establishment queers

anonymous asked:

I'm sorry, I do not mean to spark controversy or discredit any queen, but Sasha's win feels... hollow? Unimpactful? She definitely brings something new to the winner's circle, but it feels that her drag is not influential and markets herself as a revolutionary fighter, yet everything she presents is core concepts established by the queer community since Raja's birth... I just feel that she is too safe and not CUNT enough... sorry :(

you’re entitled to your own opinion boo!!!! i really do think sasha’s reign will be impactful but i get where you’re coming from. i personally think shea is more winner material and the crown should have been hers but what can i say??? that’s not up to me???? my friend put it best, in my eyes: shea won the competition but she didn’t snatch the crown.

There’s such a weird fixation in media about “firsts”. Beauty and the Beast boasting disney’s “first gay scene” is the one I’m thinking about in particular, and Power Rangers with the “first gay superhero”, and in both cases it’s a blink and you’ll miss it thing, something that maintains plausible deniability of queerness within the film itself, but establishing explicit queerness in everything outside the film. We know Lefou is gay because the interview told us he was in disney’s first gay scene.

And most of these discussions of firsts devolve into which first is first. Bill gets announced as the first gay companion on doctor who, and then follows the argument of whether Jack counts as companion, whether he was the first pansexual companion while Bill is the first gay companion, whether Amy or Clara was ever canonically bisexual and should that be a factoring in calculating firsts as well. (I remember a similar argument going on when Martha was announced as the first black companion, and people were like “but Mickey?” And there’s definitely commentary waiting about contentious Firsts and characters of color, but my white ass has nothing incisive to offer on that front except the hope we are kinder and better towards Bill than we were towards Martha.) And meanwhile, here is Bill, a black gay female companion, and while that fact has definitely not gotten lost, it is still very very cool and good that she is the companion even if she is not the Absolute First.

The language of Firsts is everywhere when you start looking for it, the idea that this show/movie/video game is doing something New Never Before Done Whoa Look At The Unprecedented Gay. And when this trend worries me, it’s because:

1) it gives off a strong whiff of performative representation, where the representation isn’t as important as people knowing you’re doing it

1a) the corollary being that the emphasis on First First First makes me worried that creators are not interested in Second Third Fourth. That having had the First *spins wheel, throws dart* Lesbian Asian Marvel character (a guest star in three episodes of the Defenders, maybe fifteen minutes, every gif set celebrating her has the same three quotes because that’s all there is), they are now exempted from every having to write a Second Lesbian Asian Marvel character. Because they already did that. Didn’t you see the article in Entertainment Weekly? It was a very big deal.

2) the trend of press on the First Gay Thing tends to vastly outscale the actually gayness, which traps us in an endless loop of hype and disappointment (versus Dumbledoring where the gayness is revealed retroactively for a previously ambiguous character or relationship, and it’s a weird combination of vindication because you thought they might be gay, surprise because you didn’t expect them to be gay, and disappointment because why didn’t the work just say they were gay)

And this, even more than the rest of this post, is a personal grievance but 3) queer fandom has spent decades finding representation in subtext, in coding, in wishful thinking and disciplined literary analysis of the text. This whole First thing seems come with a subtext that every other character who had significant ambiguous relationships, was flamboyant or butch, was in anyway queercoded? Not queer. This here is the first gay thing, and we’re very brave for being the first to have done it. Gay characters must formally come out to count.

Putting aside explicitly queer characters (which exist! Which have a history that creators and fans are welcome to build upon instead of thinking they have to invent gay representation every time they launch a franchise), queer history and queer art has always entailed writing and reading in between the lines. Which requires there be lines. If the new trend is unwritten in text, out and proud in press, what does that offer? I’m happy that Explicitly Confirmed Queer is a thing that’s happening, I very much am, but if a gay child who has never read a think-piece cannot recognize themself in your Brave Unprecedented Gay Character because they didn’t read your interview with the av club, then what use is that character? What was the point? What have you actually contributed to us?

anonymous asked:

Bottom Ryan, please.


