#because after all queer rep is queer rep

[lyxchen]

Feel like I need to defend the people being upset about the non existent Agatha/Rio just a little bit and maybe that's because I'm also a lesbian who really likes them but I feel like the hate towards lesbians is a bit uncalled for or excessive like. Obviously homophobia or just full on blatantly hating on Billy as a character is shitty and I'm not defending that. But the way some people talk about this like "ugh can these annoying lesbians just shut up already?? How dare they be scared that this show might take a turn and take focus away from the sapphic couple?" Cause like that's what it is. Sapphic people are scared or upset about the possibility of the focus being taken off of Agatha and Rio and their relationship completely now that they have introduced a character that is important and will continue to appear in other Marvel media. Because good sapphic representation has been taken away too early or messed with a lot already. I think that if in the next episodes there are more Rio and Agatha scenes and important moments and just relationship stuff then most sapphic people who are complaining right now are gonna be totally okay with Billy's story. But right now we just can't know for certain.

Also I just have to say I see way more people hating on lesbians right now than I see lesbians being outright homophobic in the tag...

[summer-sapphic]

Hi I'm mad

[chibi-scone]

So that new Rhys Darby interview about s3 ….💀

[fiona-fififi]

...

[tiredyke]

thank you!!!

the difference between how white mlm shows are treated vs how wlw and poc shows are treated should and has to be talked about.

the blatant lesbophobia and biphobia directed towards women from netflix is more transparent than ever right now and i am done being polite. it’s not ‘just a tv show’ anymore, it’s almost every single sapphic tv show.

[putri900]

Like i really dont know what kind of brain damage it takes to think allowing trump to win is better than keeping shitty ass joe biden. Like.... you realize how stupid it is to say fuck this guy, he wants to kill babies (abroad), and to then let the other guy who wants babies killed abroad and domestically win as well. And then to continue saying, fuck this guy joe, i want better options, when the other guy wants to ensure that you dont even get another chance to vote. Like, you realize how utterly braindead this logic is.

[that-ineffable-devil]

I'm processing a lot of emotions tonight and I keep being drawn back to Good Omens--not just because it's the new hyperfixation or because it's so good. That's what I thought it was, at first.

But this year--hell, the last 3 or 4 months especially, I finally started taking steps to accepting and being myself. I'm rapidly approaching middle age and I'm only just now beginning to feel like I'm allowed to be me. I came out to the people in my household, a few select friends, and a few select family members--most of whom were wholly supportive. I started testosterone injections. I stopped trying to be someone I'm not. I stopped hiding who I am and who I love.

What does this have to do with Good Omens? Nothing. But also... Everything.

So much queer representation is in characters vastly younger than me--and that's good! I want queer kids to feel safe and loved and accepted in ways I never did. They deserve better than we had. And it gives me hope for their futures. I bawled like a baby when I watched The Owl House with my son and he was totally unphazed by the queerness. It's just how people are to him.

But when something like Good Omens comes along and not only grabs every opportunity to show average, everyday old(er) queer representation... It just. I've never felt more seen. More accepted. More hope for all our futures. And season 2 just knocked that out of the fucking park. And the nonbinary, genderfluid, and genderqueer rep? My God.

And it's not subtext, it's not it's own separate plotline where they're fighting for acceptance or dealing with hateful bigotry... It's just... Accepted. It's normal. No one questions it. No one even comments on it.

It's people of any age (even millions of years old) being unapologetically themselves and loving who they love openly and fully (with one notable uncommunicative group of two ineffable idiots, but they'll get there).

I just.

I can't express how grateful I am to see older queer rep at this time in my life. It's been a rough year, and I expect it'll get rougher before it gets better. But I've never been happier in my own skin, and it means the absolute world to see my literary and media heroes like Neil Gaiman, David Tennant, and Michael Sheen (and Terry Pratchett and everyone who worked on Good Omens, honestly) making this beautiful, messy, adorable, excruciating, wonderful, heartbreaking, ethereal, down-to-earth tale.

