#we are going to engage in so many homosexual activities

[astrobei]

44 hours until me and abby are reunited i am shaking with excitement hard enough to power a small city probably

[duchess-of-mischief]

Okay I’ve seen a lot of discourse going around recently in Christian circles regarding “homosexuality” and people’s stances on it and my response to a lot of those posts looks a lot the same so I am just going to throw my own hat in the ring here.

I’ve seen so many takes recently saying “The Bible says Homosexuality is a sin so if you accept LGBTQ+ people then you’re not a Christian.” I have two main questions to posit about this really; what do you mean by “homosexuality”, and what do you mean by “LGBTQ+”?

If we really dive into the passages in scripture that talk about homosexuality, what they are talking about is homosexual sex. Sexuality as a concept didn’t even exist yet, and wouldn’t exist for several hundred years later. Even then, there is still a Huge debate on how to properly interpret several of these passages, many believing that the passage in Romans in particular is condemning pederasty, and not homosexuality (This is not my interpretation, but it does have a pretty significant amount of scholarly backing and at least in my opinion is a perfectly valid opinion to hold).

Something that many of my friends seem to forget is that our modern English translations are just that: a translation. It’s never going to perfectly capture every minutiae of the original text, it just can’t. Are you really saying there is not even a possibility that you could’ve misinterpreted the meaning of this specific text that has a lot of debate by scholars over it? Scholars who study the Bible for a living??? I personally find that rather arrogant of anyone to say.

When it comes to the use of LGBTQ+, all I can assume is that you’re using it as a general term to mean “A group of people who has turned themselves over to the sin of homosexuality,” but again, what do you mean by homosexuality? Do you mean Actively engaging in homosexual sex? Or do you mean Experiences attraction to those of the same gender?

If your answer is the first, then I would say you are making an incredibly irresponsible generalization. There is a huge portion of the LGBTQ+ community that doesn’t have sex for varying reasons: stop looping us all into one bucket.

If your answer is the second, then I would ask you this: do you really think you’re any better?

Now I personally don’t believe SSA (same sex attraction) to be in itself a sin (I’m not going to address that in this post though, God knows it’s already long enough), but even if it is a sin, what does that even matter?

As a queer Christian myself, I can tell you from personal experience that being attracted to women isn’t something I choose to do, any more than a straight woman chooses to be attracted to men.

If you really do hold all sexual sin to the same standard as you say, and you believe attraction to anyone beside your spouse to be sinful, then where’s your religious zeal for all the women out here thirsting after Jensen Ackles or Chris Hemsworth or what have you? Where’s your fire for all the men saying how hot they think Gal Gadot is?

Whether you think there is or not, there’s a blatant double standard that I constantly see, and I’m tired of it.

“Why do you even care? This is what I believe scripture says I’m just trying to spread the truth”

You are more than entitled to your own interpretation of scripture, I am not looking to deny anyone their religious liberty: but I implore you to at least consider what I am about to say when addressing these topics.

According to this study by the CDC, LGBTQ+ youth are more than four times as likely to consider suicide than their heterosexual peers.

Furthermore, according to this article by the Trevor Project, LGBTQ+ individuals are the only people group that are more prone to suicidality when engaging with religious groups, with queer people who have religious parents with negative views of homosexuality being twice as likely to consider suicide than queer people who do not have religious parents.

I want you to let that sink in for a minute.

These pointless arguments are driving people out of our churches at their best, and into their graves at their worst. We as the body of Christ need to do better.

[dearweirdme]

I asked this from Peach and I really want to know your opinions on this one Rain🙏💜

I have one “thing” that I want to say and it’s super crazy😂I call it a “thing” because I really don’t know how to name it especially when I know that I’m biased towards both JK & Tae and their relationship regardless of what it is and you want to lable it👍

What if everything that we’ve seen so far (literally since 2017/2018 when I first kinda felt the first change of vibe and behavior in their interactions) is just a scenario to help Jungkook and Taehyung out with their coming out process? (Like it has multiple phases which are all written in their contracts.)

SK is homophobic and coming out will change many things (change = ruin) and I do know well that it’s all WISHFUL THINKING but I personally believe (a part of me) that many things are play to help them come out and they’ve been taking all these measures to reduce the impact of its consequences and we will see more of these measures in the years to come…even Jennie and the girl in the footage from JK’s apartment and Dispatch😁 (Money, Money, Money💸) (To this day, I still cannot believe that TaeNnie’s associated contents were edited or that one footage was not JK in his apartment with Bam and that girl and the weird stance that Dispatch has taken over the years).

Call me crazy (I know I am one😂) but this is how a part of my mind thinks and I’m crazy enough to share it with ya’ll😂

Like HYBE has been taking all measures possible to make sure that everything is confusing about TaeKook (ITS talk / Promoting JiKook / Hiding TaeKook / TaeNnie, to name some) until the right time comes😂

Bro this is just crazy and downright madness and I’m laughing about how crazy this thing is but I’m thinking about it😂

I mean like, JiKook enlisting together is the obvious sign that they’re not a couple because it’s just me or ya’ll think it’s so dangerous to engage in homosexual activities in the Korean army!? Ok, let’s say it’s BTS and they have signed NDAs to protect their privacy…but a whole unit just because they couldn’t stay away from each other for two years? It’s not a rational move in my opinion! (JiKook enlisting together was the end of JiKook for me).

I still have TaeNnie and that girl in JK’s apartment. There are many things that have stopped me from believing that something is really going on between TaeKook: JiKook being the first one, then comes TaeNnie and the girl in the apartment😁

Let’s see what narrative HYBE wants to promote by adding Taehyung to AYS🤭

Hi anon! So I asked @peachjagiya if I could post first, because I always feel some kind of way about answering the same asks.

Basically, I understand what you are saying.. I love the hopefullness, but I don't think this is what's happening.

I think what we have been seeing is that Tae and Jk are being more and more portrayed as close friends. I think they themselves have worked on that the hardest, because it matters to them. I don't think Hybe actually cares about them and their private lives enough to bother to try and help them. When the time comes for them to come out (and I think it will, but probably not for a few years... 5, possibly 10), Hybe will work out a plan to make them come out and benefit of that as much as they can, but before that.. I'm pessimistic. Taennie happened for a reason, and it was (for Tae's part) to keep people thinking he loves women. They are making a comeback next year, which is not the right time for a potential scandal. What Hybe will do to seed the news of a coming out, is let Dispatch publish increasingly more pics of Tae and Jk out. At dinner, visiting each other's places, on holiday, and at a certain point perhaps holding hands. That will take place over a couple of months.. so relatively fast, and it will end with an official announcement (if they are still with Hybe at the time). I tend to think that it's possible for them to come out individually first.. but I'm not sure what that will do for speculations, and if that's something they would want before coming out as a couple.

For me personally, Tae and Jk and everything around them isn't confusing at all. They fell in love, that was a problem and Bh tried to hide them. I'm never going to believe anonymous sources on the internet with clear signs of editing over Tae and Jk themselves, but I understand why it throws people off.

I don't really think Hybe is portraying much of a narrative with AYS to be honest. I think all of them are portrayed as good friends, which is truly all I need. I'm sure Jm will be put in the middle a lot, and I'm expecting to see more Vmin cuteness than Tkk cuteness for sure. But when I think about what we came from.. this is already so much. Pleassssseeeeeee, let it be Tae and Jm sharing the bed in jeju though 😂.

