hector.

Except in Dead Man's Chest it was LITERAL CANNIBALISM he was facing, and yet he looked LESS TERRIFIED and DISGUSTED. What's exactly the message here? Lads, is marrying an ugly woman worse than cannibalism? I don't know... that was just bad.

Justice for Hector Barbossa

If you know me (you probably don't, but if you do) then you know about my obsession with Hector Barbossa. I truly believe he's the best written character in the saga, and he's in my top five of the characters I love the most in all media. I watched The Curse of the Black Pearl when I was seven and I am autistic, so I had all the time to develop a literal relationship with these characters in my head. As much as Geoffrey Rush's interpretation was impeccable, as always, it really hurt to watch Hector in this movie. He just doesn't sound like him. First of all, why isn't he on the Queen Anne's Revenge? Why's he letting someone else sail around on his ships? He would've never. Why's he just sitting on a throne and shooting musicians instead of, I don't know... being a pirate? Being a pirate is the only thing that matters to him. He says it at the end of On Stranger Tides, and he even says it in this movie, to the witch. "I'm a pirate. Always will be".

So, why isn't he pirating? What happened to him? And what about the pact with the witch? He made her curse all his enemies; that's honestly the most out-of-character thing he could've done.

Seriously, watch this movie, and then The Curse of the Black Pearl and tell me he sounds like he's the same character. Then there’s his death... was it necessary? And I don't mean if it was necessary to the plot (it wasn't), but the way he died, did it make sense? He takes the sword and sacrifices himself to kill Salazar, but WHY? Salazar was back a mortal. They could've brought him to surface and then shoot him. What was the point of his death, Disney? I will never forgive you.

I would've preferred if they never showed him again. He's alive and living his best life in Tortuga, if you ask me.

How does Carina Smyth exist?

Let's do the math. Carina Smyth has approximately the same age as Henry Turner, who was born around nine moths after the end of At World's End. At the end of that movie, Barbossa once again stole the Black Pearl (he's iconic we stan a legend), so we have to assume it is during that time (between the At World's End and On Stranger Tides) that he conceives Carina. He stays with this woman during the whole pregnancy, bacause he says he was there when she died. So nine months, at least, right? Except; Jack makes it clear that he and Barbossa met Carina's mom, Margaret, together.

When, exactly, did this happen? It can't be between On Stranger Tides and Dead Men Tell No Tales, because Hector himself says only five years passed between the two, and Carina doesn't look like a five-year-old;

it can't be between At World's End and On Stranger Tides, because we know Jack and Barbossa weren't together, and Hector was too busy losing a leg and planning his revenge by working for the King of England; it can't be during At World's End, because Barbossa was too busy rescuing Jack and then slaying (literally and metaphorically) Beckett's men to save piracy; it can't be during Dead Man's Chest, because he was dead; it can't be during The Curse of the Black Pearl, nor during the ten years before it, because he was... he was a skeleton, I hardly believe he could reproduce, despite what’s written in some fanficions; it can't be before, of course, because Carina would be too old. The only chance, but it's a stretch, is that Hector and Jack met this Margaret Smyth years and years before, and that at a certain point (while he was still busy slaying, losing a leg or planning his revenge), for some reason he decided to come back to her and accidentally had a daughter. That would mean that Jack remembered Margaret Smyth's name DECADES after he met her.

The Post-Credit Scene: What?

WHY'S DAVY JONES BACK? The Trident technically broke all the curses of the sea. He is THE cursed man of the sea. AND HE'S DEAD. The only answer I was able to give me, is that the moment the Trident broke the curses, the curse that said if you stab his heart he dies was also broken, so he technically didn't die, but it makes even less sense, because if the curses just aren't real anymore, then a man shouldn't be able to... carve out his heart and put it in a chest, right? (Which by the way, makes Will Turner being alive senseless as well). Even if so, Davy should've come back as a human.

My conclusion is that this movie should not exist, and we, as a community, should pretend it was never made. Hector is alive. Bye.