There aren't enough words in all the languages of the world to express how I'm feeling. "Thank you" just feels... Insufficient.

I just hope they know how much it means to people like me, especially after a lifetime of buried subtext and overt queerbaiting and media ridicule and general lack of acceptance, to experience this story with them.

[redscrawl]

I’m so sick of people pretending that just because gay men got several really good shows, that all of queers are being represented the same.

like i’m so glad for you guys (gay men) that you get the rep you deserve. But don’t pretend like all of queers are being represented that way. Almost every single lesbian show has been cancelled or even completely removed from the streaming service like it never happened. And even then they’re usually not nearly as well made or well liked. They’re usually just made as an afterthought and then cancelled after the first season, even if they were well received. Don’t get me wrong we have shows like Warrior Nun or Yellowjackets and I love those. But we don’t get the sweet romance with no shame. We don’t get the “Dear Ed, i love everything about you”.

Like i’m so glad you guys get this representation, god knows you deserve it. And i’m not saying you can’t celebrate! Celebrate to the rooftops but please remember Queerness isn’t just gay men! There are more of us out here! the fight isn’t over. Queerness means all of us and there isn’t representation for all of us.

[catnippackets]

disclaimer: as a sex-repulsed aroace person myself--

on one hand, there is definitely a bit of a double standard when it comes to handling canonically queer characters like, from what I've seen in the circles that I frequent (if you've had different experiences then great but I'm just telling it how I see it). for example, you're morally reprehensible if you ship a canon lesbian with a man or refer to a canon bi character as a lesbian. people will be so angry with you. and it's understandable, since there's so little queer rep in comparison to cishet rep that when there IS a rare actual queer character, the unofficial rule is "don't take that away from them when you add more headcanons to them". like, respect that this one is REAL and NOT just a headcanon. I think it makes perfect sense to feel upset when people take that away, even if it is just fiction and not even canon to the original source. and yet, whenever there exists a canon asexual character suddenly it's all "oh well asexual people can still have sex so it's fine if we headcanon THIS canon sexuality as something different". it makes me feel so genuinely heartache-y and depressed to see ppl ignoring that aspect of a character.

and by "canon" I'm also including characters that were never specifically referred to with a label but are very obviously coded as something, because those characters will still get the "even if it's not stated it's pretty obvious!!" treatment when it comes to showing attraction to the same gender, but not when they DON'T show attraction to any gender. like aro and/or ace coding just doesn't count. I understand that it's kind of hard to represent an absence of something, especially when you're only implying it and not even directly showing it, but it's not impossible. there's a lot of characters that you could argue are aroace coded the same way you could argue a character is gay coded. obviously to a degree every queer identity gets disrespected in fandom and it's something you just kinda have to deal with, but it's easier to notice when it's something you personally relate to. I don't think it would bother me as much if we didn't have that unofficial "respect the canon" rule and everyone just went wild with whatever, but the double standard does genuinely hurt me, especially when I see people I thought were cool about this stuff participating in it. so whenever I see someone fiercely defending an asexual character it really makes me feel good, like I'M being defended, not a random fictional character that I might not even recognize the name of. I feel safe, like that person will respect ME.