[herefortarlos]

911: Lone Star Season 5 Countdown - Beginnings

(1) Which 911 Lone Star season premiere is your favorite? Well, since it was the only premiere I watched live, I guess I'm going to have to say Season 4 😅. I would not call it my favorite, mostly because I hated having to wait those first few weeks to complete that Tarlos story arc and get the resolution! But I had just joined Tumblr again with my new tarlos account, so even though I wasn't active like I am now, I did enjoy seeing others speculate and talk about the episodes, and make gifs and new fics based off of things! People's engagement here is what I'm really looking forward to with season 5!

(2) Which character do you think had the best introduction or first scene in the show? I will say my favorite character introduction was TK's! His first lines were, "I'm going to ask Alex to marry me" and them using a gender neutral name was smart because then later when I realized he was talking about a man, I was like, "Ahhhhh, he's a gay character on a Fox show and starring side by side with Rob Lowe!" I am so into this and in love with him already!

(3) What is your favorite moment of 1x01? Ooooo, but there are so many to choose from! TK's overdose and Owen finding him, them doing the interviews with Paul, Marjan and Mateo! Making us think Judd was going to be a stereotypical red neck and he turns out to be this sensitive, giant teddy bear who loves and misses his family! My favorite though is probably the Honky Tonk scene and everyone coming together and of course Carlos sidling up to TK and me realizing, "Oh my, this hot man is hitting on him!" I am so far gone on them already!! And I miraculously did not have anything from season 1 to 3, spoiled for me, so I had no idea just what their relationship would become 🥹

(4) When did you first start watching Lone Star and how did you find out about it? I started watching Lone Star in October of 2022. I remember because that's also around when I started my current job 😆 I remember specifically seeing FB clips of the 1x02 racist lady scene and also the 1x03 shielding Marjan when she loses her hijab in the silo scene. Hearing TK's "I am a homosexual" and Paul's "I am trans though", and then seeing a Muslim woman, I was so unbelievably interested in this diverse cast of characters! Oh and I had the Hulu trial at the time and had just finished bingeing Modern Family and I saw Lone Star was on there, so I decided to start that while I still had it. Needless to say I started paying for Hulu monthly because of LS 🤣

(5) What is one wish you have for the season 5 premiere? Hmm, many, many wishes. But hopefully a simple, realistic one is I need to see at least one instance of Tarlos being in love and happily married! Just give me one happy thing between the two of them, and then I will gladly take the weeks of angst, I just need something to hold me over until we get whatever amazing resolution they have planned for us, as is tradition!

Thank you for the tag @lonestar-s5countdown! I really enjoyed thinking about all the reasons I started Lone Star and what I immediately loved about it!

Zero pressure tags to, @heartstringsduet @thisbuildinghasfeelings @tellmegoodbye @paperstorm @strandnreyes

@theghostofashton @orchidscript @bonheur-cafe @eclectic-sassycoweyes @ladytessa74

@carlos-tk @cold-blooded-jelly-doughnut @carlos-in-glasses @alrightbuckaroo @lemonlyman-dotcom

@whatsintheboxmh @emsprovisions @chicgeekgirl89 @reyesstrand @lightningboltreader And OPEN TAG 💖

[ksfoxwald]

So I'm reading "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl.

And it's from 1999 so half of it is "yes for real homosexuality is found in nature, plz no discriminate :(" But then I got to the chapter on "Nonreproductive and Alternative Sexualities in Animals" and

Vitually every animal population includes nonbreeding individuals. There is a tendency to regard the urge to procreate among animals as instinctual, all-pervasive, and unstoppable. While heterosexual interactions often do have that quality, there are just as many examples of animals who do not reproduce: individuals who actively remove themselves from the breeding cycle...

and

Why do animals not reproduce? Biologists have coined the term reproductive suppression to refer to various forms of nonbreeding, implying that all animals would breed if they could but are somehow "prevented" from doing so. However, the underlying mechanisms involved in nonbreeding are far more complex than this name implies...animals are often "voluntary" nonbreeders...

And listen. Listen. There's another quote that I thought was referenced somwhere in this book (cannot for the life of me find which page it is on though) that's like "when animals do something we like, it's natural, and when they do something we don't like, it's animalistic." We don't need to "prove" that asexuality is biological in nature in order for asexual people to deserve rights and respects. We've gone through this dance with homosexuality and transgenderism.

But a human being is an animal, and studying other animals shapes our understanding of what it means to be one kind of animal among many. And the idea that an individual's purpose is to reproduce is pretty capitalistic, if you think about it.

The other half of this book is a list of which animals have documented homosexual behaviors, and a description of those behaviors, and even though a lot of it is "X percent of males were observed doing Y behavior, X percent of interactions were Y in nature," it really drives home that animals are complex individuals. No one wolf is going to behave exactly like another wolf, any more than any human will act exactly like another human. Maybe there is an evolutionary advantage, maybe evolution is just weird and messy, but that's how the world is. The whole argument that "if everyone were gay/asexual/engaging in nonreproductive sexualities then the species would go extinct" is technically true but that's an extremely individualistic viewpoint. As a species - as a community - there is room for so much more.

Basic biology teaches us that all animals are driven by the need to reproduce, but advanced biology once again reveals a more complex picture.

This is just a long way to say that I didn't think I needed ace affirmation in scientific literature but actually I kind of did.

[peachjagiya]

https://www.tumblr.com/peachjagiya/758585832308424704/httpswwwtumblrcompeachjagiya7585834432558530?source=share

“Feel free to help me fathom it out.”

I have one “thing” that I want to say and it’s super crazy😂I call it a “thing” because I really don’t know how to name it especially when I know that I’m biased towards both JK & Tae and their relationship regardless of what it is and you want to lable it👍

What if everything that we’ve seen so far (literally since 2017/2018 when I first kinda felt the first change of vibe and behavior in their interactions) is just a scenario to help Jungkook and Taehyung out with their coming out process? (Like it has multiple phases which are all written in their contracts.)

SK is homophobic and coming out will change many things (change = ruin) and I do know well that it’s all WISHFUL THINKING but I personally believe (a part of me) that many things are play to help them come out and they’ve been taking all these measures to reduce the impact of its consequences and we will see more of these measures in the years to come…even Jennie and the girl in the footage from JK’s apartment and Dispatch😁 (Money, Money, Money💸) (To this day, I still cannot believe that TaeNnie’s associated contents were edited or that one footage was not JK in his apartment with Bam and that girl and the weird stance that Dispatch has taken over the years).

Call me crazy (I know I am one😂) but this is how a part of my mind thinks and I’m crazy enough to share it with ya’ll😂

Like HYBE has been taking all measures possible to make sure that everything is confusing about TaeKook (ITS talk / Promoting JiKook / Hiding TaeKook / TaeNnie, to name some) until the right time comes😂

Bro this is just crazy and downright madness and I’m laughing about how crazy this thing is but I’m thinking about it😂

I mean like, JiKook enlisting together is the obvious sign that they’re not a couple because it’s just me or ya’ll think it’s so dangerous to engage in homosexual activities in the Korean army!? Ok, let’s say it BTS and they have signed NDAs to protect their privacy…but a whole unit just because they couldn’t stay away from each other for two years? It’s not a rational move in my opinion! (JiKook enlisting together was an end of JiKook for me).