I Hate You, I Love You by PhantomTyper

Summary: Ryan hated Gavin at first, but suddenly finds himself falling in love. [R]

WC: 5,095 - Complete

[Tags: AU (GTA), Hurt/Comfort, Series, Smut, Violence]

Ryan/Jeremy + AH OT6 [Jeremy]

We Want Happy Endings by HoneyPotAnt

Summary: Ryan is stressed out after working all day for the crew, and face paint can be overstimulating. Jeremy wants to help. [R]

WC: 1,316

[Tags: AU (GTA), Established Relationship, Hurt/Comfort, Queer (Trans), Smut]

Not much bottom Ryan but I did find these for you! Enjoy~


Rating: 5 stars

Summary:  Witch-blooded robber Bridget has made a reputation for herself in the capital city, but she’s not interested in the attention of the Thieves’ Guild–and she’s not bothered by the rumors of urchin kidnappings, either. With winter coming, she’s looking out for herself and no one else.
Until she picks the wrong pocket, and recognizes her estranged brother Teddy.
While spying on her brother, Bridget overhears a secret meeting that reveals a cruel plot. After more than a decade apart, Theodor and Bridget must reunite to stop a traitor whose plan threatens not only their city, but the whole empire.

Keep reading

Captive Prince - Book Recommendations

A Few Captive Prince-Related Book Recommendations

My credentials (haha):

1) I’ve read all these books and

2) I’m a librarian (though sadly not usually the kind of librarian that gets to tell patrons about how to find their next queer fantasy/romance novel, although the number of queer fantasy/romance novels at my college library has definitely quadrupled since I’ve worked there… ahem) and

3) I tried but didn’t enjoy the usual Captive Prince-related recommendations, which are:

  • The Song of Achilles (I gave it 100 pages but refused to suffer further…)
  • The Raven Cycle (I gave it 100 pages and was so bored…)
  • The Foxhole Court series (I might come back to it, but it was just so implausible, I couldn’t cope…)
  • Six of Crows (I bought this for my students and I was like aw yeah, gonna add to the circulation stats, and at 50 pages I was done. I think I’ll try it again though…)

Although for any of the above if anyone really wants to convince me to try again, I’m open to that. I just didn’t fall in love with them. Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe is also often recommended, but I haven’t read it (I did buy it for my students so I will try to pick it up sometime).

The following is a list of books that I either did fall in love with, or that I think others might find interesting once they’ve finished reading Kings Rising for the sixth time. They all have queer characters in a fantasy setting, and some have M/M romance.

  • The Shades of Magic trilogy by V. E. Schwab (consisting of A Darker Shade of Magic and A Gathering of Shadows so far) because I am a sucker for London AUs. Plus queer (and poc) characters in a non-homophobic society, and magic, and pirates, and Lila Bard. Lila Bard, everyone.

  •  The Doctrine of Labyrinths series by Sarah Monette (consisting of Mélusine, The Virtu, The Mirador, and Corambis) because I would happily read this woman’s grocery list. Her writing is exquisite. This world has queer main characters in a fairly non-homophobic society, and competing theoretical schools of magic, and evil wizards with badass names, and death goddesses, and not-quite-Tarot cards, and the absolute sass-machine that is Mildmay the Fox, and titan clocks, and wizard archaeology. BUT it is also very dark and brutal and basically everything bad that could possibly happen to a person happens to the main characters, so check out the warnings before proceeding. If any part of Captive Prince was too much for you, skip these ones.

  • Swordspoint by Ellen Kushner (I haven’t read the other Riverside books) has an established queer (M/M) relationship in a non-homophobic society as a backdrop to a “melodrama of manners” punctuated by vicious swordfights. The writing is kind of stylistic and I owned this book for years before I actually managed to read it.

  • Wicked Gentlemen by Ginn Hale, because although it is much too short, it has queer characters in a non-homophobic society, M/M romance, hat theft, and the Prodigals, descendants of the “redeemed” fallen angels/demons who are ghettoized underground.

  • The Rifterseries by Ginn Hale (consisting of The Shattered Gates, His Sacred Bones, and The Holy Road) because it has M/M romance in a fantasy setting with a super convoluted plot, poc characters, environmental wizardry, biology majors, alternate timelines, dog witches, and super scary bone oracle things. The tone is fairly dark, and there is a lot of homophobia.

