#queer people have always existed but not always in the same way

[icouldntthinkofabetternamesook]

my brain made so connections

I'm not sure how pictures work here so this is gonna be formatted goofy but these two polycules/love angles have far to much in common and I need to share

Mel Medarda and Hazel Levesque

beautiful terrifying black women with mommy issues, gold, an association with wealth, prodigious magic powers, artistic pursuits and a distant brother. in a position of power in a system that will always see them as outsiders to some extent. big kindhearted boyfriend. terrible relationship with mother who is in many ways the antagonist of the entire piece and they never get a satisfying conclusion to their relationship(I see Gaea as Hazel's mom in this comparison). deeply and seriously underserved by a narrative that treats getting magic powers as the same thing as getting character development. I once again cannot overstate the shared connection to gold and wealth, especially gold. in many ways responsible for the events of the series but she did it for her mother's love so I can't blame her. Mels love of painting and Hazels love of drawing. A deep, loving, if damaged heart. if they came from anywhere near the same social strata they would be the same character

these two characters are defiantly cross universe variants of each other and their massive similarities kicked off this entire thought process

Viktor and Leo Valdez

scrappy, messy inventors with low self esteem, resurrections, a weird thing going on with a magical entity, and they both die to save the world. in weird sorta love triangle with the above. Leo has that pre arcane Machine herald vibe. they both push people away and are in a self inflicted cycle of loneliness despite being full of love. died for your sins and only got hate and pain in response

Jayce Tales and Frank Zhang

probably the least similar of the polycules. absolute puppies of men, tendencies to fail upwards, get put at the very top of a system of authority of a kinda fascist organization, magic totem of some form, come from some level of legacy in their systems though Frank has far more. most importantly in a weird polycule, love angle with the other two, officially dating the golden girl and has weird thing happening with the resurrected one.

these are both utterly delightful polycules were the boys should go make out so the girl can self actualize

a few more arcane riordan parallels under the cut with more thematic exploration

Caitlyn Kiramman and Reyna Ramirez-Arellano

queer woman of color who got pulled into the facism despite their good intentions

Vi and Piper McClean

a bit of a stretch, but messy haired lesbians in conflict with a lot of the existing order and pressure of family legacy. I kinda have it divided with Piltover=Rome, Zaun=greece. which leads me to another connection. their both very close to the next person on my list

Jinx and Annabeth Chase

now this is definitely a hear me out, but I love my girl geniuses who after a falling out with their family ran into an older male figure who loved them like family but nonetheless was horribly toxic and wound up falling into even through their genuine dedication to their righteous crusade being soured after a falling out with another figure who also acted in a similar capacity to the girl they took in and the story ends with the little girl standing over their corpse they are various levels of responsible for after choose their devotion to another over their toxic semi parental love who spends their last breaths reaffirming their relationship and ultimately winning a more centrist version of their cause after death. I just love when little girls wind up alone, and desperate to prove themselves because the system cares about them as weapons over children to be protected.

Silco and Luke Castellan

was right. bitchin scars. fallen hero figures who care deeply for the people they sent out to protect but ultimately became what they feared most and got corrupted by power. leftist hero's in a centrist narrative. this does not change the immense harm they did specifically to the young girl in their care they have weird semi sexual/romantic subtext with despite ultimately having a familial bond. they also have an antagonist relationship with

Ekko and Percy Jackson

the boy savior, far to much on their shoulders to early, leaders in their community, truly look out for the people, will spit in authorities eye but is also pretty close to some specific people in power, in love with the victim/adopted family of the villain/fallen hero. the one who breaks the cycle and saves the day

I managed to get most of the Arcane characters and the tip of the ice berg for riordan. this obviously has Thalia as Vander in the Luke/Silco, Annabeth/Jinx trio, as well as an association with wolves and dying in a heroic sacrifice to protect a little girl in their charge and ultimately coming back from the dead after being saved against their will. I think Vi might actually be the closest to Jason in this dynamic, especially after making Reyna/Caitlyn, but they don't have that much more in common. serious complexes about being what others need and a lack of internal stability? amnesia if you take vi's old league lore into account? I still prefer Piper I think they have more similar vibes and I'm trying to make the camps and city's line up

this also has Gaea as Ambessa and Calypso as Hexcore Sky. no one really lines up with singed or Sevika and no one lines up with Nico. Sevika works as Clarisse, as in utterly amazing butches

this might all just be similar tropes lining up in similar ways but I kinda like it

[clawsextended]

in my perfect world everyone makes so many lesbian muses the men then have to deal with the exact same behavior when every single post ever written isn’t about dick.

