#closeted gay man condemned me for being out and gay

[remembertheplunge]

Sweetwater's

March 4, 1988.  Friday

My God, whadda day. I never did make it to Sacramento. Instead, a drink turned LONG.

I hankered for a man. Not really the prettiest man, but, a man. Sam.  Who thumped me along side the head with a bible and then said—maybe—and “can we just be friends?” I said “yea”. Frankly, oddly, I’d prefer it—I’ll keep the LUST in my heart. I came out to Sam  at Sweetwaters. DAs were every where.It was a good bye party for one of them. RISK—SMILE.

Sam  said “gay is bad”. I said “Don’t try to save me.”

He attacked from many angles.

I emerge content and happy.

If the DAs or Sam  know or tell, (that I’m gay) what care I? Great night and life.

End of entry

Margin note to above:

June 15, 1990

The man at the Town House Bar asked  me “Are you happy with Life?” “Yes” I said, really feeling “yes”.

He said “I am, too.” really feeling “too." 

End of margin note

Notes 9/13/2024:

From what I recall about Sam (not his real name), he was very religious. Apparently he was taught in his church that gay was evil. And so, if I am remembering correctly, Sam told me that my being gay was wrong and evil on more than one occasion. This was despite the fact that I believe he, himself was gay. I haven’t heard from or of Sam  for decades now.

The Town House Bar was a gay bar in Sacramento, California. What the man at the Town House was asking me was “Are you happy being an out gay man?”

The DAs were Deputy District Attorneys. I was a Deputy Public Defender in 1988, so I would have known and worked closely with most or all of the DA’s in attendance.

RJ Sweetwaters  restaurant opened in the mid 1980’s in Modesto, California on 9th street. It closed in 2002 and the building  later burned down. It’s just a gravel lot now. 

I drive by that lot often on my way in and out of town and still see my  1986 good bye party taking place there. I was leaving the Public Defender’s office after working there two years.  Judges, DAs and Public Defenders came to the party. The office gave me a brief case as a good bye present which I still have.

I returned to the Public Defender's office in 1987, only to be fired in 1997 largely because on my return I had come out as gay and let people know  that I was working with and giving support to men living and dying wit AIDS. In 1997, there was no good bye party. No brief case good bye gift. . Just a boot out of the door. And, an unending story to tell. 

[borgialucrezia]

i feel like it goes without saying that juan is a deeply closeted incestuous-only bisexual and lucrezia, whose first real kiss was with giulia, is obviously bi and out and proud of it, but i cannot for the life of me figure out what cesare's sexuality is (besides him being lucreziasexual obviously lmaooo). like, to me he kinda gives the straightest man you'll ever meet but confident enough in his own sexuality that if he did something with a guy it wouldn't send him into a panic vibes?? would you agree or could you see him as bisexual or some other all-inclusive sexuality?

well it's very accurate about juan! considering how he's generally portrayed as a flamboyant brat who experiments and overcompensates with womanizing. i think this rumor stemmed from his very close relationship with prince djem as they traveled together, shared each other's clothes, etc + juan's refusal to consummate his marriage with maria until cesare sent him a letter urging him to get on with it as the delayed consummation distressed their father lol. he was portrayed as openly gay in alejandro jodorowsky's 'the borgias' comics where we see him arguing with rodrigo over a marriage proposal to maria, with cesare frequently using homophobic slurs against him (rip). in 'the vatican princess: a novel of lucrezia borgia' by c.w. gortner, juan is depicted as being in love with prince djem also incestuosuly in love with lucrezia, and lucrezia witnesses a scene where juan, djem and giulia engage in a threesome (yeah ik it's wild). in 'borgia f&f,' he spends a a chunk of screen time kissing various men including cesare, showcasing both incestuous and fluid sexuality. and in showtime's 'the borgias,' i kinda immediately sensed that juan's portrayal wouldn't be heterosexual even before seeing anything yet, considering the casting of an actor well versed in playing gay roles (david oakes). his attraction to his siblings was subtly portrayed on the show but his constant sexual gestures towards both siblings would be discernible to those adept at interpreting symbolism and subtext, revealing how he unconsciously acts upon his incestuous feelings. the actor also confirmed that juan desired to be part of cesare and lucrezia's incestuous affair so…lol

with lucrezia...i don't like how they don't lean into sapphicism often. i feel like we were robbed of a lot of sapphic!lucrezia material, especially when it really had a place for storylines. i don't think there's anything hotter than having some action with your father's new young girlfriend, giulia, or sometimes kissing your sister-in-law, isabella d'este, having a toxic yuri moment with caterina gonzaga. like there's so much rich material, but instead they always give her so many boring men lol. that being said, there was only a sapphic moment in alejandro jodorowsky's 'the borgias' comics, but rather in a male gaze, you know what i mean? like i didn't enjoy it much rip

hmm yk i've always perceived cesare as heterosexual tbh like the allegations of homosexuality seem one-sided often involving either machiavelli or da vinci. showtime's 'the borgias' explored the homoerotic subtext of cesare with both micheletto (his assassin) and juan (his brother). but for some reason françois arnaud denied any romantic involvement between micheletto and cesare as the ship started to get popular in the fandom (it seems like françois is a hardcore and bitter ceslu shipper as he should tbh lol), but that doesn't negate the presence of homoerotic undertones even if françois doesn't acknowledge them/play into them. cesare is also consistently depicted as engaging in an incestuous affair with lucrezia in various portrayals whether emotionally or physically…considering the fluidity of sexuality during a period when same-sex relationships were publicly condemned yet privately tolerated, i wouldn't dismiss the possibility of cesare's sexuality being more complex. idk he gives off vibes that suggest he might be willing to do a 'favor' for a man to achieve his tasks even if he's not romantically or sexually interested in them idk something like that ig?? lol

[takingontheworldtogether]

Would love to know what parts of the article you thought were inappropriate or a reach but I guess you’d have to read it first… (for someone who says you didn’t read it you sure have a lot of opinions on it). If it makes you uncomfortable why not just leave it and move on?

hi!

so in general i totally agree with your criticism: if you comment on an article, i generally think you should read the whole thing because there might be mitigating factors mentioned later on that you might miss. however, when the very premise of the article is that they are going to speculate about someone's sexuality, i think the rules are different and you can condemn the premise of the article without reading the whole thing specifically.

in this case, what happened was i saw people talking about the article online and decided to check it out. about a third of the way through, i realized that the past several paragraphs were just speculating about someone's sexuality in a national publication, which is something i'm generally against, and i didn't want to boost the author's stats by finishing it (i think they keep track of that kind of thing? could be wrong tho).

now, that means there IS a possibility that after the point when i stopped reading, the author goes "AND... SCENE! This is what inappropriately speculating about someone's sexuality looks like, we should avoid doing it." But I suspect that's not what the article does, because I think you would've mentioned it, or taylor's team wouldn't have responded the way they did.

i thought the whole concept of speculating about her sexuality in a newspaper was inappropriate, as for the parts of the article i read that were reaches:

the author boosting the conspiracy theory that taylor was going to come out if her masters hadn't been sold (for which they provide no evidence)

the author claiming that taylor saying she wasn't a part of the LGBTQ community could mean that she's closeted instead of an ally. like technically, anything could mean anything, but if someone says "i'm not a part of the LGBTQ community" i think it's a reach to interpret that as something other than a statement of allyship

the author's whole thing about her rejecting a man's proposals until he gave her a pussy cat in the ME! video being a reference to bisexuality (like, maybe if this was a tv show. but in real life??? literally what)

the author claiming that "thrown out speeches i almost gave to you" could refer to coming out speeches. like, i guess. but it could also refer to literally anything else, and i don't think that's the most likely explanation

the author claiming that cruel summer is about a romance that had to be secret, so maybe it was gay? like, again, maybe. but also there's a million other explanations

anyways, i know there's a chance you didn't actually want an answer and just wanted to vent at me, but on the off chance that you were genuinely curious i hope this helps!

[hyacinthsdiamonds]

Reasons I hated the ending;

Inconsistent ooc writing. I don't know who the f was on my screen but that wasn't the Sam or Dean we've grown with for fifteen years.

Plot holes; the vampire mimes??? Where did they come from?? Because John thought Vampires were extinct until Dead Man's Blood and then he's you know dead so when did he have this supposed hunt with these pathetic excuses for a typical monster of the week villain let alone the last ever one?

Jenny. She wasn't even named in her first episode. Not once in fifteen years did one viewer go "I wonder what happened to her". Nostalgia? Most people didn't recognize her. She's only notable for being part of the first wlw and same-sex kiss on the show which was nonconsensual because the other girl forced herself on Jenny and only did it for the amusement of the men watching. There's also interesting points regarding to the show's vilification of queer people in the early seasons as majority of the first queer characters were what the show deemed monsters and were portrayed as predatory or destructive (they literally had Lily accidentally kill her girlfriend by touching her) and if they were "human" they were used as the punchline until Charlie when we actually got good rep and she was eventually butchered. Most queer characters ended up dead, or at least dead from some time. Only four queer characters are even hinted to be alive at the end (we don't know nothing about Charlie 2.0's fate), Kaia and Claire who's reunion and overall ending is left open to interpretation (hinted they're alive as Donna texted Sam which hints the wayward sisters are ok), Max who as far as we are aware is still condemned to go to Hell when he dies and Chuck one of if not the only canon bisexual males in the show was vilified to such a significant degree it doesn't matter that he's still alive. To have Jenny be the character they bring back while ignoring the show's integral queer characters like Charlie or Crowley or Claire or Cas etc is something else when the nonconsensual kiss was what turned her into a vampire.