  • Lord of the White Hell (2 volumes) by Ginn Hale, because it has M/M romance, a detailed fantasy setting, interesting cultural and religious clashes, horses (always very important), and science vs magic vs religion. Definitely leans towards yaoi tropes (including a conspicuous lack of women) but still fun to read.

  • The High King’s Golden Tongue by Megan Derr, because it has M/M romance, language nerds, and queer characters in a non-homophobic, non-transphobic, happy-no-matter-where-you-are-on-the-gender-spectrum society. The fantasy world-building and plot are okay, but definitely not the selling points.

  • The A Land Fit for Heroes series by Richard K. Morgan (consisting of The Steel Remains, The Cold Commands, and The Dark Defiles) for those of you who like their fantasy extremely grimdark. There are queer (two of the three main) characters in an extremely homophobic society, and M/M and F/F relationships. These books are actually horrifically disturbing, now that I think about it, even more so than Doctrine of Labyrinths. On the plus side, there are sword fights, evil elves, possible sci-fi-tech in a fantasy setting, bitchy sentient satellite crab things, and a lesbian-woc-engineer-wizard main character.

Okay, I’m gonna stop here for now. I could go on, but these are the titles that seemed most relevant to me, and I’ve read them in the past decade so I mostly remember them. Your mileage may vary. This became more of a Ginn Hale fan-fest than I intended, but check out other @blindeyebooks publications too. Also, my faves (Doctrine of Labyrinths, A Land Fit for Heroes) are problematic and I’m not sorry, but do know what you’re getting into.

The Chitters

Kudos to Nancy Won for writing a gothic metaphor for the queer experience while actually including a queer couple in the text.  So often in fantasy and gothic narratives, the actual topic of the metaphor is kept in the subtext- we’ve seen that for eleven years on Supernatural.  And while that’s a perfectly acceptable and even compelling way of creating a rich narrative, it also means that what’s being discussed- queerness, abuse, trauma, etc- is left without textual representation in the text.

In The Chitters, however, the metaphor operates only because of the textual representation of queerness- ie Jesse’s anxiety about the closed-mindedness of the townspeople.  On the surface, he’s talking about the fact that he saw something that no one believed, and that even the sheriff shut him down despite seeing the exact same thing.  But because from the very first line in the episode, Jesse is established as queer in a small town in the middle of nowhere, his comments about the intolerance he faced as a child seem less about people believing him, and more about intolerance of another kind.

The dual meaning of Jesse’s words then lend the rest of the episode that same dual meaning, particularly considering the chitters themselves.  This MOTW is framed not by what we the audience sees, but what individual characters witness, from the cold open all the way through the investigation.  We don’t see the victims being turned into these creatures, but rather we see the survivors recounting what they saw and being dismissed by everyone around them.  The girl at the beginning was told that she’d been high, so it couldn’t have been what she thought.  Jesse was told it was a sexual predator and he was just making up stories.  Etta deflected and pretended she didn’t know anything until pressed, and even while she told her grandmother’s version of the myth, she stuck to her own story of a cheating husband.  The old sheriff was so sure that no one would believe him that he cut his daughter out of his life, both literally and metaphorically, told traumatized people that he didn’t know anything, and shut himself away from the rest of the world.

Compare all of this to Dean’s reaction on meeting Jesse and Cesar.  He called them brothers, and when Cesar corrected him, it still took him a moment to realize exactly what was going on.  Look at Jesse’s discomfort as soon as Dean says “You fight like brothers.”  This is the insidious, well-meaning form of homophobia.  The kind where you’re told that you can’t really be gay, you just haven’t met the right person yet, that it’s sexual perversion and you’re not a pervert, that you’re just making it up for the attention.  (Interestingly, most of those comments are things people say not to gay men, but to people who identify as bisexual/asexual/trans/pansexual/lesbian/etc.  Not that it’s relevant to this discussion, but it might be relevant to a certain character who may or may not swing both ways).