I still have TaeNnie and that girl in JK’s apartment. There are many things that have stopped me from believing that something is really going on between TaeKook: JiKook being the first one, then comes TaeNnie and the girl in the apartment😁

Let’s see what narrative HYBE wants to promote by adding Taehyung to AYS🤭

I think...…. basically... I don't think it's crazy? But I don't know if i'm there. Does that make sense?

I am a cynic but it's a front. I'm actually very soft and squishy and I'm an optimist at heart. And there's a tiny bit of me that wonders if BigHit have been protecting them all this time?

But then I think about how they've treated Tae poorly individually, the criticism they've let JK face, and actually, the pressure this truth-bending places on Tae, JK and Jimin and I struggle to applaud them?

I think any positive representation about Taekook has come from Taekook themselves and the truth of their relationship being undeniable. You can't make people be something they aren't. The truth is always kind of there in the background.

Maybe they supported in so much as buying them some time with the Ta3nnie media play or JK's apartment shenanigans. Maybe?

I don't know. I'm conflicted. What I do suspect, and I guess what I was getting at in the ask you linked, is that there might be a different approach to Taekook post-military and that maybe right now they're laying out stepping stones towards... not coming out, as such, but towards honesty? Towards not pretending anything is anything and just presenting themselves as they are?

But yet again, I don't know if I believe that to be company led. I believe that to be Tae and JK putting their foot down.

This feels messy but that's just what my thoughts are. 😂

[spicybylerpolls]

So I just read a really interesting review of the gay WW1 novel In Memoriam, and the reviewer (in a respected newspaper) is describing this adolescent, boyish, somewhat cowardly attraction between the two boys. 

Although they later prove themselves physically brave, Ellwood and Gaunt are cowards in love. Despite being well inducted by other boys into the improvised physical intimacy widely practised at their Wiltshire boarding school, Preshute, their own relationship remains chaste and hesitant: affectionate; Tennysonian; intensely sexless. Both characters are recognisable stock figures of boyish adolescent romance.

Now, it’s well and easy to say such in today’s era when homosexuality isn’t punishable by death, but in terms of Mike and Will, they’re going to explore in fine detail in s5 how and why both Mike and Will have been so careful. But what gets my eye is the mature way of discussing sex. If anything, works are often taken LESS seriously when they are coy about sex, because they suddenly seem embarrassed or childish or Disney-ified. I cannot imagine a more opposite view to the byler sex antis on here, who say, instead, that portrayal of adolescent sex is paedophilic. Can you imagine how you would be dragged to shit by any literary or film critics worth their salt for thinking that? For thinking that teenage sex is inherently bad or paedophilic? 

The review goes on to say:

Both young men torment themselves in attempts to hide their attachment from one another and themselves. It is a losing battle, the first of many they will see as war draws close.

Oof it sounds familiar! 

But mainly, the reviewer (a man) is appreciative of the detail that the author (a female) put into the work as regards sex:

Winn has written against the grain of her “lived experience” in another way too. In addition to not being a veteran of the First World War, some quick detective work in the acknowledgments section of the book reveals that she is also not a homosexual Edwardian adolescent. In fact, she does an intelligent job here too at simulating the male imagination, and although the sex remains carefully speculative, there are occasional observations of striking acuity. (“Gaunt’s prick was a little smaller than his. Ellwood had noticed that a long time ago, at school, had found it ruinously attractive.”)

I want to point out that this last quote comes before these characters engage in any sexual activity together in the book. 

And this comes on the back of the author running the novel by her male gay and bisexual friends for realism before publishing:

‘I had one friend who was really generous and candid about how to make the sex scenes feel real, but also about how to make the characters – outside of the sex – behave more like men. I mean, I don’t want to put too fine a point on this, but I remember at one stage he asked me, “So, who has the bigger penis?” And I was like, “I don’t know!” And he said, “Well, the characters know!”’ 

- Alice Winn

So there we are! Have Mike and Will ever showered together in the gym at school? We see the high school boys do this at Hawkins in s2, but Mike and Will have never been together at high school. Either way, there’s an acknowledgement here of the fact that teenage boys think very differently about sex than girls, and that if you want to create a piece of art that not only is enjoyable and exciting and compelling, but respects its characters and source material, you must be realistic about those character’s thoughts and experiences. I can understand prudishness a little, but to go as far as to call people who are calling for sexual realism in a coming of age story paedophiles????????? What is your aim?????? Feel free to be afraid of sex until you can figure it out, but do not call others who are engaging with something natural and normal perverts and degenerates. It’s not just cruel, but completely ignorant. 

In short, Mike and Will have definitely thought about and possibly know who has the bigger penis - and yes, they’re also very interested in that topic. 

Okay first of all, I'm definitely adding that book to my reading list! I love queer coming-of-age period pieces. Thanks for your service to the spicy byler community!

Second of all, this brings up a lot of interesting points. I especially love your point that, "If you want to create a piece of art that not only is enjoyable and exciting and compelling, but respects its characters and source material, you must be realistic about those character’s thoughts and experiences." So true! I think Bylers are typically really good at understanding this concept, but for whatever reason they completely throw that out the window once sex is in the picture.

"In short, Mike and Will have definitely thought about and possibly know who has the bigger penis - and yes, they’re also very interested in that topic."

[vintage-bentley]

Unfortunately your post about "gender ideology" somehow ended up on my dash, but I'm going to engage in good faith.

I am gen z as well, but I am trans. I don't believe you're a genuinely hateful person, just misunderstanding. The fight for trans and LGB rights as you would call them are inherently linked by history. The first gay rights movements were spearheaded by trans and gender nonconforming people. Groups like the LGB alliance who would like to convince you otherwise are trying to sow unnecessary division by pitting a once unified community against each other with an "us verses them" mentality. At the end of the day, bigots don't care about the difference. Once they're done coming for us, they will come for you.

The truth is, we just want to live our lives, same as you. The "gender ideology" scare going on today is *extremely* similar to how gay people were persecuted in the past (ie, "they're pushing it on children", the whole groomer panic, etc etc).

Also, you'd be hard pressed to find a trans person in real life who thinks having a genital preference is transphobic. I don't feel the need to deconstruct this idea here because it's already been done so many times, and if you're really curious about it you can look into it yourself. No one is forcing you to have sex with trans people. Just respect our existence.

This is getting long, but honestly if I can convince one person that we are not the evil monsters TERFs make us out to be, it will have been worth it. You can also just delete this, I can't control what you do. I just wanted to reach out and try to level with you, because I genuinely believe you're not a hateful person.

Wishing you a happy pride and nothing but the best, with love. ❤️

The thing is, that gay and bi people who were actually at the grassroots movements say that they did it themselves. For example, Fred Sargeant (who was attacked by trans protesters at a pride event that exists largely because of his activism). I have no doubt that people who would be considered trans today were there…but they would’ve been homosexual or bisexual, not heterosexuals claiming to be gay. From what I understand, that’s why trans people were grouped with LGB people to start: because they were a subgroup of LGB people. But today, what it means to be trans has completely changed, and has completely moved away from having anything to do with LGB.