Imago

[nqueso-emergency]

Firstly, I want to offer my sincerest condolences on the loss of your mother. It's a cruel fate that so many have to experience way too soon.

But for the purpose of this ask: I saw the ask about BT shippers being 40 year old bi women fetishizers and the way it made me laugh. Let's talk about what it's like for people, especially women, interacting with the toxic Buddies once they hit, like, 25. They get called old hags, fetishizers, their looks get made fun of, god fucking forbid they find out you have kids. But the thing they always seem to forget is that this weewoo show is about people (who are now) in their 30s to 50s. What do these people think that (at lease one of) the target demographics for this show are? You know what I haven't seen (at least yet) RPF of OS and LFJ.

And I also saw the anon post about vile comments that may or may not have been made by BTs about RG and his mental health. If BTs said that everybody needs to call them out. I haven't seen anything like that, nor have I seen screenshots from them showing proof of this. If anyone on either "side" does that, they need to have their internet taken away from them.

But what I have seen is a post from a Buddie saying that a "femme twink bottom" would offended Tommy because he's a "toxic masc gay" like "most masc gay men". But yeah, BTs are the toxic fetishizers. They have called not only Tommy, but Lou, the f slur multiple times (more so Tommy, but still). I have seen posts that said "LFJ that's why your father never loved you" and then proceeded to be even more horrible. They mock his build and looks relentlessly, but yeah, they're totally normal about a show. Lest we forget the most vile thing at least one of them has done yet... the fics.

This stuff isn't even hard to prove, all you have to do is go into the "anti bucktommy" tag and its full of this shit.

And just for fucking shits and giggles let's talk about their favorite thing to say: LFJ getting fired because of his cameos or because they decided it would be funny to hack his twitter and post a stupid kpop meme/ss (like what the actual fuck is wrong with whoever did that fucking shit?) - fuck if i know. None of these people know how anything works. Do they realize the kind of people that some of these actors are? Did we miss the Nickelodeon docuseries? Do we really think that ABC is going to give a flying fuck about that shit when they have a lot worse associated with them in some way shape or form, maybe within actors in the same universe?! Also fired for cameos? He has a contract, he knows what he's allowed to say and what he isn't allowed to say. Some of these fucks wouldn't know common sense if it beat them with a stick.

You don't have to answer this, it just really annoyed me reading these things and wanted to give some dialogue.

Anon, you ate the fuck out of this ask.

[decolonize-the-everything]

Our LGBT elders are the only reason any of us have history to speak of, do you realize that? If our elders aren't honest and speaking then our history is being lost.

So what kind of elder will you be?

When you engage in discourse constantly and won't admit that your bigotry around aces & aros ever existed, what kind of elder will you be? The kind who still refuses to admit your wrongs and sanitizes our history because you don't want to speak on the part you played in it?

I ask because someone in my notes asked what has us older gays all riled up. Why are we all so worried. That person had their age in their bio and they were 25. At 25 you should know better. The fact there are 20 year olds that exist who don't know our CURRENT history is insane. Like are you all just Ignoring reality??

You are 25 and just saw Roe v Wade taken, the supreme court declare in interest in removing gay marriage, over 200 anti-Lgbt trans have been submitted over the last year, aces/aros have been begging for an apology for years, more don't say gay type bills are passing/being presented everyday, and our community is too busy bickering about bi lesbians & tv shows to do ANYTHING about it.

You shouldn't need to be an older gay to be fucking worried right now. Older and elder gays are not the only ones who should be riled up and desperately trying to rally the community back together.

Because the only way they care, they listen is when we we're together. History will show you that. We are the loudest and proudest and strongest when we are together united. That is when they can't ignore our voices anymore when we use them together. That's what we need right now.

But the community isn't being very much of a community right now.