Of the three female characters we see in the finale none have any connections to the viewers. Jenny the only character we've seen before is killed immediately. Blurry wife literally only exists to provide the womb for Sam to have a son to name after Dean so it doesn't look like he kidnapped a random kid, she's not deemed important enough to be even seen properly. "Sam could've ended up with anymore it's open to interpretation" bullshit because that's clearly a white woman which erases so many interpretations and it is so clearly a cop out. The third is a woman who literally gets silenced at the start of the episode, she gets her tongue cut out. The most we get is a text from Donna and a line about Mary.

Cas' ending. You pulled Chekhov's gun out. The gun had to go off but instead of acknowledging his confession, they refused to allow Dean to voice his feelings, refused to even give Cas a concrete ending. We don't know for an absolute fact if he's in heaven, all we're told is Cas helped. His death is literally bury your gays, an example of out of the closet and into the fire. He deserved better as a main character of twelve years.

Dean's death is problematic as fuck. His death is implied to be a suicide. It's said to be a good thing, him dying, him dying that way. This still fucks me up. He deserved to live. He deserved so much, I see him having some sort of roadhouse like Ellen taking care of wayward children and hunters alike, and having some sort of auto shop like Bobby did. I see him aged and happy. I see Cas beside him as he should be.

Sam's ending is bullshit. It erases fifteen years of character development, of relationships and it makes it all pointless. Sam is forced to lead the life he would've lived had Dean not showed up at his dorm in the pilot. What was the point of any of it? Was Dean just a fifteen year interruption of his brother's real life? His character arc was leading towards a completely different route and they did a full 180 and regressed his character so much. Sam should've become the next Bobby, teaching and helping a new generation of hunters and he should've gotten to keep/use his powers. He should've gotten to pass on Rowena's knowledge to a new generation of witches too and I'll die on both those hills.

EILEEN LEAHY DESERVED FUCKING BETTER. First you kill her by hellhounds. You kill a deaf woman with something she needs to be able to hear in order to have a chance at surviving. Second you bring her back, develop her and Sam's relationship and then you kill her again, don't give Sam a chance to even react to it and then leave her fate unknown and then throw in blurry wife to add insult to injury.

The pacing was so off. Like carry on wayward son plays back to back twice in a weird montage??

The party city wig. It's genuinely laughable. Like that's what the cw went broke over lmfao.

It's hilariously bad for your average monster of the week episode. As a final ever episode, it's like spitting and peeing into the fans drink and forcing them to drink it.

It wasn't for the fans. I know some fans liked it, I disagree with their opinions but respect them BUT it's clear that the episode was the way it was for people who ditched the show earlier on in it's run could tune in and not feel like they missed anything, which for a show with 15 seasons should never have been the case. It was a kick in the face for those who stuck it out from beginning to end

Amara's ending doesn't sit right with me. Like she's just absorbed into Jack? Jack at three is God? Amara should've been God and Jack should've gotten to be a kid on Earth.

Rusty. Nail. Andrew Dabb why did you hate Dean Winchester and Jensen Ackles?

What about Cas' deal with Ruby? What about Rowena and the demons in Hell? What happened to Adam? Everyone Chuck snapped allegedly got brought back (no confirmation on Eileen, Charlie 2.0 or Stevie) but Michael got vaporized in Adam's body so what happened to Adam next? Forgotten again ffs. The vamp mimes are their own plot hole but how did they and Jenny team up? Like what connection did they even have? I could go on forever on forgotten plotlines and blatant plot holes.

John Winchester being in heaven.

Ruining carry on my wayward son. It's literally a jump scare at this point for me

Things I liked about the finale;

The dog

The party city wig for the memes only

[docbe]

Idk if I’ve ever vented about this before but it really irks me when people frame the entirety of their concept of “valid” queerness solely around overt/violent oppression

Bc like yeah, obviously that had a HUGE impact and we should definitely be talking about it, but like…if that’s your only criteria and you exclude bi, trans, ace, and other non-LG groups because of it, you’re missing out on a massive part of what the queer experience is. “A trans woman had male privilege,” “ace people don’t even experience any issues,” etc are just…so simplistic and lack a critical amount of empathy

Because the thing is, when gay people were forced to stay in the closet, they were experiencing that privilege too. If a gay man stays passably closeted his entire life, he will receive that straight male privilege. “But, he won’t be straight? He won’t be experiencing that privilege! He’ll feel like a fraud his whole life/like he’s hiding his true self/like something’s missing/etc—“ Exactly! Being queer, even and perhaps especially when you aren’t safe to express or validate that identity, is markedly different from the experience of someone who is not

A trans woman who has to live her life “receiving” male privilege can be devastating. An ace individual who doesn’t have a community that understands and validates them can live a terribly lonely life or feel like a great disappointment to their family. A bisexual individual who has to mime the life of a fully heterosexual person may feel like they are constantly under scrutiny or suppressing an integral part of their self expression and potential

These are all queer experiences! And by gatekeeping queer spaces and conversations, we lose a lot of the nuance that leads to the fundamental bedrock of gay rights. If the solution is “when you stay quietly closeted, nothing bad happens to you, so why are you complaining?” then that undermines the whole point for everyone

Anyway this is also a reminder that TERFs, anti-bi/ace folk, and just the whole “I don’t care once the line has been redrawn to include me” crowd aren’t going to ever find an ally here. You can’t condemn others to a life you would never want to lead just because you personally don’t relate to or have to deal with their specific struggles. Reevaluate

[hawkinsschoolcounselor]

Mike Wheeler & The Closet

As we ever so slowly approach season 4, I want to discuss what is, to me, a very intriguing bit of speculation. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that Mike’s season 4 arc will deal with him being in the closet. 

I know there’s fans out there who like to depict Mike as being adorably in love with Will, but I’m afraid that we aren’t going to see anything like that, at least, not in season 4. I started thinking about this because of those “leaks” about Mike ignoring Will when he comes to visit.

When we last saw Mike, he was saying his goodbyes to Will and El, specifically in that order. He talked to Will in a guarded, but still earnest, manner. He was afraid Will would move on from him, but Will assured him that it was “not possible.” He then went to talk to El, oddly enough, in front of a closet. This was an awkward goodbye, as Mike tried to play dumb about having said he loved her before. When El kissed Mike, he didn’t respond. He stood there, eyes open, and looked confused when she walked off. 

The big moments seem to come after all of this. When the Byers pull away, we get a shot focused on Mike.

He’s sad, but visibly moreso than the others. When the others leave, he lingers behind. 

Looking at his face, you can see he’s grappling with emotion. His mouth opens and closes as if he has words he can’t manage to say. He eventually sets off, but not before looking back.

That’s a heartbreaking look right there. He’s looking back at Will’s house knowing he won’t ever bike back there again.

When he gets home, he seems in shock, almost catatonic. He stops and stands in the middle of the room, stiffly and unblinking. In a callback to when he returned home after Will’s “body” was found, Karen sees him and comes to give him a motherly hug.

Mike accepts the hug, but remains emotionless. The most we get is him looking down at the very end. Mike has feelings that he has no idea what to do with. I don’t think it’s because he’s dealing with losing Will and El. He’d be far more visibly sad if that were the case. Mike is an emotional guy. Even as a teenager, I think he’d noticeably be in anguish, if not outright crying onto his mother’s shoulder. This is someone who is temporarily blocking out emotion because of what it could mean.

The ending of season 3 could very well be when Mike first considered that he may be gay. Losing Will has always been a fear for him, and he may have finally figured out why.

It seems very intentional that Mike was left hanging like this. This has allowed fans to interpret things very differently depending on who you ask. Using available character and setting developments, though, I intend to hypothesize what I believe will be Mike’s most likely arc for season 4.

Mike now knows something isn’t quite “normal” about him. His likely response is to deny it, hide it, and, possibly, condemn it. This is where any tension between him and Will might originate. 

Mike is probably eager to get out of Hawkins. He may well be under heavy pressure to get a girlfriend, and any claims of his girlfriend “who moved away” would start to seem like a tired excuse after a while. This can come from multiple sources, including peers, other Party members, or even his own family. A visit to California would not only allow him a break from that pressure, but it could also give him some “proof” that he still has his out-of-state girlfriend.

Since we know that Will is doing a hero project on Alan Turing, there’s also a big possibility that he’s now going to be bullied in Lenora Hills like he was in Hawkins. We got a glimpse of El getting mistreated, so it’s not really a stretch to think Will gets it, too.

Will may not have done the project on him because the man was gay. Will may not have even known that, at least before doing the project. A nerd doing a project on the father of computer science checks out. Still, if other kids make the connection, especially if Will mentions it in the project, then I imagine it’ll be open season on him. This project appears to be due right before Spring Break, when Mike is scheduled to visit.

Will is likely to keep his mouth shut about any bullying, especially if it’s gay-related. He may have thought he escaped that, and he wouldn’t want anyone to know it’s happening again. Unfortunately, El wouldn’t be likely to know to keep quiet about that, especially since she’s getting bullied, too. He may try to explain it to her without her knowing the specifics, and, perhaps, she will do well with it, at least at first. She’ll no doubt be confused, but she’ll understand that he doesn’t want Jonathan, Joyce, or Mike to know.

What may happen in season 4 is that 1) El lets slip to Mike that Will is being bullied for being gay, probably in the course of talking about her own bullying, or 2) Mike witnesses the bullying. 

Mike will probably already be keeping Will at an arm’s length when he arrives. This wouldn’t be out of cruelty, but, rather, because Will reminds him of what he’s trying to ignore. Mike is likely to double down on El as his girlfriend, all the while trying to avoid any overly intimate moments with her. This will create some tension, and Mike may be visibly guilty about it, but believe it to be for everyone’s own good. In his mind, the last thing Will probably wants is to find out his best friend has a thing for him, and that’s if Mike is even willing to consciously admit that to himself.