The chitters therefore become the reflection of a compulsory heterosexuality, where those who might feel differently are herded back into line.  The affliction is a dark and disturbing sexuality that consumes the host in the name of reproduction.*  Anyone who sees them for what they are- death of the self- are firmly told that they’re crazy, that the missing people just left the town and are happily living somewhere else.  Even those with the evidence right in front of their eyes dismiss it- most notably the sheriff, who killed his own daughter and then pretended that nothing ever happened.

Of all of the people involved in this, the only ones who were able to defeat the problem where the ones who ignored what others were saying, and stuck to what they knew was the truth.  Despite everything that happened to him, Jesse remained firm in his belief that he didn’t imagine what took his brother, that he could one day hunt it down and kill it.  He fought back against the intolerance that he faced, and came out the other side of it- not because he got his revenge, but because he was able to see past the lies and self-deceptions, and end up with the one person who understood him and supported him through it all.  His happy ending was not revenge on the dark mirror to a homophobic town, but getting past it, settling down with the man that he loves.

It’s hard, if not impossible, to not see this as a continuation of the destruction of Dean’s performed masculinity and heterosexuality.  While Sam was the one who was paralleled with Jesse on the basis of their devotion to their older brothers, Dean is paralleled with Jesse by occupying the negative space Jesse would normally fill in his relationship with Cesar.  In the conversation about Jesse’s revenge, Dean represents what happens after the revenge, but as yet without the happy ending.  After all, it’s been years since Dean shot Yellow Eyes, years since John died and passed on the mantel of obsessive hunting on to his sons.  The revenge that Sam and Dean sought left them without closure, but rather just more problems to solve, more battles to fight.  They both lacked the steady support of a partner like Cesar, who was willing to fight to the end for the man he loves, and also pull him away from that next battle so that they can go home and live their lives in freedom.

You can see where I’m going with this, I’m sure.

*Not to say anything against heterosexuality as a whole.  This is referring specifically to compulsory heterosexuality, where one is forced into a role without taking their own preferences into account.

elaine-spades  asked:

Wasn't the way the show treated their ONLY confirmed queer characters total bullshit? 6mins of screen time over the course of like one day and suddenly they're True Love? And then we never hear about them ever again? Such a fucking cop out

And instead if using Mulan (a canonly established queer WOC the audience knew and rooted for) they shoved Dorothy in instead.
Maybe its just me but I thought 5x09 was screaming RED WARRIOR COMING YOUR WAY Though I would argue that I don’t have much of a problem with the insta love as this is a universe where insta love exists. They were quite Snowing-esque that way.
But you’re 100% right- Ruby Slippers was a cop out, a ‘here have a f/f couple’ who would never be heard from again.
Especially since A&E declared they didn’t want to make a whole episode dedicated to the LGBT couple and then did just that? The only good part was how pissed off homophobes were

Seriously, did every single writer across the board decide to kill or write off minorities this season? They killed Black Canary on Arrow, the original female lead for no damn reason other than what we all know in our souls to be because of a fandom ship. they had two of the only five established queer characters in the vampire diaries/originals universe kill themselves. A universe that has a fuckton of characters and somehow there’s only five queer recurring or quest characters, four of which are now dead. Abbie Mills, the female lead of sleepy hollow for three seasons was killed off for no reason once again and without anyone even grieving her after being sidelined for whatever white female showed up for two seasons. They fast-forwarded through her funeral and everyone’s reaction to her death but not before finally, after three seasons, having a certain co-lead admit they loved her. Lexa from the 100 was shot by a stray bullet ala buffy which is disgusting on so many levels and I didn’t even like the character or the relationship she was in. Oh then lincoln on the same show was brutally murdered, one of the only black characters who were portrayed as a “good guy” on a show that generally makes the poc out to be savages. And now, Teen Wolf wrote off another female lead after sidelining her for a whole season and a half and then pretended she was coming back. This is after having the character send the main bad to hell but having the former female lead who died almost three seasons ago be the one attributed with saving the day because Scott had a memory of her. And now, after kicking the actor off the show, they’ve apparently invited back ian bohen, a man who tried to publically humilate her. And have even hinted that the white-passing villian who she saved the day from might actually be alive meanwhile her character is banished to new mexico never to be seen again. Oh, and then agents of shield gave  two characters that have only been on the show for maybe a season and doesn’t even have a fanbase a spinoff that might not even get picked up but they got their own show because what we really needed was another straight couple where the man treats the more capable woman as his property.

