#the need for gay is strong

[nothingbizzare]

Little sunflower

[bigcatbulges]

Source - Kajon_art

[arinmoss]

quick Willow doodle (he/him)

[missmetus]

[elene78-blog]

After the Foxes-Trojans game, Nicky runs up to Jeremy.

"Oh my God, you're Jeremy Knox. I'm a huge fan of yours!" Nicky shouts exaggeratedly.

Jeremy turns around with a friendly smile, remembering Nicky's play (he tackled Jeremy hard during the game, though that didn't stop him) when Nicky continues talking like a volcano spewing lava nonstop.

"You know, I'm gay too. I'm out, like you, I mean. But I didn't have as spectacular a coming out as yours, of course. Is it true there are annual gay orgies in California? I mean, I wouldn't go because I have a future husband, but it would have been nice to at least be invited, you know? Or doesn't it work that way? Is there a list you have to sign up for? What does that all work like? How do I get an invitation?"

Jeremy is dumbfounded. He wonders if Nicky has no filter, or if he's trying to embarrass him somehow. In any case, Jeremy acts as he always does in these situations.

"Wow… Do you want an invitation? Would it be for you or your cousin? I hope it's just for one, because it would be a little weird if you both went."

For a moment, Nicky doesn't react. A nervous laugh creeps up his throat.

"Cousin? No, no… My cousins… No… They're…" Nicky glances nervously over his shoulder, right where Andrew remains relaxed while Neil, Kevin, and Jean argue.

Andrew's attention immediately snaps to them, and as if connected by some super protective instinct, Jean's attention does too.

Jeremy greets Andrew with a smile.

Nicky is sweating.

"I… I don't have any cousins!" he says hastily.

Aaron, who was passing by at the time, yells.

"Fuck off!"

"Okay, so… you and Neil?" Jeremy continues. "I don't know if Andrew will agree with that."

Nicky's face goes white.

From then on, Nicky is much more careful about what he asks. And despite the initial shock, he also gains a new friend.

[elodieunderglass]

I can't resist bothering you with more questions. I'm sorry! I want to put Killie in a basket and carry him around with me like a purse dog. Did Charlie always know that he wasn't going to be a horse pilot forever and that he would find a way out of his family's net, or was he never going to escape if him being kicked out hadn't forced him into it? My heart breaks for him a bit, even though he seems the most well-adjusted person in that family. How old was he when he ended up on his own?

(In reference to Killie the jockey OC, crown prince of a horse-obsessed family, and his identical twin brother Charlie, who was disowned/ escaped the orbit of the Horse Planet)

You are never a bother. Nobody could be anything but grateful to have such insightful, brave, witty and inspiring people to talk about their OCs with! Are you kidding?

That’s such a good and deep question - I don’t think that Charlie knows the answer himself. He certainly was quite a talented apprentice jockey. In terms of his place in the family, his parents and siblings all adored him - he is warm and charming and funny - and thought they understood him. He has that special child-of-rotten-parents survival-mode sensitivity to reading a room, that in Charlie translates into useful skills, like “changing the mood of the room” and “sensing what people want him to say”.

But Charlie has a strong sense of identity, and with it, a hard internal limit on personal sacrifice; there are parts of Charlie you can’t have.

And despite being a fifth-generation jockey of impeccable pedigree, the whole “stoic, fearless, impervious to pain” thing appears to be a state of mind - not a physiology thing, but a mental one, engendered by passion for the sport. Charlie has had passages of his life where he’s carried off the Jockey Constitution (TM), but a problem with armouring yourself with a mental state is that if you are an especially clever little liar yourself, like Charlie, you catch on to the trick.

And the sport is inextricable from the horses in their family. So Charlie stormed out (was thrown out) of both family and sport… but I think he does like horses and he was good at it. And it would’ve been hard, in that family, in that immersive and passionate world, to break out naturally - especially when you are so beautifully built for it. It would again come down to Charlie’s strong sense of self.

I think a lot of his sense of identity and resistance came, early on, from connecting honestly with his bisexuality. He’s clever and sneaky, and likes mind games and code-switching and putting on characters, and when he realised the necessity of masking early on, it felt like a secret identity. He was simply Built Different, and couldn’t change it, so he made a game of tap-dancing on the tightrope.

Then he left to build that secret identity into his real self, on purpose, and he threw himself into The Opposite of Being a Jockey. He was not only the first in their family to go to university, he went into academia. He covered his bills by bartending and busking (take that, Dad). He eats cake. He is valued for his mind and brain. He is NOT COMPETITIVE AT ALL. HE’S COLLABORATIVE, EVEN.

…He was just about eighteen. And perhaps it affected him more deeply than he’d say. But what saved him - what always would save Charlie - was a sense of identity.

[sableeira]

rimlaine’s gay tension was too strong so they had to be separated into two different light novels. rimlaine’s gay tension was too strong so Rimbaud had to forget all his memories of Verlaine otherwise he would have continued his “I don’t need to fix him I can love him the way he is” campaign. rimlaine’s gay tension was too strong so by the time Verlaine realized his feelings, Rimbaud had to be dead because they would have been too powerful and insufferable together.