[officiallanxichen]

[ID: a screenshot of a reply by yuri-alexseygaybitch that reads, "Can you explain?" End ID.]

the historical source we have for understanding much of the early roman empire are so fucking bad. like whenever you hear any insane story about tiberius/caligula/nero/commodus/elagabalus imagine trying to put together an account of any modern figure if your only avaiable sources were tucker carlson archives and the daily mail

[drchucktingle]

this was a comment on one of my post from a recent live event. it was photos of joyful queer buckaroos celebrating together and proving love is real through creation, community, and a trot of love. most important I AM LITERALLY IN PHOTO AS A REAL FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN

it got me thinking about how DEEP AND VICIOUS the irony poisoning of these early internet communities goes. the way buds like this cannot fathom someone just being a sincere person unrelated to their OWN old days of cynical posting. it is fascinating, and i will admit, sad too

despite a DECADE of work, countless live events, 350 tinglers written well before large language models were a thing, there are still people who cannot imagine someone like me could exist. it is a strange place to be. not just part of me, but my entire EXISTENCE is often gatekept

it is easy to say ‘well chuck your art IS strange’ but honestly i think it is more than that. magical realism is common. there are stories about dinosaurs and bigfeet and unicorns. this scoundrel reaction is about two unspoken things: my art is neurodivergent, and my art is queer

heres the thing: I WILL BE FINE. what concerns me is not an issue of MYSELF, it is a concern for the other young outsider buckaroos who see comments like this one and think ‘is that what they will say if i express MY unique way? will i be dehumanized like this at every turn?'

i will be honest, i cannot say that WONT happen, but i CAN say this: for as deep as this irony poisoning goes, it is slowly dying. the way i was treated at the start of my career is LIGHTYEARS DIFFERENT from the way i am treated now. there is a massive shift towards sincerity

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY. to young artists trotting up, the things that i am harassed over and doubted for and made fun of for are NOT tangental to what has made me successful, THEY ARE LITERALLY THE SAME THINGS THAT HAVE MADE ME SUCCESSFUL. YES I AM STRANGE, WHAT OF IT?

the things that you tuck away for fear of a review that says ‘there is a PROBLEM with this art because it has always been done another way’ THOSE ARE YOUR SUPERPOWERS. the gatekeepers want you to tuck those parts of yourself away because THEY TUCKED AWAY THOSE PART OF THEMSELVES

never forget that your unique way is PURE UNFILTERED 100 PERCENT ROCKET FUEL. it will stick out (maybe, if you are lucky, scoundrels will even say that someone like you could never actually be real), but sticking out isnt so bad when you are waving the flag of love.

in fact, when youre waving the flag of love, sticking out is pretty dang cool. what are flags for, after all? LOVE IS REAL BUCKAROOS. thank you for reading, and if you enjoyed this long post then please consider preordering BURY YOUR GAYS.

LETS TROT

[omgthatdress]

The Importance of Studying Queerness in Context.

When studying queer history, one always has to keep in mind two seemingly contradictory things: firstly, that queerness and queer people have always existed, but at the same time, that queerness and queer identities have not always existed the way they exist today.

Modern queer terms and identities did not exist to queer people in the past. They would not have thought of themselves as "gay" or "trans" or even "queer." While these modern terms may seem to fit certain historic individuals, these individuals would not have thought of themselves as such, and it would not be a part of their lived experience. To apply the modern identities of queerness to history is to erase the lives and experiences of queer people in history, and care must always be taken to understand queer history within the context of its time.

When looking at queer history online, there is a *lot* of misinformation and misidentification out there simply because people are eager to apply modern queerness to history, often in places where it doesn't belong.

A lot of old photos get misidentified as gay because they show two people of the same sex showing some level of physical affection towards each other. Okay, I'll admit that the open-mouth kissing photobooth pictures are probably actually gay, but an old picture of two men or two women holding hands or with their arms around each other, or even kissing on the cheek, were common shows of platonic affection.

I hate to break everyone's gay little hearts, but without explicit documentation saying so, assuming that these couples are all gay is putting modern queer identity in places where it simply didn't exist. The women in the final picture are sisters. The "not married" boys are bachelors interested in marrying women.

In the silent film Wings, the emotional climax of the film comes in the form of a kiss exchanged between the characters played by Jack Powell and David Armstrong. It often gets attributed as the first gay kiss in cinema history, even on the fucking YouTube clip I found:

Except it isn't gay. The two men spend the whole film fighting over who gets to be Clara Bow's boyfriend. When Richard Arlen's character is fatally wounded, his dear friend rushes to his side and kisses him goodbye, because in the 1920s, that was considered the ultimate show of friendship. The movie ends with Jack Powell falling in love with Clara Bow.

Similarly, a kiss shared between Lillian and Dorothy Gish in the 1921 movie Orphans of the Storm often gets attributed as being queer, but it wasn't.

They were sisters playing sisters. None of this was considered unusual.

Pooh-poohing on all of these images that so many people on the internet breathlessly and joyously laud as proud gay history isn't fun. It makes me feel like I'm fucking Ben Shapiro. But if misinformation is allowed to flourish, it allows people like Ben Shapiro to come in and make the argument that queerness is a modern invention and queer people didn't exist in the past.

Everyone loves to see queerness represented in history, but the fact is that none of the stuff in this post would have been seen as explicitly gay and thus shouldn't be called gay today. If we are to understand queer history in its fullness and richness, it is absolutely crucial that we get it right. We owe it to our queer ancestors to recognize, honor, and not embellish the actual lives they lived.