Is anyone seeing a pattern here? It’s not even the deaths or write offs or backtracking on diversity that’s getting to me because if it was contained to one show fine but how is all this shit literally happening in the span of a few weeks? There’s no way this is some big coincidence unless each of these writers are just that incredibly terrible and somehow all came to the same conclusion on what to do with these characters. How did we have such great strides towards diversity like korrasami and sleepy hollow having a mostly black and female cast and teen wolf showing an interracial relationship with no white people to whatever this bs is currently on tv. All these shows have caused their fans to hate them and each character is subsequently probably going to being replaced by someone straight, white, and/or male. Seriously, who is making these decisions and why does none of these writers see the issues with how they’re portraying people or writing their shows?

***Edit, somehow i forgot about the walking dead killing off one of it’s only two lesbian characters which should kind of be an indicator that there’s far too much of this bullshit going on. No matter what group you identify in if it isn’t the “default” white, straight, male, and cis then you’re in danger of dying or being sent away. That’s not even counting all the shows i’m not watching or just haven’t got a chance to catch up on.

you find she is a gentle lover.
this is a surprise–
you have read the stories, after all,
of rough and hard and needy and fire.
you would have thought she’d be the same.

and yes,
she is still a flame
still burns with her every touch
but this is a warmth you can mostly bear.
hers is a light you can mostly stand
to look at directly.
she does not consume you whole like they said she would.

you ask her why,
and she tells you they warned her what it would be like,
to love you.
she tells you, “softness is a choice i choose for you.
i cannot give you the world,
or my whole self,
but i can give you this.”

when it is over
and she is gone beyond what you can see
and the afterglow has faded from the backs of your eyelids,
you almost regret this mercy.

she did not take everything

but she left enough
for you to recognize
what is missing.

—  the prophetess’ lover, Drea O.
Date My Queer Platonic Partner

My queer platonic partner is asexual but not aromantic and while we have a lovely partnership I really think he longs for romance in his life. 


  • be female
  • dark soulful eyes (???)
  • like monkeys
  • like science fiction, or at very least tolerant of
  • be romantically attracted to 173 cm tall blond Scottish engineers
  • not be jealous of an established queer platonic relationship
  • be willing to go 2-3 months without him realizing you are dating
  • low sex drive or willingness to handle one’s own orgasm requirements
  • be patient


  • enjoyment of Scottish football
  • willingness to own a monkey, or even better already owning a monkey
  • Star Trek fan
  • knowledge of engineering

No Nazis or robots need apply. 

Contact Dr. Jemma Simmons for more information.

((Do the thing! @unaugmentedmonkeyscantfly promises to go on these dates!))

anonymous asked:

raise your hand if you watched the x-files as a kid and scully made you realize you were gay

Raise ur hand if u watched txf when u were 19 and Scully made u question everything u thought u knew about ur sexuality 

(ellen) dana scully reinforced the already well-established queer in my 21 year old self, as expected from gillian anderson. and who can deny that 90s aesthetic?

queer is an umbrella term to include everyone who identifies as queer or consents to being described that way.  it’s not synonymous with lgbt+.

if you’re uncomfortable identifying as queer, then you’re not part of the queer community.  doesn’t mean there isn’t one.  doesn’t mean you get to tell folks “it’s not an umbrella term” bc it literally is one.  it just doesn’t cover you.

definitely doesn’t mean you get to tell people they must not have experienced it being used against them if they want to call themselves that.  reclamation of slurs is common to all oppressed groups.  so is disagreement about how to do it.

queer history is not the same as lgbt history.  queer theory is not “lgbt theory” or “gay theory”.  & yes academia is out of touch most of the time, but the use of these terms in academia was established by queer people.  at great cost.

the concept of “queer” as an identifier began with queer people. it was taken from us by our enemies.  they do not get to keep it as their weapon.