Mike finding out Will is again being bullied for being gay may make it all too real for him. He likely thought Will would be away from all of that. When he finds out why it happened, he may criticize Will on doing his project on Alan Turing. He wouldn’t be trying to be mean, but he would be thinking in terms of the same self-preservation he’s been working on. Will, of course, would take it as disapproval, especially if Mike is overly blunt and defensive about it. Mike might also want to avoid associating with Will out of fear that people might pick up on his own internal struggle. 

This could lead to the rumored argument between Mike and Jonathan. A defensive, closeted Mike might be so harsh in his disapproval of Will’s project, as a result of him overidentifying with the bullying, that he might come across as a bully himself. It could create a rift between them that is similar, but altogether different, from what was seen in season 3. 

Internalized homophobia is a powerful thing. Mike and Will both have their own obstacles to overcome in regards to their feelings. Mike’s, however, are defined by self-loathing. He’s been brought up to see being gay as a bad thing. He’s never thought less of Will for the bullying he received, but that was before being gay became such a real thing. Before now, Mike was always able to see it as one of those things that happened to other people in other parts of the country. Now that he’s starting to realize what’s going on, the last thing he wants is to encounter it in his own life. He doesn’t have any ill will for Will, but the bullying, and the possibility Will is gay, only make the whole situation too real for Mike. He can’t ignore his own feelings if he has to acknowledge Will’s situation, as well.

Mike will badly need someone or something to help him get past seeing being gay as bad. This is unlikely to happen within the scope of season 4. Perhaps it might start to develop towards the end, after they return to Hawkins. If anyone could help with this situation, it would be Robin. Having a positive role model is an important step for someone coming to terms with being LGBT, especially in an environment like a conservative, rural town in the 80s. Steve may be important, too, as he’s a regular, “cool” guy who easily shifted from seeing Robin as a love interest to a best friend.

I know a lot of people are already looking ahead to Mike and Will being happy together, but the journey is just as, if not more, important as the destination. Mike is going to be alternating between concern for Will and fear of Will’s situation being his own. It’s not his feelings for Will that upset him. It’s the implication of what it means for him in the grand scheme of things. Mike just wants to be normal and accepted, and this is another thing keeping him from that. In a perfect world, he’d have both, but, instead, he’ll have to choose. Unfortunately, he’s not ready to do that, yet, and it will almost certainly get messy before he comes to terms with it all.

[whoacanada]

Zimbits - Bartender!Jack + NHL!Bitty AU

Prompt: Retired NHL player Jack Zimmermann takes ownership of a sports bar in Pittsburgh and accidentally falls for the Penguins’ (closeted) new left winger.

A/N - just the start, I’d like to get around to more of this; the basic idea was an It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia AU, but I couldn’t manage to make everyone that terrible so Jack owns and operates a gay sports bar and starts crushing on one of his patrons.

“Can’t believe you’ve owned this place since ’89.” Jack coughs, waving the dust away from his face. “Did you ever come back after we moved home?”

It’d be disingenuous to say Jack had been expecting anything other than cigars and whiskey when his father had invited him on a trip down to Pittsburgh to see Mario and glad-hand some Penguins sponsors. In fact, he’d kind of been looking forward to sulking and getting shit-faced, not limping around a condemned building dodging roaches and rats.

“It was an investment opportunity. That was the trend back then, famous athletes buying up restaurants and clubs — I had big plans for this building. Then your mother got pregnant and I realized I didn’t really give two shits about running a nightclub.”

“Realized you were pretty lazy, huh?”

As Bob laughs, Jack picks at the peeling, lacquered bartop, trying not to imagine how many decades of grime he’s just collecting under his nail, the situation made even more disgusting in such close proximity to the glittering gold championship ring his father had insisted he wear to their lunch meeting with the Penguins front-office suits. Jack flicks the gunk away as Bob levels him with a weighty look, hands braced in the air as if outlining a play and not offering a tour of a cobweb-filled dive.

“Here’s my thought,” Bob says. “The bar. It’s yours.”

Jack leans against the counter, taking some weight off his braced leg, and asks, “What’s mine?”

“This place,” Bob gestures around the room. “The whole building. It’s just sitting here, empty, the bar, the liquor license, there’s apartments and office space upstairs, we’d just need to do some renovations and —“

Jack can’t help himself. He barks a laugh and says, “I’m not moving to Pittsburgh.”

“How many times have you and I talked about opening a sports bar? I’d wanted to get this place fixed up so it’d be ready when you retired, but since the final — you could make it a gay bar, even, if you wanted!” Bob says quickly, offering another awkward olive branch. “A gay sports bar. I wouldn’t care.”

“A gay sports bar. In Pittsburgh,” Jack echoes, reaching for a chirp to defend himself, but he closes him mouth as he realizes a sports bar run by a Zimmermann might not be a terrible investment idea. “The building needs a ton of work,” Jack settles. “I just saw a rat.”

“That was a mouse,” Bob dismisses, not bothering to look at the rat still clearly in view. “Nothing that can’t be fixed. Got a dollar?”

Jack pats his pockets, finds a spare looney and hands it over. Bob doesn’t hesitate, pulling an envelope out of his back pocket to exchange for the coin.

“Congratulations. You are now the proud owner of,” Bob looks around helplessly. “I actually don’t know what they call this place now. A Bar?”

“I’m sure we’ll figure something out.” Jack swallows against the tightness in his throat, holding the deed carefully in his hands. “Thanks, Dad.”

Bob brings Jack in for a loose hug and they both ignore the soft squeaking coming from the backroom.

Five Years Later

There’s a man examining the announcement board in the vestibule, and Jack knows that posture: the forward hip cant, thick thighs, a small but definite bubble butt — guy’s a hockey player, and he has been for some time.

“Hey. Hi.”

Blondie spins around at Jack’s address. Not quite startled, but something close enough that Jack feels a twinge of guilt. “You interested in playing in our beer league? You look like you might know your way around a rink.”

The man quickly looks at his chest, as if expecting to find something displayed, but relaxes immediately. Jack fights a grin, he was once old hat at wandering into public spaces decked out in identifiable team merch.

“Bitty.” The man squares up to offer his hand; his accent is warm and distinctly southern, not at all what Jack was expecting. “You can call me Bitty.”

“Oh, with a nickname like that, you have to play, now, no excuses,” Jack gives Bitty’s arm a firm shake, surprised at how complementary his grip is; not just an overcompensating bro who’s walked into the wrong club.

“If only I had the time,” Bitty placates wryly. “Is this place new?”

“Been here a few years, but not long. How about you? Are you ‘new’? In town, I mean.”

“Moved for work,” Bitty’s smile is timid, eyes darting around the room looking for other patrons, up at the memorabilia and the various pennants. “First year. Slowly learning the area.”

Jack doesn’t miss the way Bitty’s eyes linger on the Pride flag draped from the second floor railing, but Bitty doesn’t mention it, and Jack isn’t in the business of prying.

“Let me be the first to welcome you to The Bar.”

“I saw that outside, do you not have a name?”

“We weren’t creative. The owner didn’t realize he was filling in the wrong line on the business license so we are literally called ‘The Bar’.”

“That’s actually pretty solid,” Bitty laughs, the sound lifting Jack’s mood easily. “I’ll have to make sure I come back and patron your establishment at a reasonable hour.”

“What you aren’t interested at getting sloshed before noon?”

Bitty laughs, and Jack is enough of an adult to recognize he’s got a tiny bit of a crush.

______

True to form, Bitty slowly becomes a feature of Jack’s early afternoons. The first few weeks, he does little more than quietly purchase a single domestic beer before tucking himself away in a corner booth, hunched over his phone, ball cap pulled low for discretion. Jack gives him space, and aside from a few curious regulars, Bitty is little more than another closeted young man seeking quiet sanctuary.

That is, until, hockey kicks up and Mario hooks Jack up with season tickets beside the bench. It’d taken time for Jack to get comfortable with being in an arena again, especially without the ability to step onto the ice himself, but he’s acclimated and learned to appreciate his new lot in life. He can be happy for his success and mourn the end of his career with equal measure.

(Doesn’t hurt he still gets asked for autographs on the regular.)

Bittle, the new forward traded out of Columbus, spins to whip the puck between Lundqvist’s thighs and the score is 3-2 with a minute left in the third. Jack stands to cheer with the crowd as Bittle’s pulled into a celly with his line mates, and the new angle gives Jack a good look at the man’s sunny face, complete with a familiar, bright smile and missing canine. Jack’s heart leaps into his throat when he realizes Bittle is ‘Bitty’, and Jack can’t help but cheer louder.

________

After the game, Jack does his homework. Pulls up stats pages and articles on Eric Bittle. Looking to link the quiet hottie from his bar with the energetic man he saw tonight on the ice. If Jack wasn’t in love before, he absolutely is after watching highlights from Bittle’s time in Columbus.

The next time Jack finds Bitty slipping into the bar, probably between practice and a good nap, Jack makes his move; filling a pint glass, wedging an orange slice on the rim, and adjusting his shirt before striding to the corner booth as easily as one can with a titanium femur.

“On the house,” Jack says, setting down the glass gently. “Choice goal, Tuesday. Great bounce.”

Bitty’s grateful smile falters, turning into something guarded.

“What goal?” Bitty asks, voice steady, and Jack’s immediately alerted to his misstep. Jack casts a careful eye around the room and doesn’t find anyone watching, kicking himself for not thinking this through. He’s used to playing this game with guys who aren’t quite comfortable, who might be visiting with the wrong people, but he hasn’t had to do the closeted-pro-athlete dance in a while.

“You know, I must have been mistaken.”

“Happens all the time. Very sweet of you, though.” Bitty apologizes and pushes away the beer, but Jack waves him off. It’s the least Jack can do for calling the guy out.

“I should have known,” Jack tries to recover. “You’ve still got all your chiclets. But, between you and me, Bittle’s a spitfire, eh? Crazy soft hands. I’d like to meet him someday.”