[lenalvthor]

hey i have a fucking bone to pick with sapphic fandoms

like, i get it okay. i've been on tumblr since 2011, i was in the trenches during the bury your gays nightmare, i grew up on buffy, i watched the 100, i've been through the furious and devastating queerbaits, and i've watched helplessly as the boom of proper progress with sapphic rep has burned and disappeared with the faults of the industry as it is rn and the resurgence of bury your gays in the form of tv cancellations

i even did a fucking guest lecture for a film & tv university course a couple years ago on all of this

we joke about the fact that queer (specifically sapphic) fans flock to any show with the barest hint of rep in it because we're so starved for it, and we talk about the fact that if nothing else, that proves that there's a market and an audience and it usually creates a huge wave of viewership and attention for the show

but i need to fucking point out: acting as though a show exists for the sole purpose of the sapphic relationship you've started watching it for is fucking detrimental to how you'll perceive the show, how it'll get talked about in fandom spaces and then beyond that (bc the line between fandom spaces and wider online discussion of media is a lot thinner than it was ten years ago) and isn't actually going to do any good for sapphic rep! like, at all! because guess what! unless you're watching a show where the entire storyline revolves around romance, this couple you're watching for ISN'T going to be the centre of the story! it's a part of it! and there's such a weird fucking entitled toxicity to how fans act around brilliant storytelling and worldbuilding and writing and characters throwing tantrums about not getting more screentime for the relationship they like because they don't actually care about any other part of the story. and the thing about people who watch something solely for a ship rather than the wider story it exists in, is that a lot of the time, you'll fundamentally misinterpret the characters and their dynamic because you're not taking any of the wider context of the world and story into account at all.

and yes, of course i'm talking about agatha all along in the immediacy. because we knew a long, long time ago that billy maximoff was gonna be an integral part of this story, long before we knew anything about what the vibe of this show was gonna be, long before anyone even had the tiniest whisper of rio's existence. the same way wandavision was monica rambeau's origin story even though the show was wanda's, we suspected that agatha all along would be billy's/wiccan's origin story even if the show focused on agatha. and you know fucking what. that's good fucking storytelling. this show is smart, it's funny, it's curious, it's campy, it's queer, and it's ensemble. that's always been the point. agatha and rio were a delightfully unexpected part of it that added such delicious tension and phenomenal sapphic rep, but you know what else! the point of that dynamic is to flesh out agatha's character! this show isn't about agatha and rio! it's about agatha and billy, who they are, how their pasts and their magic are connected, their traumas and their power and how the road shapes their futures! rio is a part of exploring agatha's past, and it's phenomenal, but i am so fucking bewildered by the ridiculousness of people's reactions to billy now having a bigger part in the story and there being less focus on agatha and rio. you do know that you write scenes and characters and stories in a way that makes sense right? that because of the nature of this show, even if we don't get more than a handful agatha and rio scenes for the rest of the episodes, they're both still sapphic characters, this is still wonderful sapphic rep, and this show is still very, very queer?

like, it's obviously not fair that we have to beg for scraps to have queer shows to watch. but that doesn't mean that any of us get to do such a fucking disservice to the people who make amazing shows and fight to put sapphic rep in them within the contexts of the stories they're telling by whining that it's not enough. what we're getting with agatha all along, what kathryn han and aubrey plaza and jac schaeffer have said with such grace and nuance and intrigue and depth about agatha and rio's relationship, is so fucking rare! and it's nestled within a story that's got so much other intricate storytelling that makes agatha and rio richer characters when you actually pay some fucking attention and care about who they are outside of their sexual tension!

and i'm saying this because this is an issue i see with So many other shows, where the worth of a show gets boiled down to fandoms wanting content of their ship and nothing else and then poisoning the conversation and reception around what else it is that show is doing with its story. idk get some fucking media literacy, grow up and respect artists and creatives.

[renthony]

A significant amount of my opinions about modern queer television are influenced by researching older queer media.

I see a lot of the same vitriol in modern queer fandom discourse that has been playing out in queer spaces since film and television were invented. Shows in the 70s started making steps toward sensitivity consulting in queer media, even as the networks fought them on it. Imperfect but earnest queer representation was met with aggressive protests by homophobes and queer people who thought it wasn't good enough. The argument over good representation vs no representation has been happening for decades and decades.

You spend enough time immersed in old queer media and you really start to vibe with Harvey Fierstein's words in The Celluloid Closet documentary. Or at least, I do.

Harvey Fierstein: "I liked the sissy. Is it used in negative ways? Yeah, but, my view has always been visibility at any cost."

The way I see it, the way to genuine, loving queer representation that showcases a vast array of experiences is to stop demanding perfection. The fewer queer stories that are allowed to exist, the more of the heavy lifting those stories have to do in the representation department.

When we have numerous queer stories, it's suddenly much less important to argue over whether the queer characters in question are "good" or "positive." They can just be queer characters who exist in the same infinite variety as straight characters. They can be messy, they can be flawed, they can be honest portrayals of the complexity of human existence.