Sexuality is based on sex, trans identity is based on the idea of gender. These two things have nothing in common, and actually directly contradict each other. A homosexual is a person who is exclusively attracted to the same sex, and who completely lacks attraction to the opposite sex. No matter how much a female person identifies as male, a gay man can never be attracted to that person. No matter how much a male person identifies as female, a lesbian can never be attracted to that person. The idea of gender identity tries to overwrite this fact, therefore erasing the reality of homosexuality.

There’s also a big difference in the way LGB people and trans people speak to the next generation. With LGB people, it’s “it gets better, you’re perfect just as you are, don’t feel like you need to change”. With trans people, it’s “it gets better, but only if you change yourself”. Which includes telling lesbians to transition into “straight men”, and gay males to transition into “straight women”. Aka conversion therapy. So even the ways we go about inspiring others is contradictory.

In other words, the progress that trans people want to see is very different from the progress LGB people want to see. Whenever LGB people, specifically homosexuals, try to put emphasis on our needs (example: recognition of sexuality being innate, unchangeable, and based on sex not gender), we are faced with backlash from the trans community. So many of us have decided it’s best to go our own way so that we don’t have to deal with the concept of gender overshadowing us.

And of course we know that bigots don’t like us either. That’s why many LGB people such as myself are very much opposed to allying with conservatives, especially the religious ones. Because the LGB community is so vast and diverse, you’ll of course see some allying with the right. Just as you’ll see some trans people allying with the right. I don’t think either are being very smart in doing so.

Just because LGB people don’t ally ourselves with trans people doesn‘t mean our only other option is homophobes. Our other option is to ally ourselves with people who support us and agree that our sexuality cannot be changed, or identified into or out of, because it is sex based.

You don’t just want to live your lives. Just wanting to live your lives would be doing what you need to do to be at peace personally, and not expecting anyone else to get involved. It wouldn’t be expecting everyone to change their view of what sex and gender are. It wouldn’t be expecting homosexuals to accept a change in the way we define our sexuality. It wouldn’t be expecting women to redefine our sex as an “identity”. It wouldn’t be telling women we need to accept male people in the spaces our foremothers fought to carve out for female people only. It wouldn’t be telling women we can’t discuss women’s issues as such, because we’re expected to believe that men can get periods or can need abortions. It wouldn’t be shutting down female-only shelters. It wouldn’t be throwing a fit when lesbians try to create spaces just for homosexual females. I could go on.

What the trans community is doing, is trying to force their view of gender onto everyone else. That’s not okay. And as I already mentioned, goes directly against the interests of LGB people, especially homosexuals. If somebody wants to take all the steps they can to live as the opposite sex, that’s none of my business and I don’t care. It becomes my business when they then expect me to believe that they actually are the opposite sex. In the same way that it’s none of my business if a Christian wants to believe that Jesus is the son of god who they need to repent to…but it becomes my business if they expect me to believe the same.

Also, I’m very tired of the “nobody is forcing you to have sex with trans people” argument because nobody said that was happening. We obviously know that nobody is holding us down and forcing us to have sex with trans people. We also know that there is a lot of pressure on homosexuals to at best feel guilty about our lack of attraction to the opposite sex, and at worst pressure to “fix” this. Even the term “genital preference” that you used is an example of this—because our exclusive attraction is not a “preference”. A preference is “I like [X] best, but if it’s not available I’ll have [Y]”. That is not how homosexuality works. There is no other option for us except for the same sex. Stop calling our sexuality a preference.

Lesbians will never be attracted to trans identified males. Gay men will never be attracted to trans identified females. The trans community has proven repeatedly that they have a very big problem with this, and have let homosexuals know. Just look at the term “cotton ceiling”, where trans identified males consider female homosexuality to be a barrier holding them back. To many trans people, “respect our existence” means “change your sexuality to include us”.

I’m more than happy to respect the fact that trans people exist. I already do. Just don’t expect me to play along with your belief system.

“TERFs” don’t think trans people are evil monsters. We just see a concerning amount of misogyny and homophobia in your community and are calling this problem out so it can be fixed. Unfortunately, many trans people consider this transphobic, because misogyny and homophobia are essential to upholding their beliefs about gender.

[wisehearts]

(I'm sending this to all my fav spicy byler accs!)

So I just read a really interesting review of the gay WW1 novel In Memoriam, and the reviewer (in a respected newspaper) is describing this adolescent, boyish, somewhat cowardly attraction between the two boys. 

Although they later prove themselves physically brave, Ellwood and Gaunt are cowards in love. Despite being well inducted by other boys into the improvised physical intimacy widely practised at their Wiltshire boarding school, Preshute, their own relationship remains chaste and hesitant: affectionate; Tennysonian; intensely sexless. Both characters are recognisable stock figures of boyish adolescent romance.

Now, it’s well and easy to say such in today’s era when homosexuality isn’t punishable by death, but in terms of Mike and Will, they’re going to explore in fine detail in s5 how and why both Mike and Will have been so careful. But what gets my eye is the mature way of discussing sex. If anything, works are often taken LESS seriously when they are coy about sex, because they suddenly seem embarrassed or childish or Disney-ified. I cannot imagine a more opposite view to the byler sex antis on here, who say, instead, that portrayal of adolescent sex is paedophilic. Can you imagine how you would be dragged to shit by any literary or film critics worth their salt for thinking that? For thinking that teenage sex is inherently bad or paedophilic? 

The review goes on to say:

Both young men torment themselves in attempts to hide their attachment from one another and themselves. It is a losing battle, the first of many they will see as war draws close.

Oof it sounds familiar! 

But mainly, the reviewer (a man) is appreciative of the detail that the author (a female) put into the work as regards sex:

Winn has written against the grain of her “lived experience” in another way too. In addition to not being a veteran of the First World War, some quick detective work in the acknowledgments section of the book reveals that she is also not a homosexual Edwardian adolescent. In fact, she does an intelligent job here too at simulating the male imagination, and although the sex remains carefully speculative, there are occasional observations of striking acuity. (“Gaunt’s prick was a little smaller than his. Ellwood had noticed that a long time ago, at school, had found it ruinously attractive.”)

I want to point out that this last quote comes before these characters engage in any sexual activity together in the book. 

And this comes on the back of the author running the novel by her male gay and bisexual friends for realism before publishing:

‘I had one friend who was really generous and candid about how to make the sex scenes feel real, but also about how to make the characters – outside of the sex – behave more like men. I mean, I don’t want to put too fine a point on this, but I remember at one stage he asked me, “So, who has the bigger penis?” And I was like, “I don’t know!” And he said, “Well, the characters know!”’ 

- Alice Winn

So there we are! Have Mike and Will ever showered together in the gym at school? We see the high school boys do this at Hawkins in s2, but Mike and Will have never been together at high school. Either way, there’s an acknowledgement here of the fact that teenage boys think very differently about sex than girls, and that if you want to create a piece of art that not only is enjoyable and exciting and compelling, but respects its characters and source material, you must be realistic about those character’s thoughts and experiences. I can understand prudishness a little, but to go as far as to call people who are calling for sexual realism in a coming of age story paedophiles????????? What is your aim?????? Feel free to be afraid of sex until you can figure it out, but do not call others who are engaging with something natural and normal perverts and degenerates. It’s not just cruel, but completely ignorant. 