THAT BEING SAID,

AS a sex-repulsed aroace person who enjoys thinking about the entire spectrum of intimacy and where a character may fall exactly on that spectrum, ALSO as a person who is aware that "asexual" simply means "does not experience sexual attraction" and not necessarily "is violently repulsed by anything sexual", sometimes I DO want to play out scenarios for my own enjoyment. sometimes I DO want to think hm I wonder where this ace character's line is, compared to a different ace character. I wonder if there is anyone who would be an exception for them, and how they could go about dealing with that exception. I wonder if they're favourable, neutral, or repulsed. if those aspects of their character aren't explicitly stated then what's to stop me from playing around with them and working through my own issues in a controlled and non-canon environment? if they have the same identity as me, I am way more likely to want to play around with them like a doll and perhaps play out scenarios that I might have thought about before but don't actually want to do for real. I'm not taking away their identity, after all; I'm just, in this scenario, imagining this ace character as an ace that might have sex on at least one occasion for whatever reason. either just to try it, or because they do have someone they'd make an exception for, or if they got bored enough, whatever the reason. it isn't quite disrespecting their truth unless it's explicitly stated either in canon or by word of god that it's something they're uncomfortable with. and to be honest, if I see another asexual creator headcanoning a character as somewhere on the asexual spectrum and depicting them in sexual situations, it makes me almost happy, to know that they're still acknowledging that character's canon identity and accepting and exploring the nuance that could come with it, even if I personally believe that this specific character would be repulsed instead of neutral or favourable. there's this understanding of "I'm doing a character study exploration thing", and not "I don't care I just wanna sexualize this character"

but I literally feel GUILTY when I want to write what is essentially a thinkpiece disguised as a fanfiction or original story on asexuality and take an asexual character (canon or coded) and involve them in sexual situations to explore different avenues of the spectrum. I feel like I'm betraying everyone who's like me and is frustrated with how aroace characters are treated within fandom. I'm like "am I being just as bad as those other people who will disrespect a character's canon sexuality just because they think that character is hot and want to ship them with someone? do they do the same thing with other types of queer characters? how does this reflect that person's view of people, if they're explicitly told someone feels a certain way and decides to ignore it for their own amusement? or is it just because they're fictional and not real people and I'm being really sensitive and thinking way too much into it? am I not doing the exact same thing? do I have more credence to explore scenarios like this because I am aroace and sex-repulsed myself and therefore have a pass to do whatever I want and it won't come off as a little weird the way it might if someone who's allosexual did it?"

and these two opinions are at war in my mind constantly. like both of them can and do co-exist but I still struggle to accept that lol

[therainscene]

I've described myself in the past as "overly-queerbaited" as a way of explaining why it took me so long to come around to Byler endgame as a legitimate possibility... but that's kind of a misleading way of putting it.

Truth is, I've always been too much of a cynical fuck to fall for queerbait... or any other story that promises positive queer rep.

[Sherlock couldn't touch me; I saw this cringe homophobia coming from a mile away. Fans mistaking straight anxiety jokes for meaningful gay subtext was clearly doomed to end in mockery. Nobody deserved to be treated like that... but god, it was easy to predict.]

I think it's a symptom of having grown up under Section 28 -- feeling like I'm being unreasonable for wanting to see queerness normalized is such an ingrained habit that even today I instinctively recoil like a vampire touching sunlight whenever an optimistic queer story falls unrequested into my lap.

But I'm hardly alone in feeling this way -- many queer Millennial and Gen-X fans of Stranger Things are against the idea of Byler because it would ruin the catharsis of watching the gay boy growing up in the same era as we did slowly succumb to the same despair that we did.

[For those who haven't played the VR game: Vecna is speaking in this screenshot.]

There's genuine comfort to be found in painful stories -- this type of catharsis is practically the cornerstone of horror as a genre -- so I can't really fault myself or anyone else for wanting it, despite the obnoxious oversaturation of disappointing queer endings in media.

This is the nostalgia show, after all -- and like it or not, for many middle-aged queers in the target audience, nostalgia is shot through with the pain of homophobia and loneliness.

But do you know who else is a hurt queer(-coded) adult who resents happy endings? This cynical fuck:

Henry personifies despair and loneliness and the dark urge to take our pain out on others -- and when Will is in the picture, I would argue that he also represents internalized homophobia.

Will might represent who we were -- but Henry represents who we've let ourselves turn into.

And I don't think many of us want to admit to that, because that would involve questioning why we have so much in common with the literal villain of the show; why we're still so consumed with self-pity after 20+ years that we're obsessing over the fate of some kid.