Queer representation will never be perfect, and striving for perfection is how we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Some starter reading for those interested:

Alternate Channels: Queer Images on 20th-Century TV (revised edition) - Steven Capsuto

Hi Honey, I'm Homo!: Sitcoms, Specials, and the Queering of American Culture - Matt Baume

The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies - Vito Russo

[mr-ribbit]

something fascinating to me about egg discourse is how often tme people Also joke about or question their friends potential to be trans, and it's literally never talked about like this.

my cis and tme nb friends routinely joke about celebrities or characters that have big "nonbinary energy" or who otherwise exhibit behavior we would associate with ourselves. i have tme friends and acquaintances who have approached me or my wife and straightforwardly said "something seems trans about you, have I asked for your pronouns recently?"

similar friends have even talked about other still-cis friends in our circle this way, or joked about "when are you going to transition like the rest of us?" or "yeah cis people are a minority in this group, just give it time" or "no wonder you have queer friends with how comfortable with being gnc you are" or etc etc examples like that

even the actual examples of people in my life that I can think of as being the most "invasive" or presumptive about gender have been tme people:

it was my cishet friends who outed me and my wife as trans to everyone at their wedding, including their boomer parents and hundreds of strangers, and called it "the most queer wedding party ever"

it was my tme nb friend who kept saying they could "always tell" her transfem cousin was trans before she came out, and then proceeded to randomly give us extremely personal details about her bottom surgery

it was my transmasc friend who refused to call me and my wife anything other than "little enby beans" after we met and introduced us with our full genders+sexuality labels to every single person one by one at a party

it was my transmasc nb friend who kept insisting my wife could "still be nonbinary" when she was first considering identifying as a trans woman instead, and it was THAT idea that actually slowed her down from making changes to her life that she wanted

it was my cis friends who approached me arm and arm and cornered my outside of a bathroom at a party right after I took a piss to suddenly ask me what my pronouns were because they "heard something" at the party

like, transfems deserve robust support against this trash so a lot of our defensive discourse has ofc been about how it IS okay for transfems to talk about eggs and be jokey about it and non-invasively approach others about being trans

but i swear to god none of these weird people have even stopped to make their discourse ABOUT anyone BUT transfems. it's so clearly targeted!!

no one has EVER approached *me* as a tme nb person and suggested i was pressuring gnc people with my egg jokes. never. nothing even remotely similar. i joke about other people being trans all the time and no one has ever treated me the way you all are treating transfems over this issue.

important note: my examples are all things I recall as being invasive and awkward, and I'm sharing them to make a point about how often rude behavior comes from the same tme people pointing fingers over this. but I still don't think any of them are worth the crucifixion people are treating transfem egg discourse with.

even when my friends were weird to me in the above examples, my reaction was either to confront them about it as friends who I trust to be able to communicate with, or to cut those individuals off after they proved not worth a relationship in the long run. at no time did I desire to make a call-out post or spread rumors about them or publicly declare all of their gender as a screeching menace to society.

my point here is that even when I do think about moments where others crossed a line, acting like this is a "issue trans women have" is blatantly transmisogynistic garbage that only exists to serve the woman-hating machine at the heart of our society. fucking cut it out

[olderthannetfic]

I always see people reminiscing about the Good Ole Days and about how antis are a new thing but. . .is that really true? Or am I just being autistic and taking things too literally, and they just mean it's way more of a common debate now than it used to be before, and that the landscape of shipwank has changed?

Idk, it's like I constantly hear about fandom wank and shipwars and censorship from decades ago, and yes I know "shipping/doxxing/censorship has always existed" can co exist with "antis are new" but I think there's still a bit of a comprehension gap on my end.

am i just dumb? What am I missing here? FWIW - I do feel like the context of "anti" has definitely changed. Back in early 2010s tumblr (I cannot speak of other website/platforms) I remember that tagging something as #Anti Donkey Kong didn't mean you think DK is an evil abusive monster and that everyone who likes him/mains him is also an evil abusive monster and that Nintendo is pushing the evil abusive monster agenda. #Anti Donkey Kong would just be character bashing, wank, letting out your grievances about how ugly DK is, etc, but it was really just a tag used for your own personal opinions (and for DK fans to filter out). Whereas now #Anti Donkey Kong would mean please go die and delete all your accounts if you support DK.

So I definitely know that "anti" has a way more intense definition now than it used to - but for some reason I find it a bit hard to grasp just how new this whole anti thing even is in the firstplace. It honestly makes me sad that I've never seen a pre-anti internet, assuming there really was a time before antis.

--

Antis are new. Specifically, the "Conservative Protestantism in a gay hat" thing that that one tumblr post pointed out is new.

We had doxxing in the past. We had masses of shipwank. We also had "How dare you write that m/m ship. It's bad!"

The key is that the "Your m/m ship is bad" crowd used to openly be conservative Christian homophobes who objected to homosexuality itself. Nowadays, they're queer 20-somethings who like m/m ships but object to gay sex.

It's the anti-kink, anti-fantasy brigade coming from "our side" instead of the outside, essentially. It's respectability politics about "Sempai will love me if I just sanitize The Community and kick out the icky weirdos". It's personal disgust masquerading as morality where once it would have been masquerading as intellectual superiority.

It's a product of queerness being more public and tolerated overall. In the past, a lot of spaces devoted to m/m shipping had to be aggressively in favor of contentious fiction because the existence of anything m/m was itself contentious. There was plenty of "Well, my gay best friend said ___ is unrealistic, and my slash is good, unlike that of you plebes!" There was much less "Fujoshi means fetishizer".

Of course, I'm comparing the 90s internet to now or the mid 00s Livejournal fandom to Tumblr of this past decade. It really depends on whether Ye Olden Times was five years ago or twenty five.