The argument of “You can’t put queer stuff in TV shows/series/cartoons because other countries will censor them” is xenophobic bullshit.

Networks don’t want to deal with reactionary queerphobic parents, and it’s as simple as that. We can have queercoded characters used as jokes and villains but we can never be fully treated and recognized as humans.

Different networks from different places will and have always censored shows at their leisure or convenience, and if you don’t want a whole episode axed from a country because this country specifically by law does not allow explicit queer characters or scenes, just make it so that the scene that establishes the character as queer be a small scene that can be cut or just few lines of dialogue that can be edited (which sucks, we deserve more than that!! but even airing THAT would do so so much and be so important to growing queer kids)

Networks are just afraid of losing money from bigots and bigot parents, networks don’t think this is important or valuable, and maybe even cartoonists aren’t pushing it hard enough, though it seems they are always trying, as we can see from what happened in Clarence and in Gravity Falls (same-sex couples or relationships depicted by the cartoonists but cut by the networks)

Maybe the ending of Korra and the great ovation that it’s receiving will send a clear message to these networks.

One thing about the Pretty Cure All Stars universe is that at some point Miyuki and Rikka are going to talk about fairy tales, and it is going to go very badly because Miyuki will automatically assume that their shared fairy tale nerdery makes them kindred spirits and not realize until way too late that actually fairy tale nerds whose favorite stories are by Oscar Wilde are an entirely different species from fairy tale nerds whose favorite story is Cinderella.

Miyuki is probably familiar with the Hans Christen Andersen version of The Little Mermaid, so The Happy Prince alone won’t be enough to freak her out.  In fact, she’ll probably mention The Little Mermaid, and Rikka will go, “Oh, Oscar Wilde did a version of that too!” and then recite The Little Mermaid:  Blatant Metaphor For Homosexuality With Typically Tragic Ending Version, and Miyuki’s face will slowly go from (: to |: — then to ): when immediately after that she launches into the one that ALMOST ends happily but then in the last two sentences it’s like “just kidding, his trials DID make him into a good king, but they also cut short his lifespan, and when he died the next king was awful!  JUST SAY NO TO ABSOLUTE MONARCHY, KIDS,” and finally DDDD: when she reaches The Nightingale and the Rose.

Finally she just bursts into tears because NONE OF THESE STORIES ARE HAPPY AT ALL, HOW CAN YOU LOVE THEM THAT MUCH? D:

And Rikka’s like, well first of all there’s this thing the Greeks called “catharsis”, right?  But also, what’s cool about them is that they’re worded and structured like traditional fairy tales, but unlike those they’re all blatantly anti-establishment.  And also queer.  And just lovely.

And Miyuki’s like WELL Cinderella is a rags to riches story, that’s what you mean by anti-establishment, right?  Stories don’t have to be miserable to get a message across!

And then Rikka gets into how Cinderella is kind of interesting in that really it’s a riches to rags to riches story.  The heroine is born into nobility but loses all her wealth to a villain who only married into it.  It’s a reflection of the anxieties of the old upper class in a time when the middle class was on the rise, and ultimately old blood wins out over new money.

Miyuki’s reaction to this is of course NOPE NOPE NOPE and finally she pulls out her trump card:  well, but did you know that in the original Cinderella the prince was a girl?  It’s true!  Every version with a boy prince is just a distortion!

Rikka of course thinks she must be nuts because there is absolutely no way that can be true.

But no, it totally is!  Ask Reika!  Reika, get over here and tell Cure Diamond how the original Cinderella goes!  (And then Miyuki shoves Reika at Rikka and makes her escape because oh my God, blue Cures)

And sure enough, according to Reika, who seems really well-educated, the original Cinderella had lesbians.  And werewolves.  And a heroine with unexplained powers that make her sound suspiciously like a magical girl.  This really has to be some elaborate joke, but Reika is possibly the single most earnest person Rikka has ever met and it’s hard to imagine her saying all this with a straight face unless she really believed it.  And the more Rikka listens, the more she begins to feel like the story being told is… familiar, somehow?  Like it’s the way Cinderella really should be, or how it fundamentally is.  Something about it just strikes her as strangely  archetypal.