In short, Mike and Will have definitely thought about and possibly know who has the bigger penis - and yes, they’re also very interested in that topic. 

Ohhhh these are super interesting thoughts!

to create a piece of art that not only is enjoyable and exciting and compelling, but respects its characters and source material, you must be realistic about those character’s thoughts and experiences.

Respect is a great word here. Especially in the case of mike and will where you have people who either think their intimacy is dirty and weird, or you have people in the fandom and queer community deeming byler as a sweet and 'pure' ship and both are harmful mindsets. To dismiss part of the adolescent experience RE: the party and sexuality (if lucas and dustin can have references to sexuality in s4, why can't mike or will?), is to not respect characters people claim to love. Being realistic is so important given the time period, sexuality IS part of their love story. I think the whole party will have little scenes referencing their sexualities next season, even more directly this time, and hopefully how normal it is just slaps people in the face.

Anyway, I think atp mike and will have without a doubt thought about each other's dicks but I don't know that I think they've seen each other's! There's every chance that the other three in the party have now, since they started high school together and probably use those showers, but will didn't (maybe he did in lenora? 👀) so he's the odd one out there.

There's this fan script that I really love wherein will changes in the bathroom stall at school, and I think that's really realistic, both for will removing himself from opportunities to be bullied for being around other naked boys, and maybe for if he has any guilt or stress about being around other naked boys. If he goes to high school next season, I could really see that. The actual shower situation though I'm not sure! Would he have to or does anyone know alternatives to showering at school? We don't do that here so idk

@ your last point: I think the fandom is always moving the goal posts, if it's no longer a problem to discuss byler's sexuality narratively, it's now gross to 'fantasize' and explore through headcanons, or explicit posts and smut fic. Which we know isn't true, and they'll lose that leg to stand on when the party is aged up next season. Calling fellow queer people perverted degenerates and parroting conservative rhetoric, over something fictional... could not be me!

Thanks for sharing that review!

[elipheleh]

Stonewall

Continuing my series of learning about things referenced in the book, I'm looking at things Alex references when he talks about engaging with queer history. These are all tagged #a series of learning about things that are referenced in the book, if you want to block the tag.

Stonewall is one of the more well known events, but that doesn't mean that everyone knows what happened, so it's still important - I think - to cover it.

‘Stonewall’ is used by Alex to refer to the Stonewall Riots, which began on the 28th of June, 1969. Patrons of the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, New York City, fought back after a regular police raid, triggering subsequent nights of riots. The police were targeting gay bars, and had been for years. They would raid gay establishments and arrest anyone who wasn’t wearing three items of clothing that complied with their gender, in accordance with New York State law. Unfortunately, the catalyst for why the patrons fought back that night is heavily disputed, even from people present, and there is no clear answer why. Some say that a lesbian began the riot by fighting back against a policeman who was 'mauling' her, others say a trans person hit a policeman - some think that was Tammy Novak, who fought back when a cop tried to push her into a police van. What is known is that patrons refused to provide identification, and others refused to go with police. Those who weren't arrested didn't disperse as usual, but rather gathered outside the Inn watching their peers being arrested. At some point, as mentioned above, the riot began and violence broke out. The police, in trying to restrain some of the crowd, knocked people down - which only increased the anger of the crowd.

Michael Fader talks about the mood:

We all had a collective feeling like we'd had enough of this kind of shit. It wasn't anything tangible anybody said to anyone else, it was just kind of like everything over the years had come to a head on that one particular night in the one particular place and it was not an organized demonstration ... Everyone in the crowd felt that we were never going to go back. It was like the last straw. It was time to reclaim something that had always been taken from us ... All kinds of people, all different reasons, but mostly it was total outrage, anger, sorrow, everything combined, and everything just kind of ran its course.

The riots continued into the early hours of the morning, thirteen people had been arrested and some of the crowd were hospitalised. Rioting continued the following nights, but so too did the desire to organise and take action to secure gay liberation. By 1974, five years later, there were more than 800 gay organisations - compared to the 50 that pre-dated the riots.

The above image is the only known photo taken during the first night of the riots. It shows the homeless gay youth who stayed nearby the Stonewall Inn fighting with police.

-----

There is an ongoing debate over the importance of Stonewall within queer history. It has become synonymous with the "origin" of the gay rights movement, something which many of those involved with early activism disagree with. In the years preceding Stonewall, activists were working towards gay liberation through various different methods.

The Mattachine Society, founded in 1950 in Los Angeles by Harry Hay (and other, unnamed, friends), but spread nationally, had been carrying out "Sip-in's" in New York in an attempt to legalise gay bars. The State Liquor Authority had been denying licenses to bars which served gay people in an attempt to rid the streets of queer people & others who were seen by politicians as "undesirables". They planned that members of The Mattachine Society would enter the bar, announce their homosexuality, and wait to see if they were served. If they were not, they then would file a complaint against the bar and - more importantly - the State Liquor Authority for violating their constitutional right to free assembly & equal accommodation. Bars had been using the State Liquor Authority's requirements of "orderly conduct" to refuse service. Queer encounters between two men were classed as "disorderly", enabling the bars to discriminate against gay people. In 1966, the highest court in New York ruled in their favour, saying that the SLA could not revoke a license on the basis of homosexual solicitation.

There were many other ways queer activism was being carried out, many successful, but it would make this post much too long if I were to list it all. It’s all reasonably easy to find online, the Library of Congress link below has some useful information.

The work carried out by gay activists, especially since the 1950s, had created a point where all that was needed to ignite the gay liberation movement was one event that empowered gay men and women to band together and fight for their rights. Scholars tend to argue that the Stonewall Riots were that catalyst, especially as the media coverage meant queer Americans saw clearly that there were others fighting for their rights, and there were others who were like them.

Sources: Stonewall Origins, Time SLA Sip In's - Stonewall. Carter 2005, page 50 The Gay ‘Sip-In’ that Drew from the Civil Rights Movement to Fight Discrimination - History Wider information - Stonewall. Carter. Fader Quote - Stonewall. Carter - from wikipedia Additional Reading: JSTOR - The Stonewall Riots didn't start the Gay Rights Movement Time - 'The Beginning of a Conversation': What It Was Like to Be an LGBTQ Activist Before Stonewall Library of Congress - LGBTQIA+ Studies: A Resource Guide

[frogburglar]

I have an interesting question, I would like to hear from your perspective. Should anal sex be illegal for a male to do on a female, as it is so degrading and painful for women, it just seems like another excuse for men to hurt women...?

hey! sorry for the wait, i've been busy and i wanted to give this question some consideration. i 100% agree that anal sex (for men to do to women) is degrading and painful, and i think it needs to be lessened and (hopefully) more or less eliminated. however, making it illegal probably isn't the move for a few different reasons:

it would be insanely difficult to prosecute. if the woman does consent, then i sincerely doubt that she would tell the cops and they would do anything about it. if she doesn't, we already have anti-sodomy laws (in the US) in place that make it illegal to have anal sex with someone who does not consent, on top of the anti rape laws that exist.

people hate being told what they legally can or cannot do with their bodies.

going off of #2, i don't like the implications such a law has about women's bodies. i think male on female anal sex is very degrading and painful, but many women consent despite that. this could provide an argument for people against abortion to point to, to say that women can't make decisions about our own bodies and need the law to make those decisions for us. obviously these are vastly different situations, but the argument (and precedent) is there regardless.