The modern use of the term 'anti' did indeed grow out of the old habit of tagging your hate. As the default cultural mode shifted from "My NOTP is dumb" to "My NOTP is problematic", the usage changed. At some point, antis started getting offended by their self-applied term and pretending that the other side inflicted it on them. This is revisionism. Fiction-is-not-reality had some writeups with citations in the past.

The big shifts were happening around 2012-2016. The long slide into puritywankers being everywhere has only continued since then, but that's where the tipping point seems to have been. TikTok exacerbates this nonsense, and there are clearly plenty of people who are anti-queer and only weaponizing clueless queer youth.

The big shift is that liking m/m used to weed out most of the worst people, and now it attracts lots of them who will not fucking go away because they like the same ship, just the hand-holdy, no dicks can touch ever version.

They spend their time bleating about how AO3 should have been built for them and how anti-censorship activism doesn't matter... because they've grown up in a fandom world dominated by AO3, which shelters them from the reality that the "Ewww, all m/m sucks!" crowd is everywhere on other sites to this day.

That's probably why the shift is when it is. Certain aspects of mainstream queer acceptance were on the rise just as AO3 was getting big. But at the same time, the world is shit and everyone has anxiety they self-medicate through rage and security theater around sniffing out The Bad People.

[genericpuff]

I've been griping about the normalization of identity outing via social media for a while now. To put it simply, it's become almost some weird societal requirement that if you don't have every detail listed about yourself in your Twitter/FB/etc. bio, then it means you have "something to hide" or that you're not as "verifiable" because your account looks indistinct from that of a bot.

But that societal norm has really only benefited the people who profit off of that information in some way, whether it's through selling user data or through weaponizing details about a person against them.

I know that a lot of us love to use the fun little labels and acronyms in our bio that help others like us identify us as a 'safe person' or as someone who's in the same social/racial/identity groups as them. We're humans, we love to categorize things, it's in our nature (and it's fun!)

But if there's any time to start regulating that habit and challenging the norm that you're obligated to include all your personal info online - it's now.

There was a time when sock puppet accounts were expected and typical, not "suspicious".

There was a time when even age-sex-location was considered "too much information", but once it became the norm, we only EVER gave our personal information beyond generic ASL to people who we knew both online and in real life, or at the very least, people who we had known online for a significant enough amount of time that they had proved to be trustworthy (and even then, we didn't owe that information to anyone, ever; there are forum friends who I made online 10+ years ago and still talk to who do not know my personal information beyond broad strokes).

There was a time when simply being an avatar with a funny username was enough. And it still is enough, but massive platforms like Facebook and Twitter have been brainwashing us for years to believe that's not the case, under the guise of, "You wouldn't want to be dishonest, would you?" Through these same norms, we were led to believe that anime profile pictures are cringe, that having a fake online name is stupid, that the photos of you having fun at social events have to be taken JUST right otherwise you might imply to others that you're not actually having fun.

And considering how long these platforms have been around now, we have entire generations of children now who have been born and raised on that version of the ZuckMusk web, who have been taught that it "protects them" to express to everyone publicly their age, their school, their workplace, their family members, everything about themselves, because to not do so would be disingenuous.

None of this is to imply that the Internet was "safer" back in the day. I definitely should not have been on the Internet as much as I was when I was 13 in the late 2000's, it definitely did not benefit my brain development or my social skills. But the version of the Internet we currently exist in now is one that's been predicated on the false sense of security - the belief that if you're honest, everyone else has to be, too.

We've always had ways of identifying our safe people - by participating in the communities that we know are designed around our hobbies, our interests, our people. They might be small, they might not be as "cool" as the idea of netting yourself a big following of thousands of people, but they're also a lot safer and more genuine than that idealized following ever could be.

Don't feel pressured to include every bit of information about yourself in your bio. Even on Facebook, there's no rule that says you have to list your workplace, your school, your family members. There's no rule that says you have to list your personality type, queer labels, and neurodivergent disorders in your Twitter bio. There's no rule that you have to "prove" your life is real and fulfilled through the verification of photos, location tagging, and open-book sharing. If you share those photos, it should be because you genuinely want to share them, not because you feel some societal pressure to live up to others' expectations.

And I guarantee you, even your local mutuals on Facebook - your former classmates, family friends, distant relatives, coworkers, etc. - do not actually give that much of a damn about your personal life that they should be owed that much of a look into it on a daily basis. They've got their own shit going on, they literally do not need to know every detail about you.

I know it sounds scary. It also sounds kind of boring, when we've been used to a certain "way" of browsing and participating for years, that if we don't do so, it feels like being in the "out group" and that we're "breaking the rules". But I promise you, after spending over half my life online, those rules do not exist or benefit anyone who wouldn't profit off that information.

If you're wanting to learn how to branch off from major platforms like Facebook and Twitter and/or become more self-sufficient online, here are some guides to navigating the Internet like an old schooler that may help you!

FREE SITE BUILDER:

DIGITAL PIRACY 101:

(also in addition to everything mentioned here ^^^ they neglect to also mention Tor Browser which is a light and free-to-use browser software that allows you to browse anonymously; note that it's similar to a VPN in that it helps hide your identity online, HOWEVER it won't mask you from your ISP quite as effectively as a VPN, and if you sign into personal accounts with Tor, that's still going to obviously out you online lmao but I love using Tor for the odd time when I need to make a sock puppet for something and don't want it linked to my IP! and unlike a VPN, it's free to use!)