Jack whistles low, rapping his knuckles on the table before turning back to the bar, moving slowly enough he catches the way Bitty’s cheeks flare pink at the compliment.

About thirty minutes later, Jack, half focused on counting down the till, nearly misses Bitty’s exit. He looks up to offer a parting wave, and Bitty returns the gesture, flashing a shy, incomplete smile; one canine missing on the left side.

________

“Anything new to report? Sales look good, think you might be able to take some time off and visit your poor parents?”

Jack slides open a window to let some air into his bedroom, not for the first time wishing he’d taken the chance to tear out a wall and convert a corner of the top floor into a balcony. There’s still time — his father never seems to wary of giving Jack renovation loans — but Jack loves his condo and hates the idea of relocating again, even temporarily.

“New distillery opened, cut a deal on some local gin. We’re working on drink specials, if you have any ideas for names I’m open,” Jack eases onto the windowsill and looks down at the line of people waiting to get into the bar. “And I met someone. Think he might be a hockey player.”

“No shit? Beer-league?”

“NHL.” Jack corrects, an edge of caution in his tone he knows his father won’t misinterpret. “Started coming around a few months ago, gave me a fake name. Went to a game last week, scored right in front of me.”

“Well, you going to tell me who or am I going to have to guess?”

“He’s keeping to himself,” Jack holds the curtain steady to catch sight of a particularly flashy person in a glittering teal gown, texting Holster to snag a photo for the bar’s Instagram. “Don’t go hunting.”

“Well, if he needs any help you let me know.”

“What could you do?”

“I don’t know. Talk to . . . someone. I guess.”

“I’ll keep that under advisement.” Jack placates, smiling at the saucy photo Ransom texts back immediately of Holster lifting their favorite Drag Race runner-up above his head like something out of Dirty Dancing.

“So.”

“Mmm?”

“Does this mean you’ve got a little boyfriend, again?”

Jack leans out over the railing and tries to see if the universe has blessed him with a sighting of his favorite new Left Winger. Sadly, it’s Saturday evening and the Penguins are in Dallas, so no Eric tonight. 

“Working on it.” Jack offers, rapping his knuckles lightly against the window sill and trying not to think about the way Bittle’s face lights up when he sees that Jack is working. “Think I might really have a shot at something.”

“Well, you know what Wayne always says.”

“I do,” Jack breathes, pressing his forehead against the cool glass, taking in his one-of-a-kind view of the city. “I’ll let you know how it goes. Once he gets back.”

“ — You know, I’ve got the game on right now. I bet you $1000 I can tell who you’ve got the hots for. You have a specific type — ”

“Papa.”

“Okay, I won’t.”

“Thank you.”

“But it’s the kid we just got from the Blue Jackets, isn’t it. Bittle? You always like the fast ones — ”

“Goodnight, Papa.”

[gatheringbones]

["I've had a long term, love-hate relationship with assimilation. On the one hand, belonging to a group and feeling the warmth of kinship and understanding is appealing. On the other, none of the groups ever fit me exactly. I would try for some period of time to blend in, eventually realizing that there was too much of me that didn't fit, as if I'd tried to stuff myself into a box that was too small. The search for identity became like a journey through a series of rooms. I'd enter at one end and mingle, happy for the companionship. Eventually, I'd find myself at the other end of the room trying to find an exit, but not knowing where to look. Even if I saw the exit, I'd sometimes linger, unsure of what was on the other side, knowing I didn't really belong where I was, but with no assurances the next space would fit me any better.

The early 1990s brought people out of their closets and into activism with increased visibility. The gains came slowly, but more and more people were taking that risk and pushing back against political and social oppression. Though most of the organizations serving our community were dominated by lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men— with goals that reflected their priorities and concerns— transsexual people were beginning to make noise too, stepping in from the fringes of the movement. Trans people were not welcomed with open arms by the LGB movement at large, even though they had taken a pivotal role in initiating the movement.

The reaction of lesbians to butches who chose to transition was harsh: trans men were seen as traitors and woman-haters looking for a way to cash in on patriarchal power. I remember feeling abandoned by them, as through their choice to embrace masculinity and male identity was a repudiation of me as a masculine woman. Fast-forwarding to the present, it's hard for me to understand why I would take it so personally. I remember hearing about Sam, an acquaintance I saw regularly at the gay bar in town. I remember the rumor mill on fire with the news that she was going to be a he, and wasn't that awful? What was wrong with her that she thought being a man was the better option? Clearly that meant she was rejecting women and femaleness and choosing to be a man as an easy way out rather than staying in the feminist, queer trenches with the rest of us. What a shame.

There's bile in my throat as I recall how I nodded in agreement and repeated those condemnations. Yes, the butches who transitioned left the lesbian and queer community, but certainly many weren't given a choice. The community rejected them, as well as their partners and girlfriends. Twenty years later, when I finally opened my heart to the possibility of my own transition, those words of condemnation came back to me in the voices of others. There are still lesbian feminists who angrily denounce transitioning butches as traitors and victims of the patriarchy, and who declare with utter certainty that anyone taking that path cannot call themselves a feminist or an ally to women. It's a bitter pill to swallow, when those words were aimed at me, knowing I'd once said the same things.

At the time, I didn't identity as trans and my memories of being a boy were clouded by the reframing that happened during my adolescence. I do remember feeling a frisson of recognition, an identity spidey-sense trying to get my attention. I pushed it down, choosing the community I was familiar with over an alternative that would lead to my exile.

As the 1990s turned into the 2000s, I returned to and finished college, bought a house and started a family with my partner. Being queer and a dyke was close enough to the truth that I could put identity questions aside for a while and concentrate on the challenges of being a parent and a homeowner and embracing the middle-class dream of upward mobility."]

CK Combs, from What Am I?, from Non-binary: Memoirs of Gender and Identity, edited by Micah Rajunov and Scott Duane, Columbia University Press, 2019

[nightdarkminute]

I might make this a series, might not, we’ll see how much I actually end up having to say. But I’ve been mulling over just how much this damn line means to me and how much it has changed my life. Maybe someone else has had a similar experience. CW for discussions of homophobia and religious homophobia. Also fair warning, this will be very hostile toward Catholicism because I have had a series of traumatic experiences with the church, including but not limited to what is outlined here. 

I was raised Catholic in a conservative, homophobic environment where the most progressive thing I was ever told about queer people was the official Catholic stance to “hate the sin, love the sinner”, and this was not even discussed until I was about 13-14. By this time and due to other experiences, I was already questioning my faith, but this still rubbed me the wrong way. But because I was so young and due to compulsive heterosexuality, I assumed I was straight, and I was glad for it since that would be one less thing my friends, classmates, and family could hold against me. I was already regularly told off for being too liberal, for questioning religion, so at least I wouldn’t be rocking the boat in the sexuality department (spoiler alert: I was wrong).

I waited for the day I had my first crush on a boy. I went to dances (we were only allowed to go with dates of the opposite sex and all my friends were going so I sucked it up and went with boys), went on dates, was kissed, and felt nothing. I was silent at sleepovers when my friends talked about their crushes. I felt broken because I felt nothing. Two girls kissed in a supply closet my junior year and the whole school heard about it. In an environment like that, where your “friends” wrinkle their noses at the slightest mention of queerness, when you spend whole class periods watching videos about chaste gay Catholics who have chosen God instead of the life of sin that is taking a partner, how could I know anything BUT shame? 

How could I have been anything but ashamed when year after year I was pelted with the idea that starting a family, making love to your partner (in marriage of course), was the loveliest of callings, the pinnacle of glory in God’s creation, and know that I was barred from it? To know that should I fall in love and become intimate with anyone that it would be a sin as profane as if I had committed murder? They can tell me they love me all I want and that it is the sexual act, not the orientation, that is profane, but how can they expect me to believe that? How can I not feel shame at my sexuality when acting on heterosexuality can be holy but I can only commit sin? How can you tell me you love me and then condemn me to a life without the very thing you tell me is most important to have? How can I not be ashamed of who I am when my very being condemns me to Hell?

This is why I was so profoundly affected by Admiral Hennessey’s reaction in particular, and why I arguably loathe him more than Alfred Hamilton. He is willing to make excuses for James when he beats the shit out of other naval officers, which is an actual problem, but he draws the line at James having sex with another man. You can hear the disdain in his voice when he calls James’s “vice” profane. And I know exactly how it feels to be on the receiving end of such vitriol. I’ve been on the receiving end of it all my life. There are some circumstances (self-defense, just warfare, etc.) where it is doctrinally permissible to take someone’s life. I was taught about these circumstances. There is never a circumstance, or at least one that I was made aware of, that justifies me having sex with another woman.

Thankfully, I go to a very liberal college. I have very open-minded friends now, some of whom are queer themselves. And though I consumed queer media and openly supported LGBTQIA+ causes there, I never quite extended that same support to myself. There was always some slight disconnect, something that wasn’t quite right. Black Sails gave me the words to identify what the problem was, words written down on a blank page in Meditations. 

Know no shame. I had never seen the word shame used in this context. In the welcoming spaces I sought out, the messaging was pride, to be proud of who you are. I never quite understood, because until I saw those words on that page, I didn’t realize I was ashamed of myself. I didn’t realize how much shame was drilled into me until it became as much a part of me as language itself. I didn’t realize until I saw those words that even after I had long left behind my fears of Hell, going to Mass on Sundays, or even God himself, I still carried shame with me. Because when you are told who you are is something awful, that’s a really hard thing to shake off.

That’s why I can’t read those words without crying. Because they are the permission I didn’t even realize I needed to receive. The straight-to-the-point reminder I can repeat to myself even if people around me are saying otherwise. I still have a long way to go. I’m not out to my parents for fear of rejection, but for the first time I can be completely honest with myself, since I know why I wasn’t for the longest time.