[d-1hater]

I’d let Elliot from Stardew Valley explain to me whatever the fuck an Oxford comma is and his stance on if it’s necessary

[thou-shall-fucketh-off]

It just occurred to me that the strong children had 3 fathers. THREE FATHERS who all cared for them. Harwin trained them, Laenor cared for them, and Daemon..Daemon was set on making them his own by influencing every other thing 😭

[iwritenarrativesandstuff]

See, I think Charles’ annoyance and frustration with the Cat King really was just pure protectiveness and not any kind of jealousy - it’s understandable, because Edwin is not telling him what happened even though something clearly did, which is not typical for them. Edwin doesn’t usually hide things like this! Of course he’s worried!

Charles’ reaction to Monty, on the other hand, is difficult to explain in a way that isn’t jealousy. You could say he’s being protective again, but Charles shows no sign of distrust in Monty, and had no idea of who Monty was or that he might betray them - he was actually very chill with him, except in a select few specific scenes. You could say he just doesn’t like him because he got brushed off during their first meeting, but not only does that not seem like Charles at all, it also doesn’t make sense, since, again, in most instances, Charles is genuinely friendly and is happy when Monty compliments him and seems to have come around to liking him (it completely flies over his head that this is a petty jab at Edwin on Monty’s part but oh well hahaha). You could say it changes up their status quo a bit and that bothers Charles. I do think this bothers him a bit, but I think, unlike Edwin, Charles’ fear and frustration here is directed more at situations (the Cat King whisking him away for several hours, as an example) than others. He’s sociable and likes being able to talk to new people. There’s absolutely no way he’d begrudge Edwin doing the same - and he doesn’t… with Niko. Edwin and Niko hit it off and become very close and that never bothers Charles at all. He’s incredibly endeared to her, just like the rest, and for the most part, he’s chill with Monty too, and smiles pretty knowingly when Edwin confesses to him having awakened some feelings. The only exceptions, where he shows definite annoyance, are when Monty first shows up and gets really in Edwin’s personal space to show him the astrology chart he made, and when Edwin is so sucked into the book Monty gave him that he doesn’t hear that Charles is talking to him, to which he annoyedly says that they seem to have been “spending a lot of time together”.

You could say he’s unused to having anyone get in Edwin’s personal space like that, but, again, Niko. She’s very tactile with him and he doesn’t seem to mind all that much; they spend time together watching things. If it was just someone getting close with Edwin in general, not only would that be weirdly possessive for the character, but it would also mean he would show discomfort with anyone getting close, I think. Does Charles see Monty as more of a potential threat than Niko, seeing as he knows her and her personality and doesn’t know Monty? Well, maybe, but again, Charles shows no sign of distrusting Monty at all.

Monty is a boy. Okay. So something about seeing Edwin so close to a boy that is not him, getting lost in thought over something this boy gave him, really rubs Charles the wrong way. Charles appears to catch on just as quickly as anyone else that there is something (or it looks like something) between Edwin and Monty. He is not surprised when Edwin comes out to him in episode 6, and in fact, seems to have just been waiting for him to verbalize it. He smiles and is not bothered at all by Edwin showing (what he thinks is) a romantic interest in Monty - he just doesn’t like it when Monty clearly shows a romantic interest in Edwin. Um. Well. Well.

Charles is jealous. I really don’t know what else to say.

Look, when I first watched this show, I actually didn’t want them to end up together romantically - I love the idea of one having fallen in love with another who does not reciprocate and the two of them still loving each other just as much. That Edwin’s confession made them closer instead of making things awkward is such a beautiful outcome to this build up and I absolutely love it. However. On my two rewatches, I caught a lot more little details, and I think it would be very strange if the show did not follow up on this. That, plus the deliberate quality of these “jealousy” moments where the camera focuses on him, Charles’ Orpheus coding throughout the show, the fact that Edwin’s arc was far more about realizing his feelings for Charles specifically than just coming to terms with his sexuality, and that even the actors admit that Charles’ response to the confession kind of left things open, it really seems to me like the path leads to a romantic endgame for them, or at the very least, that this possibility will be explored in more depth.

**This is just my reading of it. Please do not use this post as a gotcha for anyone who loves them as a platonic duo or people who really love Crystal and Charles together (because let’s face it, they’re super cute too). I’m just doing my rambles. As per usual.

[xiphions]

i'm sorry but I don't think modern AU remus lupin should be a social media user. that man has pinterest tops. he's chronically offline and that's a fact

[cypresswood3]

So I wrote that post about considering a rarepair and went straight to sleep because I'm a bastard like that.

So, uh... an au, I suppose? Crucify me.

Arthur Lester is... an interesting young man. Somehow, his inner turmoils seem to spill out without him saying much – it's in his movements, in his eyes, in this ever-so lost expression, like he's never truly there. Like he never truly knows who he is and what he wants. And when those truths start creeping up on him – and they do, on occasion, – he turns and runs and denies until they're suppressed and dormant in the back of his mind again.