I'm not suggesting that wanting a less-than-fairytale ending for a fictional gay boy is equivalent to being a child killer lol. It's perfectly valid to want to see your pain acknowledged, and stories which appeal to that desire deserve to exist.

But between Henry's connection to Will and the cycle of abuse themes of the show, it's clear that this particular story simply isn't about wallowing in the bleakness of growing up gay in the 80s, but about self-actualizing in spite of it all.

So I just can't bring myself to want a "relatable" ending for Will.

As much as I struggle to enjoy positive queer rep, I don't want to be so cynical. I'd thrown up so many walls to protect myself as a teenager that I forgot how desperately I wanted to see just one of those painful queer stories end on the same uplifting note that straight stories were always entitled to: with true love overcoming the odds, saving the day, and living happily ever after.

[But I'm A Cheerleader, a surprisingly fun movie about conversion therapy, is proof that stories like this did exist when I was a teen... but finding them in the pre- and early-internet days amidst so much censorship was a tall order.]

What makes Stranger Things different from most queer stories -- and what allowed it to pierce through my defenses and stab me in the gut -- is that it perfectly mimics those bleak, acceptable-to-the-censors stories from my youth -- only this time, the secret uplifting gay plot twist is real.

Not for the sake of shock value or of grabbing some empty woke points at the last second, but because the plan all along was to slap the audience in the face for believing homophobic lies about the existence of queer happiness.

That's some gourmet catharsis, if you ask me.

Just the possibility that my inner child might finally be vindicated has allowed me to truly let myself want the things I want for the first time in 20 years -- and that's the first step towards finally crawling back out into the sunlight.

Happy Pride Month, everyone. 🌈

[just-antithings]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, especially after reading the Boyfriends webtoon (love it, btw), but I'm starting to think a lot of the problem with people's attitude towards LGBT representation is that people have lost sight of what it's for.

Nowadays, it feels like people think queer representation is meant to be solely for "de-converting bigots", to be made specifically for the benefit of bigots who want us dead and no one else. Which is why they're so insistent on all representation being as sanitized and accessible to straight, cis people as humanly possible. They think we need all queer rep to be "good queers", who don't do gross things like have sex or have flaws or be not-white (unless they're Luz of course). And any representation that falls short of that will prompt the bigots to want to genocide us more.

But obviously, we know that's not how that works. The bigots aren't going to instantly convert to allies because someone showed them The Owl House. They'll hate The Owl House as much as they'll hate the Boyfriends webtoon or Hazbin Hotel. Because in the eyes of queerphobes, there IS NO GOOD QUEER REP. They believe the only "good" queer rep is NO queer rep, or at least, queer rep where the queer people in question are dead.

The people pushing for this view on representation don't understand who queer rep is REALLY for: It's for us. It's for our benefit, not our oppressors'. We shouldn't be looking to reach the queerphobes with our representation because it's not for them, it's for us to feel seen, feel loved and feel welcomed.

THAT is what representation is for, and I hate how anti-adjacent people seem to want to make representation all about kowtowing to our oppressors and trying desperately to please them, especially with the current looming threat of Trump and his cronies gearing up to make it illegal to represent any form of queerness in any media at all.

Let our queers be weird. Let them be fun and chaotic and problematic. Let them be as messy as we are. Let us love them, warts and all.

👆👆👆👆

[kinardsboy]

Getting Buddie was never about representation, it was about seeing two men they found hot kiss and be together.

You know how I know this? Because at the very least, if it was about representation they would be respectful to bucktommy shippers, and be respectful to Tommy in general. Of course they could still be upset but hey, a win is a win! We get two beefy masculine firefighters in a loving committed relationship.

But thats not what happened. Instead, we got bad faith takes, making Tommy out to look like not only a terrible boyfriend but a terrible person in general. We got people calling him a groomer, an abuser, even a fucking pedophile.