this could very easily become an anti-gay law as well. male on male anal sex is a common way for gay men to engage in sexual activity, and in the US it has a long history of being criminalized. a law criminalizing heterosexual anal sex could serve as precedent for laws criminalizing homosexual anal sex.

an anti male on female anal sex law could negatively impact rape cases, especially those involving sodomy. i think a law like this would have far more backlash than support, especially among law enforcement, and such backlash could make it harder for rape victims to be taken seriously. along with the metric fuck ton of bullshit they have to go through to maybe get some sort of justice, such a law might serve to (if the male rapist sodomized her) argue that she did consent to it, and is using this law as an excuse to prosecute him. there are other examples i can think of where such a law could negatively impact rape victims, but that's a big one.

so yeah! overall i do agree that anal sex (for men to do to women) is degrading and should not happen. the extreme rise in it due to porn is fucked and needs to be combatted, but i don't think a legal solution would be the right way to go about it. i also have my master's in social work (alongside being in law school) and i'd prefer to take more of a social work perspective for this sort of problem: education and trauma-informed care for women who have consented to anal sex. of course, banning porn would be the appropriate legal solution, but i think that might be as far as we can do to legally combat male on female anal sex.

thanks for the question! i love talking law :)

[vyachki]

Jk rowling was not "cancelled on the spot" shes been spouting crap for years that pisses people off and naturally collected a large amount of haters. Her amateur writing and many strange plots in her books have been heavily scrutinized by critics. Extreme stereotyping, racism, homophobia, writing weird shit about children on twitter, the whole thing with the elves who loved being slaves is weird as fuck, aids metaphors etc. Everyone knows she's annoying. She's hated by transphobes ands trans people alike. Young people hate her and old people hate her. Harry potter fans hate her. Even many of the movie cast hate her. She's a bigot. She doesn't care about people like you. why are u falling over yourself to defend her honestly its so pathetic and we can see right through you. I'm sure you never really gave a crap about the books or who wrote them until you became a radical bitch. You just love her because she hates trans as much as you. That's all you have in common. Shes not a feminist, shes not fighting for anyones rights, she doesnt spread any important information or have any educated opinions. Her new books and movies suck. All she does is sit writing drivel and spreading hate which sounds a lot like you. No wonder you admire her so much. Honestly i bet if Kim Yo Jong or someone came out as a terf and a radical feminist u would all start fanning over her and convert to her ideologies bc u have no back bone or brain and the only thing u care about is worshipping ur chronically online terf cult, making up shit and hating trans people who have nothing to do with you. News flash! Your radical feminism isn't any more radical than what normal ass women have been talking about for generations. All the issues are already included in normal feminism, it's just the same except: you ignore big issues (especially those involving minorities and women of colour), act horrible and rude to everyone, isolate yourself and most of all, devote your existence to being transphobic. It's like a cry for help or something. You're ruining your life by being a bitch. and noone is going to feel sorry for you. Mental illness innit. 🤣 - Sincerely a happily married cis white woman. Get a life.

Oh my god this is so funny, did you copy and paste this from somewhere or did you really type all of this out for me?? I am blushing🤭

People will always have a lot to say about JKR and that's okay, she's a famous female author who owns a billion dollar franchise—people are going to talk shit on her name and some of it may be true, and some of it may not. With the way now that people deliberately skew what other people say (e.g. "JKR wants trans people deaaaaad!!!"), take a lot of shit you see from non-sources with a grain of a salt.

Regardless of the discourse & semantics you want to engage in, biological sex will still be real, women will still face sex-based oppression, and same-sex attracted people are still being erased in favour of "queer" activism. It is not hate to call that out. But it is very condescending to say all this to a detransitioned trans woman / homosexual man since I am still dysphoric, but I am not a victim nor will act like one because of it.

I made this blog to support detransitioners & same-sex attracted people, and to call out lies I was told by the trans cult during & after my transition. I really don't need "happily married cis white women" lecturing me about gender ideology that you never lived. Thanks though!

Sincerely, a "radical b*tch"

[max--phillips]

genuine question but if being heterosexual or homosexual has nothing to do with genitals then what are those of us exclusively attracted to one sex or another supposed to do or call ourselves...

I’m going to do my best to respond to this in good faith, but you’ll have to excuse me if I get a little snippy because I am not the only person who has addressed this and trans people are, rightfully, kind of tired of having this conversation. That said, this is probably going to get long.

The short answer is: why do you feel the need to differentiate yourselves? You just keep using whatever label makes you happy.

The long answer has several parts. It has to do with division, medicalization, communication, and, of course, attraction.

First: division. This is a slightly longer version of my short answer. If you identify as a lesbian, and you truly are only interested in having sex with people with vulvas, you’re still a lesbian. There’s no need for you to differentiate yourself from the rest of the community. I’ll expand a little on that with communication.

TERFs reeeeaaaaaaaally want lesbians to be their own little island within the LGBT community, as if we don’t have a long, rich history that overlaps with bi women, trans women, trans men, and nonbinary folks. Bi women face similar discrimination. Trans women have always been a part of our community because they are women. It isn’t unheard of for a trans man to refer to themself as a butch lesbian, or vice versa, and for that to be completely valid (and there is a ton of overlap in our experiences otherwise!) Nonbinary people have always been a part of our community, too. While labels are important to many people, we need them to stay labels and not become boxes. The world is not black and white, and neither is gender and sexuality.

Second: medicalization. I realize that the terms homosexual and transsexual are being actively reclaimed by our community, but I do not know very many folks who choose to label themselves as “homosexual.” (Not that you can’t, of course, it’s a perfectly valid label to choose!) The reason they’re being reclaimed is because they came from the field of psychiatry to pathologize our lived experienced because they were seen as wrong or deviant or abnormal. But, words change meaning over time. In the context of the LGBT community, “homosexual” just means gay or lesbian. It no longer means its biological definition, which is two animals of the same sex engaging in sexual activity. Therefore, someone who uses the label homosexual is typically not implying that they are strictly attracted to someone of the same sex, but rather as someone who is attracted to the same gender.

We need to learn, as a society, that yes, gender is a construct, but so is sex. It is two arbitrary categories for people with “typical” genitalia and other secondary sex characteristics. Yet, many people fall outside of those categories, and may not even realize it their whole life; many DSDs/intersex conditions are wholly undetectable unless specific medical tests are run. Sex is just as complicated a subject as gender, and once again, folks (especially TERFs) want so desperately for everything to be black and white that they ignore this fact when having this conversation.

I’m going to mess with the order here a little bit. Third: attraction. I’m going to say something that is going to make you defensive, but I ask that you hear me out. You are not attracted to a specific sex. Let me explain. Let’s say you see someone on the street. You know absolutely nothing about this person, but you find them sexually attractive. Given the opportunity, you’d gladly have sex with them. But, you still don’t know anything about their chromosome makeup, or their genitalia, or anything other than the outward facing secondary sex characteristics you can see. This may give you an assumption as to their sex, but it does not guarantee anything either way. You don’t know anything about their biological sex until you get into their pants or ask—and even then you STILL might not know.