Bella doesn't quite see that. No, she's got concerns of her own, she's young, she's looking straight ahead into the bright future in front of her. She doesn't have neither the experience nor the years to see it in him. And even if she had, she'd lack the familiarity to let her recognize it.

Arthur Lester keeps coming over for dinners. It's Bella's idea, he tries to convince himself, pretending that her eager agreement somehow had more weight than his hesitant propositions. "My father's a good man," she assures again and again, and he nods, hiding his trembling hands behind his back.

Daniel Saltzman might be a good man, Arthur thinks as he stares holes in the wooden crucifix on the wall above him, but I am certainly not.

And he never meets the eyes of the man he is soon to call his father, for he knows Daniel Saltzman would see right through him.

He knows his eagerness to please this man takes root in sin and sin alone. He knows it's not fear that makes him sweat and shiver while he's given stern looks and strict talks in Bella's absence. He knows she's equally absent in his thoughts when his to-be father-in-law gives him reluctant, unenthusiastic praise.

And he knows he can't forever pretend it's a father's love he years for.

[zombie-bait]

So I was checking out the 2020s list of LGBTQ+ video game characters on wikipedia to see if there were any other canon queer characters in KCD2 besides the obvious/well-known ones. I was slightly amused by the questionable word choice and grammar but I understand that wikipedia pages, especially smaller ones, rely on essentially random people submitting info. Whatever.

But. For some reason, I decided to take a peek at the citations provided and promptly lost my mind.

Now I know exactly what this is referring to, a response one of the devs made on a forum (Steam?). Idk how true or genuine the statement itself is, I've just already seen it circulating around. This weird right-wing site using archaic terminology like we're still in the actual medieval ages is unfortunately the first one that pops up if you try to look up the interaction. So I can see the series of events that took place.

The thing is, the phrase "Henry was not a sodomite due to budget constraints" is just already so fucking unhinged and funny that seeing it as an official-ass looking citation in a real wikipedia page killed me. Someone insane unironically wrote that article and posted it online just for a second real individual (with potentially completely opposing views) to see it and go "finally, something to corroborate my wikipedia entry." And now those words are gonna be rattling around my brain forEVER.

[softambrollins]

[deadandphilgames]

life update o_0

[anistarrose]

I think when a lot of queer people who aspire to marriage, and remember (rightly) fighting for the right to marriage, see queer people who don't want marriage, talking about not entering or even reforming or abolishing marriage, there's an assumption I can't fault anyone for having — because it's an assumption borne of trauma — that queers who aren't big on marriage are inadvertently or purposefully going to either foolishly deprive themselves of rights, or dangerously deprive everyone of the rights associated with marriage. But that's markedly untrue. We only want rights to stop being locked behind marriages. We want an end to discrimination against the unmarried.

We want a multitude of rights for polyamorous relationships. We want ways to fully recognize and extend rights to non-romantic and/or non-sexual unions, including but not limited to QPRs, in a setting distinct from the one that (modern) history has spent so long conflating with romance and sex in a way that makes many of us so deeply uncomfortable. And many of us are also disabled queers who are furious about marriage stripping the disabled of all benefits.

We want options to co-parent, and retain legal rights to see children, that extends to more than two people, and by necessity, to non-biological parents (which, by the way, hasn't always automatically followed from same-gender marriage equality even in places where said equality nominally exists. Our struggles are not as different as you think). We would like for (found or biological) family members and siblings to co-habitate as equal members of a household, perhaps even with pooled finances or engaging in aforementioned co-parenting, without anyone trying to fit the dynamic into a "marriage-shaped box" and assume it's incestuous. We want options to leave either marriages, or alternative agreements, that are less onerous than divorce proceedings have historically been.

I can't speak for every person who does not want to marry, but on average, spurning marriage is not a choice we make lightly. We are deeply, deeply aware of the benefits that only marriage can currently provide. And we do not take that information lightly. We demand better.

Now, talking about the benefits of marriage in respective countries' current legal frameworks, so that all people can make choices from an informed place, is all well and good — but is not an appropriate response to someone saying they are uncomfortable with marriage. There are people for whom entering a marriage, with all its associated norms, expectations, and baggage, would feel like a betrayal of one's self and authenticity that would shake them to their core — and every day, I struggle to unpack if I'm one of them or not. If I want to marry for tax benefits, or not. If that's worth the risk of losing disability benefits, in the (very plausible) possibility that I have to apply for them later in life. If that's worth the emotional burden of having to explain over and over, to both well-meaning and deeply conservative family members, that this relationship is not one of romance or sex. (Because, god, trying just to explain aromanticism or asexuality in a world that broadly thinks they're "fake" is emotional labor enough.)

Marriage is a fundamental alteration to who I am, to what rights an ableist government grants me, and to how I am perceived. I don't criticize the institution just because I enjoy a "free spirit" aesthetic or think the wedding industry is annoying, or whatever.