[melmoths]

james and thomas can build a happy life together post-canon.

i'll go out on a limb and say that it's the only plausible scenario for them - and not simply because i feel like they deserve it, but because i feel like their narrative arcs lead to that conclusion no matter what. 

of course the road to recovery would be long and hard, considering how deeply traumatised they both are, but once you accept that james mcgraw and james flint are not two separate people, that both james and thomas knew this, and that thomas is not a static character, no other future makes sense for them - whether they choose to retire and live a cosy domestic life or to dedicate themselves to another cause bigger than them both.

first things first: when silver claims that the man who reached savannah was not james flint, but james mcgraw he's lying. it's a lie! and not in the sense that it's something that he knows "deep down" even if he wishes things were different: it's a plain, old-fashioned lie, and he doesn't believe in it, not even for a second! he stands in front of madi, after having destroyed everything she's ever worked for and condemned her people (and many others) to centuries of oppression, and he lies.

'cause if he truly thought james was out of control and blinded by his rage over losing thomas, if he truly thought that getting thomas back would "kill" flint and his desire for revenge, if he truly thought thomas' death was the only reason he was fighting england, why bring james to savannah in the first place? why sell him into slavery? silver could have simply freed thomas (a man that he knew was innocent, by the way!) and let the two of them start a new life together wherever they wished - but he didn't, because he knew that james was truly fighting for the cause at that point, that he would have finished what he'd started because it was the right thing to do (and that thomas would have probably joined his efforts). killing him would have turned him into a martyr for the cause, so he had to remove him from the action entirely and spread the rumour he'd retired, and the fact that he chose for james the prison thomas was already in doesn't make it any better (eat my whole entire arsehole if you think otherwise).

i also want to stress the fact that not even james thinks james mcgraw and james flint are two different people. sure, james talks a lot about creating a persona that he later wants to get rid of, but he never truly believes he can separate himself from his own actions; that's why carrying their burden becomes harder and harder as time goes on. and on top of that, an element of performance is always present in the way he thinks about himself: he's a closeted gay man in XVIII century england! he's forced to live in a state where he has to lie constantly if he doesn't want to experience systemic violence. 

but he's always fully aware of who and what he is (despite being ashamed of it, at least before meeting thomas). he knows he's got a tender, gentle side and a much more violent, flawed one: he knows he possesses the potential for great violence - maybe he's not aware of how far he can go, but he knows he's capable of causing great harm, although it doesn't necessarily bring him joy (in fact he tends to opt for violent solutions only when he feels trapped, but changes his mind when shown another way that might lead to his desired outcome). james flint is his persona in the sense that he's a version of james mcgraw in which his "good" side isn't allowed to exist - a hyperviolent façade that doesn't fully match his true self, and a façade he has to keep up almost everyday until he's done what he needs to do (i know people like to call him "unhinged" a lot, but if you exclude his mental breakdown after miranda's death he's always in control of his actions).

and again, i think thomas and miranda were aware of james' violent side. miranda might have seen it first-hand, but i do think thomas knew about it as well. their connection is so deep ("my truest love," hello?) and they seem to know each other so fully that i don't think a relationship between them could have worked otherwise. maybe thomas heard of the fight that broke out between james and the officer that insulted him and miranda, and that got him thinking; maybe he worked it out otherwise (although i do believe they eventually talked about the fight, and about hennessey's weirdly protective attitude); but the fact that he's the one to come up with the pardons, unbeknownst to james, is pretty telling. it shows that despite his privilege thomas is instinctually more capable of understanding why disenfranchised people might turn to violence (i.e. piracy). and if he's ready to forgive all the pirates, all the violent men, why would he not extend the same courtesy to the one he loves? 

when he wrote "know no shame" he wasn't simply telling james not to be ashamed of being gay; he was telling him not to be ashamed of any part of himself, including the one that's more prone to violence, because at that point i don't think james truly believed himself worthy of being loved in his entirety, and thomas felt he had to fix that. and he succeeded - not immediately, of course, but by the time he'd come back from nassau james had fully internalised his message, based on the way he talks about his relationship with thomas to miranda and his wish to get away from london with the both of them (and ten years later, when james and miranda fight, he tells her that he does not feel ashamed of having loved thomas, but only of his inaction once thomas had been locked up in bedlam).

for this reason i don't believe that thomas would be "disgusted" by james' actions when they eventually reunite in savannah. i'm not saying he would enthusiastically condone all of them - he wouldn't go "hey, darling, good job on snapping your quartermaster's neck!", for example - but he would understand the motive behind them. he would understand why james - james who believed him dead, james who'd been stripped off the career he'd worked so hard for, james who had truly lost everything - felt like he had no other choice and put himself through so much pain. when james arrives in savannah i don't think thomas believes in reconciliation with england anymore.

i've noticed a weird tendency in this fandom to idealise thomas, to deny his growth in order to present him as flawless, as exclusively kind and "good" and stuck in time (often in opposition to post-london james). i hate it! 

first of all, i feel like this angelic persona does not fit his characterisation at all. he is a good man, but when his father says he's impertinent and self-righteous, or when miranda talks about how he'd basically make people wish they were dead during his salons, i don't get the impression that thomas is a tall giant who simply smiles at everyone and can do no harm. he's an extremely opinionated man that wants to do the right thing even if that makes him unbearable to the people in his proximity because, as james says, he truly believes in what he's saying and, just like james, he's shown to change his mind when presented with new facts; he's open to new ideas, and that's why he comes up with the pardons. 

second of all, we're talking about a man who's been betrayed by those closest to him, who's been imprisoned, tortured and dehumanised to the point that no one questioned his apparent suicide, who's been enslaved for ten years and subjected to yet more and more horrors. why would he not be a changed man, in the same way james is? why would his own ten years of hell not have stripped him of any trace of naivety he had left (the naivety inherent to his privilege and that had led him to believe that gradual change was the best solution), in the same way james was stripped of his after learning of peter's betrayal and seeing miranda killed in front of his eyes? just because this change happens offscreen for thomas it doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. 

if anything, i would say that the conceptual passage from gradualism to revolution might have happened sooner for thomas than for james. let's also remember that when silver asks james if he'd trade the war to have thomas back again, james says thomas wouldn't want him to. he believes him dead, but he knew him well enough to be certain that if he were alive he'd agree with him that no compromise can be made with a colonial empire.

i'm also convinced that thomas always knew (or at least very strongly suspected) james was captain flint. he was imprisoned and isolated from the rest of the world, sure, but plantations didn't exist in a bubble where no news about the outside world could reach them (and the show makes it clear so many times). thomas is an extremely intelligent man. i doubt he would have had a hard time connecting the murder of his father, the rise of captain flint, the events of charlestown, the existence of an army of people still willing to follow a pirate captain in battle despite the pardons and tom morgan coming to look for him in savannah (although i suppose he thought james had found out he was alive and was going to get him out). when james shows up looking very much like a pirate, thomas is clearly happy beyond belief - but he doesn't strike me as someone who had no idea james might come to him someday.

that's why i think that any scenario in which james and thomas drift apart is not only completely unjustified, but extremely cruel and partly motivated by a desire to justify silver despite all evidence of him being a massive piece of shit. and justifying silver is justifying the english empire and all the atrocities it has inflicted - and i can't stand for that. in truth, i can't stand for any scenario in which two people who loved each other so dearly and were so harshly punished for it and for wanting to better society, even if just a little bit, don't get some measure of peace and happiness in which to heal together.

on a side-note, all the people who claim thomas was exactly like woodes rogers and that james' war was not really revolutionary because he was only waging it for selfish reasons fail to understand that:

1) thomas was trying to challenge the status quo and to defend a group of disenfranchised people in an age where criminals were seen as less than human and death sentences were extremely common, while woodes rogers was trying to preserve the status quo and to get rich in the process without giving much of a shit about pirates at all; 

2) every revolution or civil rights movement is at least partly motivated by selfish reasons: people don't want their loved ones and future generations to go through what they've gone through, and often seek some form of retribution in the process. and frankly, i don't care how "selfish" someone's motivations are as long as their actions lead to a more equal world and to better conditions for the people who inhabit it - and i'd rather fight alongside those who try to challenge hegemonic powers, whatever reasons they might have to do so, than be a passive observer of all the horrors that happen around me as long as they don't affect me directly.

anyway, love is real, james and thomas burn that plantation to the ground and silver sucks me good and hard through my jorts 

[quidfree]

xander harris is a particularly sore spot for me bc as someone too young for the tv show but in the right demographic for the comics i wasn't aware of how blatantly terrible so much of the character is until i recently got into watching the series and it's so very much a product of joss whedon making him a self-insert that it angers me

not that there is a shortage of snarky brunette guys who complain a lot but xander could actually have been interesting because he is one of those few companion charas who start and end the series without any powers or special skills to compensate for the life he leads! and he's explicitly struggling with being poor and neglected/abused trapped in capitalist hellscape americana juggling dead-end jobs whilst his magical friends go to college, and supernatural/fantasy shows so rarely touch on issues of class! like there could have been a lot done with xander and the juxtaposition of his lives and his frustrations if joss whedon didn't decide the only trait worth exploring was uh, being an asshole to women all the time because masculinity or whatever. like even his failed wedding could have been interesting if he'd a) been condemned more for doing that to anya b) actually made amends in some significant way and c) his fear of the picket fence life was made somewhat more profound than 'evil woman trap me'.

it's just so frustrating bc even a lot of the best parts of xander are ruined by this all-consuming need to make him this Nice Guy who simultaneously is into strong women but also literally spends half of his interactions with them not treating them like people and woah wait when did joss whedon cameo on this show? all of his interactions with angel and spike (which, sidenote, spike and xander were my favorite dynamic of buffy comics up there with faith and buffy) could have been kept exactly the same if xander just hated *vampires* to irrational degrees because of jesse instead of very explicitly just being a jealous shithead over buffy.