There are trans women with vulvas. There are trans men with penises. Yet, technically, only the orientation of their genitalia was changed, not what sex they were determined to be by their DNA—be that peri- or intersex. Yes, bottom surgery used to be referred to as a sex change, but the language has evolved to be gender affirmation surgery (which also includes other procedures, such as top surgery and FFS.) Ultimately, at the end of the day, you are not attracted to a specific sex. You are attracted to a specific gender, and you have a genital preference. Which is fine! And leads to my last point.

Finally: communication. Look, I know that there was a pretty strong camp a while back that was like “if you have a genital preference you’re transphobic” and while I will always encourage people to examine why they have a genital preference (is it trauma? Is it genuinely just preference? Or is it internalized transphobia?) I don’t think that having those preferences is inherently transphobic. That said, there is a correct way to go about communicating that preference.

Just be fucking polite. If you’re flirting with someone and think you might get busy, you just tell them, “hey, I think you’re really cool, but I just want to let you know I’m really only comfortable with this specific genital situation. Is that going to pose an issue?” And if they say like, sorry but I don’t have that situation, you say “bummer, but no worries! You’re cool though, I’d still like to hang out/be friends/whatever.” And if they say no issues here, steal me away, then y’all go do whatever you wanna do.

Key takeaways: you put the onus of the genital preference on yourself, not on the other person. No “what’s in your pants,” no “so have you had bottom surgery,” none of that. And you also don’t react negatively when and if they tell you one way or the other. This is not an invitation for you to lash out at them or be violent or anything crazy like that.

Ultimately. Stop trying to force the world into pure black and white categories and realize that everything has overlap and complexities that you cannot and will not root out. Separation only makes us easier to conquer. And they won’t stop conquering with the minority du jour. They will come for you, too.

[pandasmagorica]

The right rec for the right person

So I've been sharing my interest in yaoi with my best friend and discovering that her interests and mine don't necessarily coincide. That has me thinking about how I would go about recommending yaoi to a particular person. And like many fans before me, I realized I have to customize my recs to that person's interests.

So here are my recs, starting with my top ten (long post):

For someone who's politically engaged: Not Me

(YouTube) This series has a major focus on class differences and how people of different economic levels deal with everyday life. A major character who has had a comfortable life and for whom is foreseen a comfortable future throws himself into a maelstrom of guerilla political activity among people who see themselves selves as have-nots.

It further has the benefit of having been directed by a trans woman who totally rocks it - it's the best y-series I've seen to date and I want to see more of her work.

I've seen disagreement as to whether this should even be considered a y-series. I think the argument is irrelevant. Yaoi has become a spectrum and the lines can be blurry. That's just a sign of the emerging maturity of the genre.

Note: Most of the writeups after the jump are much shorter, and there about a dozen of them.

For someone who is into theater, including classic plays and their modern adaptations: Bad Buddy

(YouTube) Khun Aof's take on the Romeo and Juliet story is an insanely good ride. Much digital ink has been spilled here on Tumblr about how the series parallels the original tale and subverts it to create what is ultimately a romantic comedy.

Also has the best intrusive product placements I have ever seen in my life.

Once they've watched it, send them to @shortpplfedup's tag #InFairVerona for an account of Bad Buddy's Romeo & Juliet parallels but scroll to the end to read them chronologically.

For someone who's spiritual: He's Coming to Me

(YouTube) One of the things many of us humans find comfort in is the idea that there is something beyond this life. We can't prove it but we believe it's there. He's Coming to Me dives deep into Buddhist beliefs about the afterlife (I'm not Buddhist so I can't say how accurately it does so) in the story of a young man who can see ghosts and develops a friendship and more with a particular one who is been subject to an untimely death. Quite heartwarming and fun.

For someone who likes their entertainment light: Cherry Magic

(CrunchyRoll) This is one of the sweetest yaoi I have ever seen. It's light. It's fun. It has magical realism. It doesn't demand too much of the viewer. It's just all around fun. While there is mild homosexual panic, it doesn't get hateful or last long.

For someone who enjoys over the top acting and epic stories with huge stakes: To Sir, With Love

(YouTube) To my understanding, this is a mainstream Thai soap opera with a queer-themed plot. A mother in 1940s Thailand will do anything up to and including murder to hide the fact that her son is gay. Magic, betrayal, and dead bodies abound and the acting is large. For the portayal of a milieu that is so homophobic, the series is ultimately refreshingly queer affirming.

I recommend watching this with the videos where the episodes are split up into four parts each. I kept running into trouble with the subtitles breaking partway through full episode versions when I tried to watch them that way.

For someone who's looking for a quiet story: Tale of 1000 stars

(YouTube) The start of this one isn't very promising: spoiled brat engaged in dangerous activities. But ultimately, this becomes a quiet and beautiful story set in the middle of nowhere in Thailand about a slow burn romance.

For someone in middle age who regrets some of their past decisions but doesn't wallow in it: 55:15 Never Too Late:

(YouTube) OK, OK, so this isn't a yaoi series. But who wouldn't want to undo some of the decisions of their past? (If that's you, congratulations, I'm happy for you.) Not sure whether to call this science-fiction or magical realism, but this story of five 55 year olds suddenly thrown into their 15 year old bodies and how they negotiated that is so much fun and as an oldster, I could totally identify with it. And no, I don't want to be 15 again. There is a yaoi subplot.

For someone who is wrestling with whether to be out as gay or not: Gaya Sa Pelicula

(YouTube) This is the best y-series that I've seen come out of the Philippines. A young odd-couple pairing find themselves living together and falling in love. One is very comfortable in his gayness while the other struggles with it, and it puts a wedge in their relationship. Very affirming about being able to choose for yourself. Has a matured gay as a positive side character.

For someone who has lost someone and is willing to feel, even wants to feel, their loss: Eternal Yesterday

(Gagaoolala) This series is melancholy, profoundly sad. It is also beautiful. When the person you love is killed and you get to have them for a little more time, how do you use that time? How do you deal with the uncertainty?

OK this one's a bit awkward because it's on Gagaoolala and you have to commit to a subscription (at least one month) to watch it. But it's a fine work and deserves my recommendation. Consider it like renting a movie.

For someone who feels like they've known somebody from a prior life: Until We Meet Again

(YouTube) This rec definitely has to come with a content warning: a double suicide in the first few minutes. But the story about how two men who have spent their whole lives feeling like they are looking for somebody only to discover that they were lovers in a former life is like the peeling of an onion is it reveals aspects of what they once had, as well as discovering the people they are now.

Some consent issues which apparently have no impact, although mercifully brief.

And reaching outside of my top ten:

For someone who has lost a pet and is okay talking about it: Choco Milk Shake

(YouTube) It's a fun fantasy. A young man's dead cat and dog show up to visit as living humans, and fun ensues. You need to be OK with pet-spirit/human romance. (I've seen reviews that some people find this aspect creepy.)

For someone who wants something really cerebral: 180 Degrees Longitude Passes Through Us

(Gagaoolala) This one is almost like a stage play, a six hour stage play. A young adult meets a man who is important to the young man's dead father and falls for him. If you're OK with the age gap, this is an intelligent, melancholic work that is worth the attention you will need to give it.

Again, consider it like a movie rental.

[powertrumpeter]

Gay Marriage: Abomination Before Almighty God.