We have post after post making shit up about how Tommy doesnt actually like Buck and is just there for the sex which, makes no sense because if he just wanted sex, why the fuck would he go after someone who is 1. Inexperienced with men and 2. Not someone he thinks is ready to come out? I mean come on its LA and grindr exists. He could very easily get sex if thats all he wanted, but its not.

Tommy very obviously wants a relationship with Buck. But again thats not what shippers care about, because they dont care about representation. They care about buddie. They care about being right.

This is also evidenced by the fact that buddies whine and cry about queer bait, and ignore the fact that there have been SEVERAL queer characters since the show began.

Buddie isnt queer bait. Just because your echo chamber and dumbass theories got a little too loud and convincing for you doesnt mean that is the direction the show is going in. And honestly thank god its not bc your theories suck.

Also, yknow whats funny? How buddies whine and cry about wanting gay rep, we have it, before tommy actually. We had Micheal/David and josh but the second josh was just a little bit rude to eddie? Oh josh had to go. So seems like you guys arent that good at treating the actual gay men in the show well.

You could just ignore Tommy, you could just go “good for the queer guys but im gonna stay shipping buddie” and completely stay in your lane. But no, Tommy makes you guys so threatened that you lash out at him, Lou, and BT shippers. Because again, this was never about representation.

Anyway this is just a rant bc im honestly so fed up

[tommykinard]

"if eddie is revealed to be queer after this it's bad rep bc then they're saying all queer people are cheaters"

no actually, this show has time and time again shown that they're treating their queer characters exactly the same as any other person, because that's just it, queer people are real people. real people cheat, real people are messy. them cheating has nothing to do with the fact that they're queer and that's on you if you're reading it that way.

911 has never put it's queer characters on a pedestal, bc that too is bad representation. the show didn't even put itself on a pedestal for their 100th episode bi buck reveal.

[diamonds-of-the-first-water]

I Have Evolving Thoughts on Fran’s Sexuality

(god hannah dodd is so pretty)

First of all let’s thank GOD francesca is the queer sister and not…that other one.

Anyways upon my initial viewing of part 2 I definitely read Fran as bisexual and if you continue to read her as such I think that’s fine but my mind has changed on the matter.

I believe that Fran is actually a lesbian suffering from comphet.

The reason this actually started to seem likely to me is because of her wedding scene with John. The whole season I thought they seemed so taken with one another and I enjoyed their quiet dynamic. They were more than comfortable sitting in silence with one another and seemed to grow closer in that way.

I like many others assumed this meant their love was romantic, but that kiss

Would a woman who is attracted to men make this face after kissing the man she loves? I don’t think so. Some people seem to think it’s because she’s shy but it doesn’t seem like she’s even thinking about her family here. It seems like she has retreated into her own thoughts. It seems like she was disappointed. And after spending the whole season feeling nothing for any of the men she meets why wouldn’t she be. She met a man she loved and she kissed him and she didn’t feel those sparks.

Now Fran is also autistic coded so this initially affected the way I viewed her relationships as well, but all of that changes when you take into account Michaela.

Francesca immediately starts to stutter and is flustered when she sees Michaela. We have never seen Fran act this way with a man, even her husband. It wasn’t for no reason that Violet describes how she felt the first time she fell in love with Edmund and then almost immediately after Fran reacts the same way to Michaela. The butterflies, not being able to string a sentence together. This was foreshadowing.

Some people were upset because they said it erased everything Fran said about having a quiet love and that is somewhat true, but I disagree with people saying that it erases slowly built love when Polin’s whole story is about love not striking you like a bolt of lightning.

None of this is to say she can’t love John, I believe she does I just feel it is platonic, and the loss of John would hit hard even if he was her best friend. John is one of the great loves of her life but who is to say that love is romantic? Friendships are the foundation of our lives and they are equally as important as any romantic relationship. Fran met someone who understands her and is like her, that doesn’t mean she has to have romantic attraction for him.