sidenote on the whedon point but the self-insert is very explicit if you consider that. xander could fully have STARTED the way he is and then gradually lost his macho posturing and turned into the actual 'heart' the way he sometimes is and the show pretends he always is, still maintaining all his proto-stiles-stilinski demeanour without the 90s nice guy bullshit, but he never does, because the show frames him as in the right, constantly. his treating the girls like shit/jealousing over them like possessions is framed as petty at worst and usually as good and correct in an extremely patronizing way, and he literally gets with all of the show's female characters in some way or another- because he's joss whedon's fantasy self-insert.

anyways i hate that i always find myself on the 'xander has potential' camp because tv xander just. is like that. the comics i read were way less with the socially-acceptable misogyny of the era so it's doubly irritating for me to compare the two, but in both there's such a waste of a genuinely original opportunity in the staples of the genre- not the white guy deutragonist but like. a character whose struggles are grounded in the reality of the times, not just the fantasy of the setting. i don't understand why the writers looked at all the actual relatable working class problems facing xander and then chose 'incel' as his cross to bear.

final note- not to follow the fandom school of 'this character is the worst but if they're gay they're good now', but joss whedon explicitly started off the series with the intent of making either willow or xander gay and wrote them both as potentially closeted for the first while, and obviously in the 90s (and even now) you'd never have two main characters who are gay and not involved with each other, but like. having xander's worst traits be confronted as an explicit flaw of his that he overcomes as he fights with the constraints of expected masculinity (especially in his social/home situation) would have been... such an easy, interesting fix. like he could have had so much of the same drama and come out a likeable, relevant character by the end of it instead of. status quo bro'ing it out and having the least character growth of the entire scooby gang. but then again 1) buffy's record with the gays is also less than stellar and 2) joss whedon much prefers writing lesbians than grappling with what it means to be a gay man.

[kleinblue52]

Ok a little background to what started as a fandom post and now it’s not. I’m a late bloomer when it comes to sex (I’m a gay cis man) and my poor neurodivergent brain (OCD, social anxiety disorder) is still coping with a way to deal with sex and sexuality that is not traumatic or distressful. And what I found is that I can’t be anything but a monogamist. I’ve had random hookups, but what I want, what I dream of is a committed relationship with a man who doesn’t want to be with anyone but me, and with whom I feel complete and safe. That doesn’t mean that I condemn open relationships, occasional NSA hookups from couples or polyamory, they’re all valid and if that’s you, great. Go be you. But it’s not me. I know what is right for my body and for my mind.

Of course what I found out, and what kind of made me burrow into the closet even further for a period of my life, is that the gay community can be pretty harsh. I’ve had gay men telling me that I’m scum for being so “heteronormative” more times than I can count. I’ve had people calling me a prude, a closet case and a self-hating homo. I know I’m not any of those things, but it’s still something that has made me feel unwanted and guilty, like there was something seriously wrong with the way my body and my mind feel. It’s a feeling that I still sometimes have, even though aging and being more comfortable with who I am has made me less of a victim. Those feelings wash over me sometimes and I try to shrug them off because I know what is healthy for me and I know that I respect whatever other people find it’s healthy and right for them. There’s not one way to be gay.

Ok so what’s the fandom part of the post, you ask? Here’s the deal. I’ve been binge watching Schitt’s Creek for the last few weeks and when I saw the relationship between Patrick and David bloom, my little gay heart just exploded. That right there is what I want. It’s the kind of relationship that I know in my heart will make me feel whole.

Episode 6 of the sixth season hit pretty hard. Patrick and David toy with the idea of a threesome. They don’t go with it in the end, but the curiosity is definitely there. At first I couldn’t stop thinking about how my perfect representation was not perfect anymore, as a threesome shared with the man I love is something that is so far from what I consider healthy for me. Anyone who has OCD knows how difficult it can be to accept things that don’t go the way you expected, how something as trivial as this can become a fixation. But you know what I realized? That it still works. I left my teen years behind me almost two decades ago. I’m the same age as Patrick and David and I know that at this age nothing is worth idealizing, because when you do that you risk hitting a wall of reality pretty hard. So I started realizing that what Patrick and David go through in that episode is not something that tarnishes what I feel. Though ironic and funny, it’s actually brutally honest. As adults, that kind of conversation is something that you need to have in a gay committed relationship. Because curiosity and attraction are not things that can be controlled. The hints of insecurity shown by both Patrick and David felt so real, as real as the curiosity Patrick felt being the less experienced of the two. They might not have gone through with it even without the threat of an orgy, just as Patrick didn’t go through with the date David wanted him to have with the hot guy from the store, because he felt that Patrick needed to see what’s out there before committing. That’s love. It’s accepting what the other person feels, it’s dealing with feelings that can be contradictory and it’s knowing your own boundaries and hoping that your partner will respect them. It’s not perfect. No adult relationship is. But it’s what comes from being open minded, accepting, honest about one’s feelings. So, in a way, it’s the best kind of representation, even though at first I felt betrayed.

[soberyinragingyang]

s m i t h e r s (for the ask thing)

favorite thing about them

I guess the fact that he’s just... refreshing. You don’t see many characters like him, you know? Everything about him is opposable. Evil but still incredibly sincere, an everyman but with a rich, emotional personality. Submissive and syncophantic, but... by choice!

Even his sexuality, like it’s very clear that he’s gay, yet at the same time it’s pretty easy to forget about it. And I like that he’s closeted, too, I think writers tend to forget how relatable that is to queer people and not something to be glossed over (like a certain episode did... *bitter*)

least favorite thing about them

Disregarding his flanderization, I would say my least favorite thing about him is

Uhm... well there’s nothing about him I don’t like, but I do wish he wasn’t... idk, it’s not wasted potential, because this character is a legend, but I wish they’d done even more with him. I wish we’d get a spin-off by the old writers (or a new team of people who care) of him and Burns. It’d be a romcom adventure with elements of mystery ✨ I take no criticism

favorite line

Literally everything he says is gold... “No, sir. Who would you like killed?” being one of my favorites just bc it’s so absurd and his face when he says it.

Pictured ^, the face of a man ready to kill/get someone to kill.

But my all-time favorite has to be “I’ll show you how to use a phone, you boob!” because A: I’m sure he picked up ‘boob’ as an insult from Burns’ vocabulary, which is hilarious. B: He then proceeds to bang the phone into Homer’s head C: this is then followed by “It’s for you.”

brOTP

Him and Marge ❤️ I’m glad some writer had the vision to point out they’d make a good pair of friends and I really like to think about their relationship evolving, especially considering Marge has a bit of a crush on him (which is like... good taste). I also think it makes his dynamic with the other characters really interesting.

i.e he hates Homer but that’s his best friend’s wife, I can imagine him saddling Homer up with the worst duties just bc Marge told Smits about a fight they had, during tea the day before, haha.

And then there’s the fact that Burns is attracted to Marge (again, good taste) I feel like he’d be impressed by Smithers’ capability of forming a relationship with her, although he’d completely miss the point of it being purely platonic. I feel like to him, a man and a woman can be friends as much as two men can be lovers: not!

OTP

Burnsmithers!! (duh) I thought it was the best when I watched the show as kid and that opinion’s only been revived today haha. Don’t really have much more to say about this I haven’t already said except that there’s so. much. to. draw. and the amount of fics I have in the works, goshdang. I’m so in love. I apologize once more to everyone for being so bad at finishing things and putting them out there :<

nOTP

Uhm... none? I’m not really a nOTP kinda person except for the stuff that creeps me out, but I can’t really think of a pairing with Smits that makes me does that. So yeah, nah, shipping galore.

random headcanon

He got his first Malibu Stacy at the age of 15 with money from a parttime job (aka his own money, not his allowance) just to say ‘fuck you’ to his parents for not letting him have one as a kid. He wasn’t even interested in playing with it anymore, but it still made him feel like he was taking pride in an aspect of himself that others have condemned him for. A fascination commences...

unpopular opinion

I feel like I have many unpopular opinions about Waylon lol... the one that’s most important to me, I guess, is that he’s not a cinnamon roll!! I know he’s friendly and cute and sweet but... he’s not a good guy haha.

And what matters is that he enjoys not being a good guy. I know that’s less apparent in the newer seasons where it seems he’s only along for the ride on Burnsie’s schemes, but I really feel like he’s the kind of guy to actually take pleasure in corruption, malcontent and stepping on others from time to time.

And this relates to his dynamic with Monty as well. He doesn’t like Monty despite him being evil, he likes him because he’s evil. He doesn’t want to ‘fix’ him or whatever, I’m sure he sees some humanity and warmth in him but goodness? Benevolence? Nah.

He’s clearly been shown to try and gently steer Burns away from carrrying out any plans that are borderline twisting-mustache-villain evil (i.e taking candy from a baby, stuff that’s just not attractive anymore), but that’s it.

song i associate with them

‘Two’ by Sleeping at Last. I think it’s pretty self-explanatory but man, do I love a song that fits with the kind of character that would throw themselves into peril if it meant anything at all to their loved one, no matter what.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrDzd4ufypE

favorite picture of them

That’s a hard one cause he’s always my favorite thing in every frame ever, especially when he’s wearing that incredible dress shirt + sweater combo

Like boye does he look good in casual wear...

HOWEVER I’m afraid I’ll have to go with The Classic on this one

Bc malicious Smithers is best Smithers

[thurisazsalail]

I’m tired of ‘leftist’ anti-intellectualism and America-centric xenophobia posing as liberalism.