LEARN HOW TO USE RSS FEEDS:

People still use these! They're especially helpful for getting updates from your favorite pages and sites directly to your browser WITHOUT having to worry about stupid algorithm bullshit picking and choosing what you see. And many sites DO have RSS support once you know how to find it! (like adding in /rss at the end of a URL! Like this!)

FAKE EMAIL SERVICES:

LEARN HOW TO CODE IN HTML/CSS/JAVASCRIPT (AND MORE!):

DECENTRALIZED SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS:

I hope this helps arm you with some new knowledge in how to navigate the Internet like a Certified Old Person™️(like meeee!) Make your secret alt blogs for besties! Make your formal Facebook accounts that are clean of personal information and present the most neutral, safe-for-work version of yourself and keep the fun stuff to the secret profiles and chat groups that are just for you and friends/family/etc!! It might be "inconvenient" to have multiple accounts for the same purpose, but it's also INCREDIBLY freeing and can make your online experience both safer and more enjoyable.

Being "less" of yourself online does not make you any less you. It is your identity - you do not owe any amount of it to anyone beyond yourself. And in times like these, your identity is your greatest asset. Protect it.

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.

[edwin-paynes-bowtie]

I was angry. I'm still angry. But sadness and exhaustion have overtaken that anger, and I have A LOT to say about this.

Dead Boy Detectives is a very special show to me. It occupies a ridiculously large place in my heart, and it's brought me joy in a way that only a few pieces of media ever have. When I watched it for the first time, Edwin Payne had my heart within minutes. By the end of episode one, Charles Rowland did, too.

It meant a lot to me, seeing such wonderful and nuanced queer characters brought to life in the type of paranormal story I have always loved. In these past months, Edwin and Charles have felt like real friends to me, and to never see them again without a satisfying conclusion to their story is something I have not truly processed. Same for Niko and Crystal and The Cat King - they should be back. But I haven't fully processed it yet, that they're not coming back, and yet I am still aggreived.

@netflix is, at this point, so fucking gagged on capitalism's dick that they're not even pretending to care about art anymore. Dead Boy Detectives is genuinely masterfully made on just about every level. The actors did a phenomenal job and I will be following all their careers heavily. Steve, Beth, and the writing team crafted an incredible tale. The sets, the lighting, the props, the effects were all on point. This was a well-constructed program, and you could tell that everyone involved with the project gave it their all because they cared so deeply.

(Also my heart breaks for the whole cast, but it's hardcore hurting for George since this was not only his first screen role but one he clearly thought he would be keeping as of two weeks ago. He seemed so secure. I hate this for him.)

In addition to being a good show, DBDA had good reception. It's got a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, was on the Top 10 for several weeks, got 4.7 million views within week one, and was getting daily articles posted on various review sites with NOTHING but praise. The fandom is incredibly active. We trend on Tumblr like five times a week and on Twitter regularly as well.

THE. SCRIPT. FOR. SEASON. 2. WAS. WRITTEN.

What the fuck happened?

Idiot executives at @netflix, choking on the dick of capitalism, probably just thought that they wouldn't get new subscribers for a second season of an existing show that didn't rake in Bridgerton-level cash. That's how they work - people who are interested in it are already subscribers, so who the fuck cares about them? Better to make some other shit, hope new people subscribe, and maybe that'll be a Bridgerton-level hit.

But also, Netflix has fun little trends to look into. And, when you look at the lineup of shows Netflix has canceled, they are overwhelmingly queer. The homophobia of @netflix and their operatives is clearly boundless, and it hits here really badly because this show was clearly made with a queer audience in mind. It was one of the most authentic pieces of queer media I have ever experienced, if not THE most authentic pieces of queer media that I have ever experienced.

It's fucking ridiculous that Netflix canceled a show that they commissioned a completed script of months ago. It sucks that they decided that their existing subscribers, their queer subscribers, did not matter.

Edwin and Charles are ours now. Well, of course, they're George's and Jayden's respectively, but the characters are no longer Netflix's to use and throw out. They're ours now, our fandom's, and we all love them so much.

And we deserved to see more of them, and we deserved to see their love story play out onscreen, but I for one am not going anywhere. Let's give Edwin and Charles - and the rest of the gang - millions of versions of the stories and endings that Netflix deprived them of.

[llitchilitchi]

happy pride! no matter your gender or sexual orientation, I hope you can find happiness in your life, even if it seems impossible right now

i really wanted to paint this since about march, but haven't really found the time to do so. at last, i finished it before the end of pride month.

the two girls are dressed in traditional Slovak folk dress, or kroj (traditional folk formalwear) from Piešťany region. Piešťany and the nearby village of Krakovany have one of the most gorgeous forms of kroj in the entire country and for a long time, dolls dressed in this style of dress were gifted to foreign delegations to represent my country. the same country that won't represent people like me

it is a form of reclamation, in a way, to depict sapphic love in this dress. we're here, and have always been here, even if the rest of the people will deny us our existence. this is for all my fellow queers living through being a hot point of debate during elections. you are seen and you are loved. you are part of this country, and you are part of our culture, and the culture belongs to you just as much as to everyone else

i love you, and stay safe

[fan-a-tink]

Character Appreciation Week: Edwin Payne

Edwin Payne is the kindest & bravest soul I have ever come across in fiction. He found the courage to forgive his killer, he dedicated his afterlife to helping other people, solving their cases and giving others the help he never received when he was alive. He endured decades of torture in literal hell and it only made him kinder, more desperate to help others, to protect others from the same fate. He brought Charles so much more than just a lantern, but warmth and light and comfort in his darkest hour, and Edwin was ready to let Charles move on, completely selflessly offering his friendship for a few hours thinking that's all it was ever going to be.