A little bit later she does some research and learns that there really are way more versions of Cinderella with lesbians, werewolves, or magical girls — or all three — than she remembers.  Or maybe she does remember them?  Now that she’s looking at them, they do seem familiar.  She looks around online and finds a lot of people talking about noticing these things in the story that they never had before, and a few others swearing up and down that they hadn’t been there before, that they’d just suddenly appeared in their favorite picture book after hundreds of rereads without them.

So, though she’ll never know it, Miyuki actually won this round.  Because now Rikka is convinced that the very nature of reality is in flux, and that’s way more horrifying than even The Nightingale and the Rose.

elliott896-deactivated20160402  asked:

I don't doubt that James had romantic relationships with men, however he was also quite fond of his wife and had many children with her, although most of them never made it past infancy. Would it not be nearer to the mark to say that he was bi?

It would maybe be nearer the mark, but it might also not be - the whole issue of the sexual orientation of historical figures is an absolute minefield. I try never to say explicitly that such-and-such historical figure was gay / bi / straight for two reasons. 

Firstly, it’s usually based on nothing but conjecture; we don’t have any evidence in this case to definitively state that James was only attracted to men, or that he was attracted to women as well. If we had a letter written by James stating ‘lol George I can’t even believe women, hahahahaha women ew, what are lady parts’, or ‘omg George sometimes I’m like MEN and then I’m like LADIES, y’dig?’ then that would be very convenient, because at the moment, all we can do is draw somewhat thin conclusions from the available evidence as to his sexual preferences. There are arguments to be made for both conclusions; it’s been postulated that James wasn’t attracted to his wife at all, and that he only ever slept with her in order to produce heirs (many people have used James’ misogyny to argue this point, but it’s important to note that even men who were solely attracted to women were misogynistic - it was the 1600s!). It’s been equally suggested that he was attracted to and in love with his wife, and that he was capable of romantic or sexual relationships with men and women equally. The number of children sired is often cited as evidence for this point. The truth is that we just don’t know. We can make assumptions based on contextual factors (eg. that he lived in an era where men were expected to marry women, and that he needed to produce heirs) but we should recognise that they really are just assumptions.

Secondly, people in these times simply would not have used their sexual preferences to define their identity, because sexuality other than man + woman = children was really generally grouped together as being non-normative. Sexuality as a fluid concept was simply emphatically Not A Thing, and so it just wasn’t considered - a man wasn’t defined by his relationship to women, because it was sort of assumed that he liked them, and if he didn’t, then he would just be labelled as perverse; as deviating from the norm rather than being given a separate sexual identity. There wasn’t really an attempt to recognise that some people are solely capable of opposite or same sex attraction, whereas others are capable of attraction to both sexes. I use sex rather than gender and ‘both’ / ‘opposite’ rather than ‘multiple’ here as gender as a construct or sex as non-dimorphic was not recognised at this time. Applying modern sexual labels such as gay and straight to historical figures is a bit problematic because it presumes that people in those times would have understood these labels. In actuality, if you went back to 1615 and said ‘look, James, you’re gay as a daffodil’, or ‘by God, you’re a pillar of masculine heterosexuality’ he wouldn’t have had a clue what you meant. It’s fine to look at history through a modern lens and see what it tells us about our modern social constructs, eg. it shows us the evolution and ultimate establishment of modern queer identities and how society’s attitudes towards gender and sexuality came to be, but we should avoid applying these labels to the past, unless we’re saying something like ‘hypothetically speaking, James’ relationships seem to suggest that he might be identified as bisexual in modern society’ (although as previously stated, we don’t know that he would be identified as such, so even this statement is reaching).

Therefore, I’d strongly urge people not to look at the post I made and say ‘well, James was clearly gay!’ because that’s more of a presumption than a conclusion. The only conclusion we can definitively draw is that James was capable of and engaged in romantic relationships with men. Anything else is just conjecture (including whether or not these relationships were romantic / homoerotic / sexual).

tl;dr who the fuck even knows, history is hard, let’s all drink more