Protip: If you are anti-academia on subjects of culture not being taught by someone genetically from that culture, even if they know nothing about the culture they are talking about and have never participated in it and were never raised with it... over someone who actually does have a background in knowledge from people of that culture who lived in it and were raised in it... you might actually be the imperialist you are talking about fighting against. You might actually be silencing the people you think you are elevating through deplatforming actual sources from the cultural background talked about, artificially holding up someone with the right genes but no heritage or ties. You might want appearance over substance to be a “good person.” Rethink your views on academia. Think critically. What sources is a person using? Does a person talk about Africa like it's a country and not a continent (ew), or does the person have a list of resources about specific cultures as spoken about by the people from those cultures? Do they make effort in finding anyone from that culture to present or speak in class, if possible? Do they show videos of those people, which are not denigrating to them? Did the person work hard to find resources for you in a language you understand, or did they work to translate for you? Or are their resources some old white dude from 200 years ago, like using the Budge translations for (ancient) Egyptian? Did they quote Fiona Graham or Liza Dalby on geisha? Because of those people is a damn liar who took a fucktonne of money and prestige from an ailing geisha house and ran, and one actually trained as an anthropologist who spent time in Pontocho, where they knew exactly what she was there for and they suggested she debuted as a geisha to better understand them. Does the person gloss over issues like war or genocide? Or do they say, "Yeah, we should probably talk about that. In fact, you can use some example from recent history to understand the attitudes a bit better. Here they are, and here are some differences. Here are some further reading (and if available, video) sources, including from the groups that got really fucked over." If you SAY you are into historybounding (taking historical elements in your wardrobe and making it ‘new’ fashion) and you want to make the frilly French dresses and the London fog coats, but don't ever want to talk about how people eventually used the Versailles floors as a latrine because of the decadence and wanton wealth they collapsed into... and how the common people suffered because of it... Or how England discriminated against it's own people heavily, relegating Jewish English people to certain neighbourhoods or refused jobs to them, or treated the Moorish-descent like shit, or actively would beat the Irish in public and stole their land... you might not be into history or culture. You might just like looking at the pretty things and copying them. You know. Probably culturally appropriating (if not borderline doing so). Not just "history bounding." People in a marginalised group often have to learn things about our own groups’ history, or else we might see "Stonewall" and believe that a white guy threw the first brick, or that "queer" is a slur. Our own people, gasp, might have to learn from... academia. And strangely, I know, it's so weird, but some of the people who teach... use primary sources (that’s sources from the time/place/people the source talks about, like Gay Manifesto written by gay man Carl Wittman)... or are closeted about being experts on the subjects... because they are talking about their own groups and STILL face discrimination and might lose those precious jobs if they are out... and they're just not identifiable by your *outsider* standards. And sorry, but if you don't know your own history, yes, you are an outsider in that sense. Yeah, I can trace some of my family lineage to Turtle Tribe Seneca. But I am an outsider because the only reservation I've ever been on is the one to Olive Garden. I might have to *gasp* turn to actual knowledgeable people to learn something about that. I can't just dress up in whatever or do whatever and say, "No, it's okay! My great-grandmother is Seneca!" and then claim not knowing better because my heritage was stolen by federal American laws. That's not how that works. There is some tentative evidence that some of my family was Jewish before hiding it and coming to America in the late 1930s. But I still have to go through an official conversion process. I still have to learn Jewish history and Jewish culture, and about Jewish diaspora issues. That’s how it works. If you are Japanese in Japan, same thing applies to certain things. Like if you are performing tea ceremony with your school, you can’t just wander in to most of them with whatever pretty kimono you want. There are rules for that. It is a language, not just a dress. You will be sent home. If you don’t want to adhere to those rules, you will not be accepted. That’s how it works. It sucks, totally. But welcome to real life. You might have to actually work at things... Including managing your feelings and not making other people responsible for them. You might have to take responsibility AND bury your ego long enough to learn from educated people. One tip is... Question sources! That was my biggest gripe ten years ago! Plenty of books about Japanese culture, and all of them with lots of white people (white according to American-centric ideas about whiteness) writing the narrative! I had to work to find books about Japanese social ideas written by Japanese authors. You might have to work, too, and not blame other people for not just *handing you shit.* But in the end, accept that other people might know more than you and that is isn't about being Uppity by nature. It's also about "I have all this, you want some?"

If you don't want to learn, then you have to leave the classroom. You can't be a child, throwing a temper tantrum. You're a grown-up. But don't just assume by someone's face that you magically already know how things will be. Ask for a list, a syllabus, a source, a curriculum vitae. That should give you some insight on what to expect. Ask for clarification. Oh, this class is teaching Arthur Conan Doyle? WHAT are they teaching about him, specifically? Erasure isn’t the answer, here. That legacy still exists.

Stick to a scope: you can't fit six books of info in one hour. You need to stay focused. That's part of learning. No "whaddabouts?" Yes, write them down and message them in! But they might not be for this specific post, lecture, or class. The class might need a thing right then, like when my Humanities prof decided that Britain just "had a skirmish" with Benin. No, they committed genocide because Benin refused to become a colony of England, and you need to know that RIGHT NOW while the class is happening, before the moment is gone or internalized. But if you have a side comment about what happened to diaspora in WW2 once they moved to Hawaii and Brazil, the focus of the class might be on experiences *in Japan* and not on diaspora. Email it. It might become another class. There isn't time for that right now. That doesn't mean the prof hates diaspora Japanese. It doesn't mean diaspora don't matter. It just means that the class is limited in focus and time, and right now, the focus isn't on diaspora. Don't make a big dramatic deal about it. Instead, idk, maybe write a well-sourced paper on diaspora experiences while fleeing hostile Showa-era takeover and release it publicly. You can just... do that. I've done that with transcripts for movies that don't have them, for essays on various topics. You can even get paid for that content! No one had to "approve" me. I put it on fucking Tumblr so everyone could have it. Open-source means something. jfc people. Stop whining. Start having open conversations instead of shutting anything new or different down. Stop the anti-intellectualism disguised as liberalism. Stop the xenophobia and nativism disguised as cultural protection. It's great when a culture decides for itself that most people (from that culture) don't want foreign interaction or interference! Leave them the fuck alone! It isn’t hard! Some cultures are closed. Some are semi-closed, like there’s certain things you can learn about or participate in but others are only for people from that background. But don't get mad when a totally different culture doesn't care or uses it for leverage. You don’t get to dismiss a different culture or denigrate them under the guise of “protecting” other POC by erasing them. And if your excuse is (Culture/group) is imperialistic/all people of ____ descent/race are _____ DUDE FIRST OF ALL WTF and second of all, let me tell you something about American history. French history. English history. There are some nuanced conversations we COULD have here, like adults. Or you could just be honest and say, “This isn’t a conversation I’d like to have right now.” That’s totally fine. Sometimes you just don’t have the spoons or time. I often don’t, being disabled. Or you could shut down like a child and say that this is fine but then mute all posts until you get your way, and anyone who posts an actual source is wrong or bad because intellectuals and experts are suspicious. Your choice. Real life is complicated. Figure it out instead of trying to reduce hard things to a box to fit in easily. Expand your world past your little tiny experiences in your own country and background. Stop assuming every fucking thing in the world works like it does in America. Stop approving/disapproving of any information that doesn’t match up with your American morality or experiences- there are *other people* that deal with things other ways than we do. Stop wholesale condemning anyone better informed than you just because of your ego. Start using some of those critical thinking skills you are supposed to have. If you don’t know how, type “critical thinking development” into youtube for tutorials. -------- Edit: hahaha I KNEW that Tumblr deleted something when it highlighted it. I just couldn’t figure out what at the time. The difference between Graham and Dalby: one worked in Pontocho as a geisha for research, and they knew that ahead of time; Graham lied her ass off to geisha and then tried to open her own house after taking only a few lessons to get famous and make a lot of money. She’s a fucking embarrassment and worse. --------------- Update 11/3 Turns out that dig I made about French costuming (a perennial fave in historybounding and historical sewing groups) and imperialism wasn’t all that far off... here’s a whole ass thread about how many fucking African presidents and leaders France has specifically killed, and how much France has done to just Africa relatively recently. That’s JUST to Africa. I bet some of my Mi’kMaq and Algonquin-descent friends would have some things to say about heritage erasure regarding the French.  https://thurisazsalail.tumblr.com/post/633807847387512832

[ramon-balaguer]

As reflect on my recent prayer post from a married friend on the download or closeted homosexual or bisexual if you will… praying against his homosexual temptations and thoughts to be a true husband and father to their children…

I believe more needs to be discussed, revealed and taught on sexual sins. Not just for their benefit but for ours, as The Church to extend love, grace and mercy.

And though this is focused on same sex stuff like lesbians and homosexuals, it really can be applied to ANY sexual sin, even in the heterosexual sphere, so let’s dig in and see what God has to say, that unfortunately so many see as Hate talk or speech:

 What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?

Few subjects are more controversial today in the church than this: What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

If one regards the Bible as God-breathed and authoritative, then one must respect whatever the Lord says about every topic.

What we say and think about the LGBT+ (#LHBTTABCDFIGMPPQZ) community should be derived from Scripture, including the ways in which we are to treat one another.

 Bible Verses about Homosexuality

Christians must always start with the Bible in order to hear God’s Word on any subject. His commands are not optional, and he states clearly, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26).

 Some Christians suggest that a progressive God would overturn his own commands in a certain social climate, but God does not progress in his thinking; his thoughts and commandments are always right.

We know that God does not change his mind. That he is always the same; and this is foundational to our hope and our faith in his Kingdom purposes.

God was, is, and always will be against sexual sin in all of its forms, which include lust for a person who is not one’s spouse, sexual affairs, and even emotional affairs.

One must not single out someone who identifies as gay or transgender as a “sinner” but instead look inward. Ignoring one’s own sin by way of deflection does not fool God.

 Modern Arguments about Etymology

There is an argument that Scripture does not contain the word “homosexuality” and that God is not opposed to men or women having sex with consenting members of the same sex. The word “zakar” in Hebrew can refer to any male, including human and animal, but also to boys.