Edwin is also an incredible detective, and I love that he can spend his afterlife pursuing his interests, using his intelligence and analytical abilities to solve cases, and becoming like the great detective characters he always loved reading about. He takes his work seriously, but I know that he also takes pleasure in it, reveling in the questions and motions of detective work. He's actually the biggest nerd who made his special interest his profession and I love how much joy that brings him.

I love Edwin for how protective he is of his own space and for how he adopts a quiet confidence in himself as he discovers more about himself, his queerness, his relation to others. He is always very aware of the space he takes up in the world, the ghostly body he's been given, the version of himself that exists in the world as a testimony to his escape from hell and the endless cycle of being ripped apart over and over again. It's no wonder he is conscious of his body, and careful about who he lets into his personal space. But I also love that that never stops him from adding little flourishes to his movements, small gestures that become part of his very unique style of existence. By the end of the eight episodes you can really see in his movements that he is comfortable in his ghostly skin and confident about who he is. It is beautiful to see.

And finally, I love Edwin for how he loves Charles. His journey of discovery, not only of his sexuality but also of his feelings for Charles, of learning how to love and let other people in was so powerful and really hit a nerve with me. Out of all the incredibly brave things he's done throughout his after-life, confessing his feelings for Charles is by far the bravest one. He poured his heart out and made himself completely vulnerable in front of the person who had the power to hurt him more than anyone in the world. And I am so glad it was Charles, and that Charles responded with so much gentleness and acceptance. My heart sings when I think about how much Charles and Edwin care about and for each other, how gently they hold each other, how precious they are to one another. Their relationship is the definition of the secret third thing and I will forever be grateful to Edwin for being a part of that. I feel so hopeful knowing that he is finding his way through the great labyrinth of sexuality and romantic attraction, hopeful that I can navigate it too.

Edwin Payne, my precious boy, my beloved ghost detective, my favourite character to ever grace the realm of fiction. You are so loved.

[molsno]

Alongside the notion that being cis and heterosexual is the only acceptable way to exist, cisheteronormativity operates on a foundation of understandings, assumptions, mandates, expectations, and permissions for heterosexual people, What it demands, above all, is compliance with and allegiance to heterosexuality. Asexuals do not meet these demands, and this places us squarely outside of the scripted heterosexual experience. Asexuality is always a site of subversion and resistance to cisheteronormativity itself, and is that not what queerness is? What queer exclusionists claim is the "straight-passing" of asexuals is nothing more than others projecting their own heteronormative assumptions onto us based on their own narrow notions of how queerness should be performed. It's rooted in a fundamental belief—although likely a subconscious one—that everyone is categorically heterosexual until the moment they begin to experience, express, and act on sexual attraction to the same gender or multiple genders. This is just one of the ways that cisheteronormativity becomes reproduced in queer communities and queer modes of thinking. It constructs heterosexuality not simply as a default orientation, but also as the blank slate that queerness must be written onto. An insult to us all.

Asexuals being assumed as heterosexual by others, based on heteronormative beliefs, does not amount to asexuals "passing for straight." We are assumed to be heterosexual because heterosexuality is compulsorily seen as the default orientation, because people continually fail to learn about asexuality and asexual people when presented with opportunities to do so, and because they often refuse to accept our asexuality as a valid orientation to begin with. What other people choose to see—and what they choose not to believe—from their own biased perspective is not the responsibility or fault of asexuals. Being invisibilized, constantly wading through the expectations and projections of compulsory (hetero)sexuality, and having others consistently assert themselves as the authorities on our lives, experiences, and identities while refusing us the right to have this authority ourselves is not and never will be "passing for straight."

—Sherronda J. Brown, Refusing Compulsory Sexuality: A Black Asexual Lens on Our Sex-Obsessed Culture (2022), p 36

[criticalcrusherbot]

The Women of Helluva Boss: Millennial Fandom Culture and the Reclamation of Female Archetypes

By Crushbot 🤖 and Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️

Helluva Boss is many things: hilarious, chaotic, heart-wrenching, and wildly divisive among fans. But one aspect that deserves more attention is how the show depicts its female characters—and how these depictions are deeply rooted in millennial fandom culture, particularly from the early 2000s Tumblr and DeviantART days. This connection isn’t incidental; Vivienne "Vivziepop" Medrano herself is a product of that era, and her work reflects the sensibilities, tropes, and archetypes that defined it. To fully appreciate what Helluva Boss is doing, we need to explore the history of how fandom treated female characters, the infamous "Mary-Sue" phenomenon, and the archetypes that shaped our perception of women in fiction. What emerges is a fascinating interplay of nostalgia, reclamation, and subversion, offering a window into a unique creative legacy that’s far more deliberate than it might seem at first glance.