And yeah admitting you fucked up sucks and apologizing is awkward but so fucking what??? Do it anyway. Dying and being hate crimed is worse. Get over yourselves, there are bigger problems we have to face and you struggling to say sorry cause you participated in lateral violence isn't enough of a reason to sit at home while those problems fester into humans rights violations. It's time to grow up and show everyone how Actually sorry you are about it.

[sakuratruther]

i really don’t get why some sasuke stans on tumblr are against team 7. do you want sasuke to be alone?? and not with the only two people who make him happy?? every time sasuke thinks of bonds he thinks of naruto and sakura. why be against it?? sasuke deserves to be happy and with people who love him. do you want him to be wandering around the world alone? with a cat? what exactly do you want from this little guy he suffered through so much

[v0idund3rth3v3il]

https://www.reddit.com/r/progressive_islam/s/1401QvzC6v

These are not my words, please use the link if you want to see the author.

Explanation to verse 7:81 or the "Anti-gay" verse.

People often bring up verse 7:81 with out any context to show why the Quran forbids gay people and thinks that gay sex is haram, I'm here to give the full context and show why their wrong.

For those who don't know, verse 7:81 say's something like "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people." Which sounds bad alone until you actually take into full context what it means.

The verse is talking about the village of Lot who were actively RAPING men, not just having sex with them (a major problem in the world back then as both the Romans and Greeks were known to rape other males). As in their lust had become so overwhelming that women weren't enough anymore, they had to attack visitors (a big no no in Islamic culture) and rape them even though they where guys. The people of Lot where so depraved that they literally tried to rape angels before being wiped out so it's a warning against the depravity of rape instead of homosexuality in general as no where in the Quran, unlike the bible, does it say anything against gay sex.

The verse literally right before it say's something like (plenty of translations but roughly) "How do you commit such a horrible that NO ONE/THING BEFORE YOU HAVE COMMITTED". This can't mean homosexuality as we know homosexuality in animals does exist and homosexuality was very well known to just about every person on the planet as shocker, gay people have always existed. Historically speaking, the Code of Hammurabi , which ordered society in most of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley for more than a thousand years, has nothing to say about homosexuality. The laws of Eshunna and Egypt are also silent on the subject with us knowing that there were ancient Egyptian gay couples including a Pharaoh who was more then likely bi. The Hittites forbade father-son relations, but that was part of a general rule against incest. The Assyrians thought it shameful for a man to repeatedly offer himself to other men, and also prohibited men from raping males of the same social class, but all other male-male sexual relations were ignored. These are all states that were around centuries before Sodom and Gomorrah were apparently destroyed destroyed. The much more rational explanation would be they made an entire society based on rape of men and other "abominations" to a point where they would kick people out for wanting to stay "pure" (line 7:82), something that no group of people before them have done.

Now people will often say "if it's bad raping man then it's ok if we rape woman right?" well no. This is because when you take it with the previous verse and the verse after it, it's clear that these people wanted the pleasure of doing something that no other group of people had ever done which was the mass rape/normalization of rape of men. It's absolutely horrible but the rape of women was a lot more normalized back than and so wouldn't fit with the previous line of them doing something that no group of people/creatures had ever done before. That also explains why they didn't except Lot's daughter (which could be interpreted as him trying to save them because the angels didn't take to kindly to wanting to be raped) as they got their rocks off by doing what no other people had ever done which was to mass rape men, not women which again, is also disgusting but a lot more normal back then.

To go more into Islamic history courtesy of u/cold-blue, The grand mufti of the Abbasid caliphate in the mid-9th century, Yahya ibn Aktham, was a known homosexual, and viewed a few verses through the gender/sexuality lens.

One of them was the verse where Allah says He prepares males for some, females for others, and mixes the males and females. I’ve read that ibn Aktham once said that this verse confused people because it alludes to sexual preferences. He also said that the heavenly cupbearers mentioned in the Quran are sexual rewards like the houris. (Whether or not homosexuality is allowed in Jannah was debated, and some came to the conclusion that it is, and the only reason it isn’t in this life is because the rectum is dirty.)