But Strong’s concordance indicates that “zakar,” as used in Leviticus 18:22 above, refers to sodomy, a term not reserved for acts of child sexual abuse or rape but also consensual acts between adults.

“Arsenokoitai” is Greek for “men having sex with other men. And there is no real other interpretation that makes the best sense of the evidence both in the early Christian literature and especially in the Old Testament.”

Kevin DeYoung explains that Paul, a scholar and former Pharisee, coined the term. If Paul had been referring to men forcing boys to have sex, then he could have used the word “biazó” for “violent force” to denote a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex. He did not.

 Positive Commands about Sex

Sex is a gift. “Before the fall — before sin — sex was part of the created order. It was good — VERY GOOD,” wrote Paul Carter. “In fact, contrary to cultural ideas about sex propounded during the first century AD, “Christianity taught that sex within a marriage should be free, generous and reciprocal.”

But God never depicted coital relationships between two men or two women in a positive way. When God made Eve, Adam said “this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman” (Genesis 23).

Marriage is represented frequently in Scripture. We have the examples of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, and Rebekah, Ruth and Boaz; Mary and Joseph; and several more. None of these couples was perfect, but each is an example of heterosexual marriage.

 Jesus' Relationships

When it comes to how society treats individuals who engage in homosexual relationships, Jesus’ attitude is the benchmark. The gospels illustrate how Jesus wants us to treat a person who has been marginalized by society on the basis of gender by highlighting several encounters Jesus had with women.

He called out their sin but offered something better. He allowed Mary Magdalene to serve him by washing his feet with her hair. The Messiah saved an adulterous woman from stoning. The Samaritan woman depicted in John 4 had been married five times and was with a sixth man.

He sat and talked with her when the rest of her community shunned the woman. Each of these women was guilty, but so were the Pharisees and other members of society who scorned or condemned them, and the men who used them.

Instead of judging these women, Jesus invited them to be part of his mission. The Samaritan woman was one of his first apostles. Mary was among his devoted followers.

Jesus gave these women a new identity so that they could freely choose to follow him, relieved of shame, and make him the focus of their lives. Everyone needs God’s mercy, but 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is often taken out of context so that the emphasis lands on homosexuality.

This narrow-mindedness overlooks thievery, greed, drunkenness, abuse, and fraud which are also listed. Paul does not exclude anyone, even classifying himself as the chief of sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15)

 Intimacy, Identity, and Culture

You may have heard of the famous South Carolinian Gospel singer, actor and Minister of the Gospel Donald “Donnie” Andrew McClurkin, Jr. I greatly admire him for his many gifts and talent, but especially his complete uncompromised commitment to our God despite his struggle with his sinful fleshly and worldly desires of homosexuality that started with being sexually abused by two uncles and ended being ostracized and blacklisted by Barack Hussein Obama for his opposing views on Same-Sex Marriage… Likewise Sam Allberry, a same-sex pastor from England, confronts the pain of being alone, even by choice, on the grounds of obedience to God. Celibacy is made more difficult by the elevation of marital intimacy to a lofty position above all other forms, including friendship.

Allberry’s fear is that “if someone’s only choice in life seems to be either unbiblical intimacy or no intimacy, they’re going to end up choosing unbiblical intimacy. And if that’s the case, I think the wider church shares responsibility for that.”

As Allberry asserts, people within the LGBT+ (#LHBTTABCDFIGMPPQZ) and the entire #SinSickSocialistLyingLeftistLiberal community are being denied access to this kind of intimacy, so even those who are keen to follow God’s commands and to please Him by their faithful obedience are drawn to other sources for belonging and acceptance.

Jesus never taught his disciples to deny friendship and familial love to anyone. “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50).

He also promoted mutually uplifting, godly friendship. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). The word friend, philos in the Greek, means “beloved” or “dear.” “I have called you friends,” Jesus said to his disciples (John 15:15).

Not everyone accepts forgiveness through Jesus; but he offers dignity, love, and truth to everyone. When a Gospel-Believing person highlights Sin in a person’s life, the purpose should always be to point that person to Jesus and His Saving grace and mercies.

Admitting and repenting of Sin, turning to Christ for Salvation, restores a person to peace and wholeness with God. Many so-called Christians, however, point fingers and exalt themselves by knocking down anyone whose lifestyle does not line up with their own.

 A Merciful Love

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:1-2).

A big problem in the church right now is the attitude that because someone identifies as homosexual, lesbian (or gay as they now prefer to be called), transgender, pedophile, etc., that they should not be welcomed into the church.

This is wrong for a few reasons:

1. We are all sinners. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the plank sticking out of one’s eye while examining the speck in someone else’s (Matthew 7:3-5).

2. We are commanded not to judge others. If we treat other people as though they are not as valuable to God as we are, then we risk incurring his judgment on ourselves (Matthew 7:1-2).

3. Jesus hung out with everyone. He ate with sinners. That’s why the Pharisees were so scandalized. He offered the gift of his presence and the offer of salvation without prejudice.

4. Jesus says, “Come to me all you who are weary.” This is not an invitation to particular individuals who qualify on the basis of their behavior or lifestyle but to anyone who is tired (Matthew 11:28).

Given the obstacles and even dangers the LGBQT+ community faces, added to the ordinary strains of life in general, one might imagine they are very weary, indeed.

 What’s Next for the Church

Everyone was made in God’s image, but not all people embrace Christ’s message of Hope, Peace, Love, Holiness, Grace, Mercy, and Justice.

One reason for this is religious arrogance (Not much has changed in over 2,000 years, sadly) — Christians who act as though they are in a position to condemn or pardon.

But if churches shut their doors to those who defy God’s commands about sexual intimacy, the doors would be shut to everyone. The duty and privilege of Christ’s disciples are to offer all who will listen to the message of salvation and the promise of a love greater than anything.

His Love and Justice go together, but all who call on Christ’s name for Salvation are covered by His Blood. Believe it or not, that includes same-sex folks and all the rest… Each of us is a work in progress.

We can teach His inerrant Word but must always do so without judging or persecuting anyone, and with love and kindness.

If churches shut their doors to those who defy God’s commands about sexual intimacy, the doors would be shut to everyone. The smokers and drunkards, the liars and gossipers, the thieves and robbers, the cheaters and beaters…

The duty and privilege of Christ’s disciples are to offer all who will listen to the message of Salvation, Restoration and the promise of a love greater than anything.

 I have way too many friends and family who’ve dibbled and dabbled or live out any of these lifestyles the same way others do with alcohol, marijuana, porn or other addictive drugs… but I Love them all and would support and do anything for them that I’d do for anyone else within the Word of God. :) #REBTD

 My God and Father, how great is Your Love and Mercy… Thank You for Saving me from me and my poor choices in this life. Thank You for Saving my wife, sons and Godsons and so many family and friends from the Devil’s deceptions that lead to addictive behaviors. My Lord, bless and increase their Faith and Hope in You to continually walk with You that they won’t lose the precious Gift of Salvation from when they first Believed. Last but not least, let the lost find You and takeaway any thought or desire to sin and come to You with a repentant heart to give themselves to You. In Jesus’ Saving name, Amen.

[enbymoomin]

Right now I'm just thinking about the blatant extremely violent homophobia in the last episode of Supernatural. Like what the fuck. What the actual fuck. There was absolutely no need to brutalize a gay man like that. At least they didn't show it on screen like they did for the woman, but that's still not good. The bar is on the floor and the Supernatural writers still managed to crawl under it.

CW for homophobia and gory violence. Lmk if I should add any other content or trigger warnings. Also spoilers under the cut.

So here's what happened in the episode: one white boy from this church group (or "faith-based community" as its members call it) is walking home one night from the soup kitchen and is kidnapped and dragged away screaming. When Cas and Jack first show up to the crime scene the next morning, they find out that the boy's fingers were cut off and shoved down his throat. The word "LIAR" was carved into his forehead (or body, I don't quite remember specifically where).

When Jack infiltrates the church group to find out more, he ends up talking with one of the girls there, who has been extremely affected by the boy's death. (If you can't already tell, I've forgotten all their names.) The girl reveals that she and the boy had dated a little while back but his death still really affected her.

Then, Cas talks to the pastor of the church, who happens to be the aforementioned girl's father. Pastor-dad describes their church to Cas as a welcoming, accepting community for people of all backgrounds; when prompted, he gives an example of how the boy who died was gay and believed in a tolerant God.

Now, when I first watched this, I was a little irked that they killed the gay character in this episode but I thought, "Well, at least he wasn't killed for being gay." But now that I'm really thinking about all the pieces of the episode as a whole, I realize that he actually was. In such a disgusting, blatant, and unfathomably cruel act of homophobia.

The big reveal at the end of the episode is that the girl who was the pastor's daughter and once dated the gay boy was actually the killer all along. Her goal was to purge the church of all those she deemed to be sinning, as evidenced by her condemnation of two other church members for "greed" and "lust". But while she doesn't explicitly deem the gay boy's "sin" to be being gay, she deems his sin to be being a "liar". She killed him, cut off his fingers, and shoved them down his throat because she was angry that he lied to her about his sexuality when they were dating.

Tell me, Supernatural writers, what do you think happens when you kill off a gay character in the first five minutes of the show as your catalyst for the episode, and then explain it as "oh he lied when he dated a girl a while back"? Bitch?! Do you think it helps gay people to see themselves get fucking killed for not being out of the closet or taking the time they need to discover their sexuality? Tell me, show writers, tell me who you think it benefits, because boy oh boy am I curious to find out. You know, I bet it wouldn't be that hard to come up with another backstory and "sin" to base your opening murder off of that doesn't chop off a gay man's fingers one by one, shove then down his throat, carve the word "LIAR" into his body, and then kill him for being gay and in the closet. But hey, at the end of the day, this is still the same show that killed off a major lesbian character, gave -5 minutes of screentime to a side/background young wlw couple, and queerbaited their audience for 12+ years.