God Almighty creator of the whole universe, created all living things males and females. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth, including human beings. Any form of marital union that doesn’t reproduce is satanic. Homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality (having intercourse with animals), etc, are not from God, They originated from Satan the fallen angel.

It’s quite unfortunate, many human beings, have turned against God’s plan for them. Men now lie with men; likewise women lie with fellow women. All gay activists are ungodly people. They need to repent for God has appointed a day, in which to judge the world. Everyone will give account of his or her life to the creator. The scripture says, to avoid fornication or sexual immoralities, let every man have his own wife; and let every woman have her own husband.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” –Romans 1:26-28.

Therefore, countries and individuals supporting homosexuals, lesbians, etc, are enemies of God. They should repent for the LORD is a consuming fire. There is a close relationship between gay practices, and membership of secret societies. In other words, those in secret societies engage in vices like homosexuality and bestiality.

Britain is among the countries that promote gay activities and gay marriages. They coerce and compel leaders of their former colonies, to allow homosexuality and lesbianism, to thrive in their respective countries. They try to force these commonwealth head of states, with threat of sanctions, to allow gays to operate freely in their countries. This is the same Britain, which claims to have brought Christianity to us. Britain is a heathen and occult nation, to say the least. Commonwealth Head of States’ meeting, is beginning to look like occult gathering. We therefore call on other ungodly nations, and individuals to have a change of heart.

We in Africa detest such abominations. We shouldn’t allow any occult nation to talk us into accepting such evil practices; no matter the material or financial inducement. Many people liked what the former President of Zimbabwe did years ago. He locked up two homosexuals that got married. He vowed he would only release them, if one of them would get pregnant. Many countries in Africa have come up with legislation, which stipulates jail terms for gays in their countries.

Western countries and others, should practice what they preach. You sent missionaries to evangelize our land, and make converts. But, some leaders of these countries practise sodomy, and encourage others to do same. It is shocking to observe even the current Pope Francis, and some so-called Archbishops, endorse gray immoral acts. Remember, the scriptures said, judgement will begin in the house of God. “For the time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God: and if it first begins at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” –1Peter :4:17. The eyes of the LORD go to and fro the earth. He looks down in the kingdoms of men; to pay everyone according to his deeds…https://powertrumpeter.org/blog1/the-lord-of-host-watches-over-earth/

[maneaterwithtail]

Real issue of "forced" diversity or wokeness

I'm sorry but everything about a production is to 1ﾟ or another forced. It won't naturally happen without active decision and circumstance arranged by everybody from production to operations. I think recently someone kind of clarified this for me and we have the Mario movie to thank again.

The problem isn't wokness or any political spectrum it's

Toxic- more accurately -forced positivity. If you demand that everybody has to treat your product the same way they would the political talking point you're often very shallowly engaging in or claiming that you are fighting the good fight for by simple alignment...

you are effectively demanding that the audience accept and basically give up their entertainment to become a resource for your success

Naturally people disagree on gayess. whether you think this is bad or wrong, being forced into this in the most intimate personal and vulnerable circumstances that's primarily going to take in online spaces isn't setting everybody up for reconciliation. it's setting everybody up to basically either convert or be silent

That does nothing but create resistance. it's a propaganda move plain and simple

Now even if the propaganda is preaching what you want. that can't work forever and it's going to leave to something else

c***** craftsmanship. a law can be good but if it's enforced with no care for the citizenry then it's going to become a toxic mess. More so if you can get the exact same phrase based on someone's predisposition And no possible objection in the exact same social circles that everyone's paying attention to or utilizes And no possible objection in the exact same social circles that everyone's paying attention to or utilizes

any performative diversity the point is basically to get quick social brownie points on social media. I don't even think it's for the creators. many of whom fall in these categories. it's because they're selling the audience the illusion of heroism

They either want you to passively accept everything they give or give you a bunch of easy targets to ostracize

And they can be pretty d*** sure in various online spaces that they have the right of way because almost most moderators as well as social media outlets deliberately favor their way of thinking so effectively they've given you catalyst or tools to bait someone in order to ban themselves

And this keeps happening

More importantly they don't care what they damage along the way. Franchises, community, discourse, because what they value of what they're doing is that performative social thing which they then want to repackage and sell to the audience or a new investor or customer base.

We took down the toxic scary man babies who remind you of your abusers or oppressors. They don't have thing or place any more. You like that feeling? You owe us for it give me money so we can antagonize further together. Just remember parasocial relationship I am not responsible for you or my words

Now here's the problem. much like you'll only need 1 shonen series. Baby lgbt only needs 1 maybe 2 series in order to come to terms with own sexual identity if you're discovering it.

everything after that is going to be on you.

Which leads to the other problem.

very shallow engagement. you're not after representing the lives and circumstances that someone might have after they've come to terms with they are gay. Gay parents. Gay professionals. Gay history. That gay culture and divorced or sexual libertine patriarch culture has amount of overlap. The loss of generational wealth and social staus or the game needed to access it

You want the closet case or the questioning individual which is why as it aims younger and broader. Which gets more and more creepy

Owl houses my go to for this because despite the fact that they had ample opportunity in order to normalize homosexuality or transness in its world...they decided to focus on basically shipping drama between 2 young kids.

anything that was happening with lumity would have been absolutely mocked and murdered online if it didn't involve something heterosexual. h*** if it had just involved a man.

Seriously at 1 point Amity's sexual arousal is literally played for laughs in a kid show on the Disney Channel. People still cringe at the idea of that being a feature in any manga or anime that is watched by anyone not primarily women (beware the bronies will pornify the pure and good Steven Universe fandom)

But thanks to that toxic positivity it's all good. And because they intertwined it with their own self discovery and validation so on and so forth when there's any actual moral dilemma or circumstance it'll always default to what can basically say something good or pandering to either the main character or using the main character as a proxy for the audience they're charming

Perhaps the easiest way to say this is to compare ang with korra. Aang has to learn how to learn how to synthesize and come to terms with the legacy he has inherited.

he must learn humility on multiple levels as well as duty and discipline. Kora is constantly being validated. For fand and apologists this is a featute. you can tell this by the difference of how the avatarspirit and position is treated between the 2 characters.

One is a burden and a duty that defines and runs the risk of subsuming his identity. One that he must take control of. The other is an inner goddess which validates that she doesn't have to listen to anyone because everything she says is authorities and divinely inspired.

And it's not like there hasn't been casualties for this attitude. And they revel in them too in fact it very much seems to start off a conversation about doing just that period making sure that you p*** that person off that pisses off the right people

And then they turn around and go well you shouldn't care about making sure all the critics like this are that movie or that this is a score against so-and-so that anti woke grifters are a problem. Guys they're not even so much a threat as they are what you're doing just aimed at the audience you're very obviously isolating and not serving

This is the problem with wokeness

This is also why things that could come off as woke black lightning, arcane, and so on

Why they can have a surprising amount of universal appeal. They are presented or written in such a way that they don't demand atoxic positivity but actually give you the space in order to take in the message agree or disagree or at the very least not be forced to agree in a specific way

The emphasis isn't on conversion it's on examination and struggle. It isn't on validation it's on coming to terms with what you have to do in order to achieve that validity both for yourself and success in the world around you. And sometimes you don't succeed you fail and the compromises or what comes after all that