don't even deny this

headcanon that

lance is overprotective as f u ck with keith and nearly tackles an alien when it threatens keith

like lance goes from smiling and friendly and all of a sudden, he’s pushing straight into the alien and shoving him from a stunned keith

cue lance leaning in real close to the alien’s face, and it’s really scary, cause lance has never been this serious

and he just quietly says, “don’t you dare come near him again.” and he’s not even yelling, it’s just quiet and calm and fucking scary as shit

lance lets it go, and turns to face keith only to see that keith is like.super red

like gaping, open-mouthed keef with cheeks redder than his armor

BONUS: inside keith’s mind is “holy shit that was fucking h o t”

((edit)) i’d like to point out that since so many people are concerned, i n e v e r support toxic relationships. in this headcanon, it’s a justified reason for lance to say something like that; the alien has been threatening keith. threatening. maybe i didn’t make it clear enough, but there’s a reason lance gets angry. and since it’s still bothering so many people, i’ll change this headcanon, but i’d also like to point out that many of my headcanons are crack/slef-indulgent.

Learning love is not a crime

y’all literally went from bashing chloe into the ground for being ‘uwu manipulative’ and ‘omg toxic!!!’ when she was justifiably angry at max for cutting off contact to crucifying max because suddenly the pov switched??? we literally didn’t learn anything new that lis didn’t tell us, we already knew that max was the one who failed at contact??? are y’all hypocrites serious right now, are we seriously going to come to this????? max fucked up, chloe had a right to be pissed, max genuinely made amends later, case closed.

isak is such a little bitch?? like vilde literally called him just to ask if he had a christmas tree and isak was like NO vilde we don’t have a fucking christmas tree bc FUCK YOU thAT’S why like bitch !!! no one’s comin @ u be calm


How ‘bout some Greek god Zoro


i keep seeing people calling Reddie shippers “disgusting”, “gross”, “weird”, etc. and accusing us of sexualizing kids (when we are doing NOTHING of the sort) and i just wanna say this:

if you have a problem with two young boys realizing that they like each other, holding hands, and being cute together (nothing sexual) and you say all of those things above, but you have no problem with a heterosexual couple within the same age range practically making out

you are promoting a homophobic double standard

it needs to stop, simple as that

I feel like it’s kind of lost on many people that „Don’t use modern labels on historical people“ and „Queer people didn’t exist in history“ are two completely different things. “Don’t use modern labels” simply means that it’s important to highlight queer people in history, their concepts of their own sexualities and the historical and social context. I have said this before and I still believe it: I think you mean well by calling historical people gay, lesbian or bi but I also think you’re actually harming your cause by forcing this modern concept on historical people and taking away the chance to learn about and understand their own concepts and how they themselves thought of their sexualities. To say it bluntly: Forcing a modern concept of sexuality on historical people or even denying there were different concepts of sexuality in different historical epochs in the first place is erasing a big part of LGBTQ history.

People have always tried to make sense of sexuality and attraction just like we do today and it’s honestly so important to inform yourselves on how people thought of sexuality and same gender attraction in the 17th or 18th or 19th century and not just call them gay or bi and call it a day. That’s were the really important queer history is: In self-conceptions and social contexts and progress and the development and advancing of concepts of sexuality until this very day.

Also I’m sure that should someone say to you: “They didn’t have a concept of homosexuality so there were no queer people” you have a better chance of educating them by saying “They might not have known the modern concept, but same gender attraction has always existed, there were always concepts of sexuality and same gender attraction, even though they differed from ours” than insisting “But XY was clearly gay!”

Tl;dr: “There were different concepts of sexuality in history and it’s important to learn about them to truly understand queer history instead of just forcing our modern one on historical people.” =/= “Queer people didn’t exist in history.” 

This isn’t about erasing queer people from history. It’s about the opposite: Highlighting queer historical people, their self-conceptions, their lives, their social context and their impact on queer history. 

PS: Before this argument comes up again: Of course calling historical people “straight” is just the same. We shouldn’t do that either since “heterosexuality” is also a concept of sexuality that plain and simple did not exist until the late 19th century. This argument needs to go already.