A Crash Course in Millennial Fandom Culture

Before we dive into the women of Helluva Boss, let’s take a trip down memory lane to the early 2000s, when fandoms were thriving on platforms like Tumblr and DeviantART. These spaces were dominated by a specific kind of fan culture: one that was largely created by and for young, marginalized people (especially women and queer fans) who often felt isolated in their day-to-day lives. Fandoms became sanctuaries, places where fans could express themselves, rewrite the stories they loved, and create new ones.

However, this era wasn’t without its problems. Internalized sexism and societal pressures bled into how fans viewed and created female characters. This is where the "Mary-Sue" phenomenon comes in. A Mary-Sue is an idealized, often self-insert character who is beautiful, powerful, and universally adored. While ostensibly a critique of shallow character writing, the Mary-Sue label was disproportionately used to mock female creators for daring to write characters who reflected their own desires and fantasies. The backlash against Mary-Sues was so pervasive that it reinforced the idea that female characters had to be flawed, secondary, or suffer immensely to be taken seriously.

At the same time, fandoms often vilified "barrier-antagonists"—female characters who stood in the way of the protagonist’s happiness, often in a romantic context. These characters were frequently canonically "annoying" or "useless," written as shallow stereotypes who existed either to be a temporary obstacle or a "trophy" for the male lead. Instead of critiquing the (sexist) writing that reduced these characters to narrative props, fandoms channeled their frustration into rewriting them as outright villains. This wasn’t always done critically; it was more about venting annoyance with the character than analyzing the systemic issues that created her. Think of Tea from Yu-Gi-Oh! circa 2003 (💁🏽‍♀️: too niche? let us know in the comments. cookies if you know what "puppyshipping" is 🤪) or other characters dismissed for being "in the way" of a ship. These "mean girls" became lightning rods for fan resentment, reflecting broader frustrations with the storytelling norms of the time.

Millie and Loona: Power Fantasies Reclaimed

Fast forward to Helluva Boss, and we see Vivienne Medrano’s millennial fandom roots shining through in her female characters. Millie and Loona, for example, embody the kind of power fantasies that Mary-Sue critics would have torn apart in the early 2000s—but here, they’re embraced unapologetically.

Millie is a powerhouse. She’s a loving wife, a skilled assassin, and someone who’s virtually untouchable in combat. To some, she might seem "too perfect," but that’s exactly the point. Millie isn’t meant to be a deeply flawed anti-hero or a tortured soul. She’s a character who represents strength, loyalty, and joy, allowing fans to live vicariously through her as she kicks ass and takes care of her loved ones. This is wish fulfillment done right: not as an excuse for shallow writing, but as a deliberate choice to let a female character be powerful without apology.

Loona, meanwhile, offers a different kind of wish fulfillment. She’s aloof, sarcastic, and emotionally guarded—the quintessential "cool girl" who secretly cares deeply about her found family. She scratches a different itch: the fantasy of being both desired and emotionally untouchable, of keeping people at arm’s length while still being irreplaceable to those who matter most. Loona’s popularity speaks to the evolution of the Mary-Sue archetype, showing how fandoms have learned to embrace complex, powerful women who defy easy categorization.

Stella and Verosika: The Modern Barrier-Antagonist

Then there’s Stella, who fits snugly into the "barrier-antagonist" mold of millennial fandom culture. She’s not nuanced or sympathetic; she’s a loud, over-the-top villain who exists to make Stolas’s life miserable. And that’s okay! Stella serves a narrative purpose that’s as old as fandom itself: she’s the embodiment of the mean girl archetype, the bully that many fans can project their own past frustrations onto. In a story as melodramatic and chaotic as Helluva Boss, her lack of subtlety works in the show’s favor, making her a satisfying foil without distracting from the central narrative.

Verosika, on the other hand, offers a more nuanced take on the barrier-antagonist. She’s sexy, confident, and antagonistic, but she’s also deeply human (or, well, demon). Her history with Blitz is messy and painful, but it’s clear that she’s more than just a hurdle for him to overcome. In "Apology Tour," we see glimpses of her vulnerability and the ways she’s been hurt by Blitz. This evolution reflects how fandom culture has grown out of its black-and-white view of female antagonists, embracing characters who can be both sympathetic and deeply flawed.

Intention and Audience

The women of Helluva Boss aren’t perfect, but that’s exactly the point. Vivziepop’s writing reflects a deep understanding of millennial fandom culture, from its love of power fantasies to its struggles with internalized sexism. These characters feel like a love letter to the fandom spaces that shaped her storytelling: Millie and Loona reclaim the power and confidence of the Mary-Sue archetype, while Stella and Verosika offer modern takes on the barrier-antagonist trope.

Importantly, Helluva Boss is a show that knows its audience. It’s not trying to appeal to everyone; it’s speaking directly to fans who grew up in the same fandom spaces as Vivziepop, who understand the tropes and archetypes being played with. By embracing the strengths of millennial fandom culture while learning from its flaws, the show creates female characters who feel both nostalgic and refreshingly modern.

In the end, Helluva Boss reminds us that wish fulfillment and empowerment aren’t things to be mocked—they’re things to be celebrated. Whether you’re a Millie, a Loona, a Verosika, or even a Stella, there’s a place for you in the wild, chaotic, heartfelt world of Helluva Boss.