The Ottoman empire, the last caliphate of the Muslim world, not only didn't care about gay people (unlike the Europeans) but actually had art depicting it.

Another is al-Razi. While he didn’t outright say that homosexuality is allowed, he allowed gay couples to be together sexually so long as they didn’t have anal sex. He was concerned with homosexual men committing suicide over their innate feelings and said that if there is risk of that, and the man cannot change himself from homosexual to heterosexual/survive in an opposite-sex marriage, he may be with his beloved (a man) so long as he does not transgress the limits (in his opinion, anal sex).

One of the transmitters of the Quranic variants we have today (of which Warsh and Hafs are two) was a man named al-Kisa’i, who was also a known homosexual. So one of the seven qira’ats came from a gay man.

There was another man ALSO named al-Kisa’i, who was a historian in 1100 CE, and he said in his Stories of the Prophets (Qiṣaṣ al-'Anbiyā') that the people of Lut were specifically MEN WITH WIVES who raped other men, not homosexual men, lining up with what we know historically.

And speaking even more so on the physical element, the male "gspot" is actual in the anus which even if you find gross, is a design of Allah and not a flaw. Why would he do that if homosexuality is a sin?

The reason homosexuality is so hated in the Islamic world is none other then the heretical Salafi and Wahhabi movements (actually considered heretics for most of the time they were around including their top scholars, not my opinion, and the only reason their not now is because of British) and because of Europeans as homosexual relationships were generally tolerated in pre-modern Islamic societies, and historical records suggest that these laws were invoked infrequently, mainly in cases of rape or other "exceptionally blatant infringement on public morals". Public attitudes toward homosexuality in the Muslim world underwent a marked negative change starting from the 19th century through the gradual spread of Islamic fundamentalist movements such as Salafism and Wahhabism, and the influence of the sexual notions and restrictive norms prevalent in Europe at the time: a number of Muslim-majority countries have retained criminal penalties for homosexual acts enacted under European colonial rule.

People often only bring up verse 7:81 and don't bring the verses directly previous or after it nor does it take into consideration the histography of their actions and the verse. It would be like me saying a book said "...kill all black people." but not elaborating and saying that the line previous to is says "These people were so horrible that they would regularly chant..." and the line after it is "I can't believe they would say/do something so disgusting." with the entire context of the book being that they would kick out anyone who didn't want to kill all black people. They only say's that the book said to kill all black people. It's very disingenuous to say the least.

To further prove my point, the word "sodomite" is often used to mean the rape of another person through the ass, not consensual sex between the two. If you google "sodomized" than you'll see rapists, not a loving consensual couple. Even the Arabic words for "sodomite" and a gay person is different as sodomite is literally translated into "lut" well a gay person is translated into "shakhs mithliu aljins".

To get more philosophical about it, sex is not some fetish which just develops in people, it is the most primal human desire that a person can have. So why would Allah make a group (there's homosexual animals as well) a certain way and then say not to follow the most basic desire they'll ever have right after wanting food and water but then say the rest of that group can follow that desire after they get married? People can control their desires until marriage as the Quran makes clear, they don't just never have sex. So why would it be any different for a gay couple? This is like saying that sex with it self is haram.

Finally, people often forget the fact that Allah is an all loving and all knowing being so why would he make certain people that he hates or want's other people to hate aka be "phobic" of when in the Quran it's made clear that we should be loving and affectionate? Now even if after all of this people still believe homosexuality is haram, Allah is said multiple time to be all loving, all understanding and all forgiving so as long they are good people and don't commit a truly horrible sin (shirk aka worship of other false gods, rape, murder, hurting others, you know, the classics) Allah will inevitably forgive them for giving into their most basic human desire especially if it's with a loving partner with in a marriage so why would anyone else have a problem with them?

I'm not gonna add a tl;dr because I worked waaay to hard on this for it be condensed into a few sentences and I really want people to read it and fully understand where it's coming from.