Some of this is affected by personal bias as I am a late-blooming lesbian, but holy shit the way I relate to Fran wanting to get married just because it would mean she wouldn’t have to pursue any other relationships with men and the way she was willing to accept whoever the Queen deemed fit because she didn’t have any criteria except “is kind to me”. Fran does not seem to be searching for love as she has not felt it before. The closest she comes is with John because the two of them are so similar and I believe she thought that because she liked him so much that she must be in love with him which is just so…lesbian coded I don’t know how to explain it.

This isn’t to say bisexuality isn’t real or is “just a phase”. Ew. Gross. No. This is just the way I am interpreting the character with the information we have now. If it comes out definitely that she is bisexual then I will accept that, sapphic rep is so needed.

All in all they look so good and I can’t wait to see these queers kiss and have a romance.

Also I think that Michaela still could have fallen first. Fran just realized she was a dyke at that exact moment and her brain stopped working which is valid. But did you see the way Michaela looked at her. I KNOW A LESBIAN FALLING IN LOVE WHEN I SEE ONE.

[snaggletoothedbastard]

I've seen a couple of people complaining that the Captain didn't get a Coming Out Scene so that means it's Bad Rep, and I think they're missing the point a bit.

Like, sure, it would have been nice to see him finally come out but also, he doesn't have to? Personally I think it's amazing that ThemThere managed to create a character who isn't openly gay but is so obviously gay that we all just know without him having to say it. It's clear that they put a lot of thought and care into all the signs - the way he looks at the guys he has crushes on, the little offhand comments about Mike making a very fine soldier or the builder being handsome, the references to queer culture (Dorothy, Elton John, Cole Porter etc). They didn't half-ass this. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they were careful and subtle about it.

Also, we know the Captain's personality by now, right? He only talks openly about personal matters when he feels it's absolutely necessary, like when he's explaining about the bomb in "Redding Weddy" and explaining how he died in "Carpe Diem", and he doesn't seem particularly comfortable in either of these instances. He was alive in a time when he either wasn't allowed or didn't feel that he could be open about who he was, and seeing as he's sort of stuck in that time, what with him still acting like the war's continuing, he's obviously still heavily repressed. And it's in character. It makes sense for him to still be closeted. And of course, throughout the show he does gradually learn to relax and open up a bit, but he's not a fan of change anyway so it also makes sense that it takes a while for him to do that. As shown in "Gone Gone" after Mary moves on, he'd rather keep himself busy than talk about feelings.

And this is more a personal preference here, but I really really love seeing a gay character who isn't out. Now this doesn't mean I don't like openly gay characters, I love them too. But we see quite a lot of them, and it's just nice to have something a bit different. The Captain means so much to me as representation because while he's not openly gay, it's still very clear that he is gay. He's not a queerbait character, because they haven't hinted that he's gay and then revealed that he's actually straight. They've purposefully made the Captain gay, and there's barely any ambiguity, so even though he never says, "I'm gay," you'd have to be a fool to think he's anything but.

Queer people don't suddenly become queer when they come out. Just saying the words, "I'm gay," doesn't make someone gay. Being gay makes someone gay. That's it.

And the Captain is gay. That's it.

[paraphwrites]

a brief note about charles rowland, bisexuality, & the art of queer interpretation

for most of modern history, queer people have been cast to the shadows. be they jailed at the time for sodomy, or erased from history after the fact by historians downplaying their relationships, history has been notoriously cruel to queer people. this is especially true in media, which often completely ignored the existence of queer people.

from this lack of representation, the 'queer interpretation' was born. this is when a consumer notices subtext in a piece of media and extrapolates that one or more character(s) is queer. this is especially prominent to try and undo historical revisionism, and what authors may not have been able to publish at the time, but were able to imply.

a well-known example is "a picture of dorian gray," an egregiously homosexual novel, written by an egregiously homosexual man. despite dorian not being explicitly gay.....he is. this is widely accepted among modern interpretations, because wilde utilizes queer-coding and allusions to ancient greece to create subtext that the character is homosexual in nature.

