not just followers, everyone.
I’m here if any of you need to talk<3
The best part is, this post actually does something, it offers support, unlike one of those useless “reblog if you care” posts.
Exactly. Which is why I’ll reblog this one.
Presenting a universe in which LGBTQIAP+ people do not exist is heteronormative and queerphobic. Every time. It is a problem.
It is a flaw.
Okay, no it is not. I have written stories where my characters never encounter any LGBTQIAP…
"In 1885 the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was passed. It was originally designed for the protection of women and girls, the suppression of brothels and other purposes. But after the bill had been given an unopposed second reading, an amendment was introduced by a radical Member of Parliament, Henry Labouchere. In it he proposed that the issue of homsexuality be addressed as well, that ALL homosexual acts and not only sodomy -whether in private or in public - be made an offense.
Labouchere’s amendment - the eleventh clause of the Criminal Law Amendment Act - was adopted. It has been argued that because the amendment was adopted, without due consideration, at the end of a long night’s sitting, its full implications were not appreciated. True or not, the bill provided that any male person who, in public or in private, commits, or is party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission of any male person of any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.
In other words, the amendment criminialized ALL homosexual acts, leaving Britain as one of the few European countries in which even mutual masturbation by adult men in the privacy of their own homes was illegal. France, for instance, had decrimanlised homsexual acts between consenting adults almost a century earlier.
The Labouchere amendment, sometimes known as the ‘Blackmailer’s Charter’ led to the growth of hostility towards homosexuals and an increase in prosecutions. It remained on the statute books until 1967.”
I’m guessing that if we’re going to have a high and mighty contest that I don’t have to explain the difference between Queer Literature and Historical Accuracy. YES I WANT TO COMPLETELY NEGLECT THE FACT THAT UP UNTIL THE LATE SIXTIES IT WAS A PUNISHABLE CRIME TO BE GAY IN PUBLIC. I have nothing against people who want to write an alternate universe where being Homosexual in the Victorian Era was a-ok, but I’m not writing that. I’m writing something that, while it takes place in a vaguely steampunk alternate 1888, I want to stick with some specifications. Yes my main character admits to having a fling while he was in college with another man once. But he never admits this to anyone besides his wife and his best friend because he didn’t want his reputation and life completely ruined, much less risking ending up in jail. I’m not going to stroke the ego of the LGBT community by portraying it ‘positively’ in an era where it was a punishable crime. I have other stories that have gay characters, sure, but not this one, or it has a very, very limited set. From what I understand, the most beneficial occupation for a gay male in that time period was prostitution. So allow me again to curtly point out that just because you studied queer lit doesn’t mean I have to wallow in it as well. I am not writing queer lit. I am writing a Sherlock-holmes esque series of stories that may or may not venture into the homosexual underworld that emerged during that time period, but otherwise, I have no reason to put in what I don’t want too.
You either did not read my post or made a very poor job of understanding it (it could be because I am gay, and you have trouble “grasping” that kind of human beings).
Again, you say, “I have no reason to put in what I don’t want to”. Indeed. I literally said twice in my post that of course you, and any other writer, can write or not write whatever you please. It is your book. Goddamn, of course no one can tell you what to write in it. Just informing you of a cold hard fact: The historical accuracy excuse, is not an excuse.
The point is not bending the laws and making some sort of magical alternative Victorian era (which you are ironically doing, with the steampunk setting) where male homosexuality was not illegal (by the way, only male homosexuality; female homosexuality was not a legal issue and I see is not an issue in your post either, must be that famous erasure contemporary literature and history studies are trying to solve by means of representation. Oh, well). In fact, doing that kind of warped bullshit would kind of kill the whole purpose of representation. The whole point of it is portraying it like it really was, that is the whole point.
Yes, male homosexuality was illegal. There were still a fuckload of homosexual men around, doing their thing, each one with their story, who could serve as a million of different things in a novel.
Yes, female homosexuality was socially invisible. There were still a damn lot of homosexual women , doing their thing, each one with their story, who could serve as a million of different things in a novel.
The problem is that for most non-queer writers, queer characters, especially of past eras, are solely defined by their sexuality. I honestly don’t understand what is so uncanny about writing about a queer character, if you are thinking past their sexual life. They can be the fucking brother of the protagonist, or the woman who helps them through a complicated part of the novel, or the best friend of the main character. It just needs to be a normal person who happens to be queer. The purported difficulty of this task goes beyond my understanding.
Now, don’t panic. I don’t want you to put queer people in your novel. Not asking you to. Not demanding you to do it. Just informing you representation does your fellow human beings a great deal of good, so obviously we like it when it happens, and we fight for it to happen. But if you don’t want to put it in your book, or you don’t really care much for it, that is peachy too. Don’t do it, I am not trying to force you to do it or telling you how to write your book or how to feel towards queer representation.
But don’t tell me it’s for historical accuracy. Please, don’t.
When you’re too busy crying on tumblr to realize that society doesn’t actually hate or harm you as a whole and it is mere individuals who tend to be oppressing “you” when it only happens in places where there already are active groups for human rights, when you’re just on the internet yelling about imaginary cis people who were mean to you.
was this show even real
Game of Daddy Issues
Can we talk about how Stannis is the best dad in the show
all ship wars can be resolved in one big pansexual orgy
everything can be resolved in one big pansexual orgy
"oh shit the bomb is gunna’ go off, better make make it look cool."
well, i don’t know the girl in the “don’t support fag marriages” picture, but i did come across this:
and i feel really bad that she’s getting so much hate for a simple misunderstanding. i’m not tumblr famous or anything, so this probably won’t go too well, but i’m trying to get the word out because i feel bad for this girl. thanks
Signal boost the fuck out of this, someone who didn’t do anything wrong doesn’t deserve hate.