however, not everyone is a fan of the queer interpretation. many people cite it as inserting gayness where it does not belong. this, though an understandable argument, both erases the history of queer people and the ways that authors intentionally queer-coded their characters, and misses the point of art all together. art is open for interpretation, whether it be the symbolism of the curtain color, or the character's sexuality.

but the queer interpretation is especially important because it gives voices to those expressly forbidden to share queer thoughts when they were alive. beyond giving a voice to the author, it also reflects the feelings of the person interpreting the text (as all interpretations do). the degree to which one utilizes the queer interpretation illustrates the degree to which one feels the need to do so. for example, someone who is searching for queer rep is more likely to read charles rowland as gay, whereas someone who isn't fond of headcanons is more likely to accept him as straight

now, is charles rowland bisexual? yes. and also no.

charles rowland does exhibit many characteristics which, when you are familiar with queer-coding, may make him seem like a glaringly bisexual man. he wears earrings, he dresses alternatively, he smirks, he is an absolute twink. but, straight men can smirk too, and wear earrings, and dress punk rock. that does not actually mean anything. BUT it DOES. when utilizing the queer interpretations, one analyzes fashion and diction and other pieces of subtext to draw a conclusion. the implied subtext is queerness. so, charles rowland is bisexual, then, right?

limiting bisexuality to stating your attraction to both men & woman is harmful. it reinforces that heterosexuality is the norm, and implies that, if you do not directly state that you are bisexual, then you are straight.

but, there is merit to the 'charles is straight' argument. it isn't homophobic to not use the queer interoperation.

dbda is a show that is clearly not ashamed of highlighting queer characters. so it stands to reason that if charles is queer, it would have been brought up. (of course, if there had been a season two, maybe we would have seen him discuss his sexuality, but i will work with the source material i have.) so, it stands to reason that charles is straight. afterall, despite faint subtext that charles is straight, the show does not go out of its way to queercode him. so, charles is straight

WRONG AGAIN. charles rowland is neither gay nor straight, he is a plot device in this mini essay.

the heart of the queer interpretation is seeing a character and looking beyond what is written. oftentimes, it involves two characters (eg, edwin & charles). in the instances when there are two, the queer interpretation asks that you look at the most important relationship in the story, rather than what may seem to be the love story.

you may ship catwin, or crystalXcharles, or whatever. and that is totally valid. BUT, the show could still exist without the cat king x edwin. and the show could still totally exist without crystal x charles. but the show immediately falls apart without the relationship between charles & edwin. whether romantic or not, their relationship is the heart of the story. it is a story about THOSE TWO and everyone else is add on. i am not saying no one else is important, but i am saying the heart & foundation of the story is derived from edwin & charles.

queer interpretors ask that you look at the most important relationship in a text, rather than the most explicitly romantic one. and, often, queer interpretors then project romantic feelings onto the two characters that the story could not survive without.

crystal & charles cannot end up together because crystal will never be the most important person in the world to charles. the cat king & edwin can never end up together because the cat king will never be the most important person in the world to edwin. ergo, edwin and charles will inevitably end up together, because they are the most important people to each other.

at least, that's what queer theory might argue about it.

another just as valid argument is that charles rowland is a bisexual, and not in love with edwin. and a third valid argument is that charles rowland isn't bisexual and isn't in love with edwin.

because we don't KNOW. this is interpretation. so i can look at charles rowland and say 'he's a bisexual and he loves edwin.' and you can look at charles and say 'he is straight.' and someone else can say 'he is aromantic' and someone else that he's pansexual and someone else that he needs way more therapy before he can even begin contemplating his sexuality. and they are all VALID.

anyway but i think it's important to understand the why behind why so many people think charles' is bi, and why it matters! i'm not saying charles has to be bisexual, but i'm saying the bisexual interpretation does matter.