even in context this is still

seeing a lot of posts on my dash rn about ‘you can’t compare malec with c|imon they’re completely different’ and like okay, i guess?

let’s compare malec to clizzy then, how about? bc clizzy has known each other exactly as long as malec and they have had whole gifsets worth of intimate moments with one another. it’s even more jarring imo when you put it in that context because clizzy (as much as i wish) isn’t a romantic ship, so we’re not talking about kisses here or anything else explicitly romantic/sexual, we’re just talking about the type of casual looks/touches that indicate you care deeply about someone

so ngl, when y'all say c|imon is ‘natural’ and malec is ‘rushed’ or 'forced’ you probably feel that way literally because of the lack of intimacy on screen? like what we have here imho, besides blatant homophobia, is a set of showrunners (/writers/directors/actors/whoever is making those choices in the moment) who apparently don’t think men display casual intimacy with each other? even when they’re alone? even when they’re in a romantic relationship? which of course isn’t going to feel 'natural’ because it’s not

but, you know, feel free to keep missing the point

Best Out-of-Context Lines From Musicals

- “Sit down John, you fat motherfucker!”

- “Screw the middle classes, I will never accept them!”

- “Consider yourself part of the furniture.”

- “Now shut your face.”

- “Henry can’t really stay; he’s got rabies.”

- “I love you even though it does not matter that I still don’t know your name.”

- “The internet is not for porn!”

- “Miss America should just resign!”

- “No one keeps a cow for a friend!”

- “Lot 666 then.”

- “Nothing can bend the will like half-Castilian men!”

- “Sometimes my father appeared to enjoy having children.”

Okay okay, that wonderful kiss scene aside, can we talk about the tissue/head pat scene?

You know, this one:

That one.

I think a lot of people (myself included) were confused by this scene, so let’s try to figure out it’s meaning, shall we?

Let’s start with the context: Victor and Yuuri had just had the fight in the parking lot (I’m gonna make another post on that alone soon) and they’re both still shaken from the event, even if they’re not showing it. Victor worries that he doesn’t know how to help Yuuri and Yuuri is getting over crying, I mean he literally blows his nose here.

I think in this scene Yuuri is trying to show Victor that he‘s alright, that he’s over it already, that he can go out there and skate his best. Essentially it’s a way to console him.

(Supported by Yakov)

And this makes sense, because this little gesture brings them back to that little domestic moment back in ep 4 where Yuuri booped Victor’s head and they both remember it. Yuuri reminding him of it is his way of showing that he’s not just thinking about being stressed before his performance, that he’s alright now, in fact he’s fine enough to mess around with him a little.

Another interpretation is that this is Yuuri’s small revenge to Victor for making him cry, a way of showing his power over him - purposefully dropping the tissue, making him reach for it and then touching his head, which is generally a sign of disrespect but in this particular case it reminds Victor of his thinning hair (as we know from ep 4) - essentially his age.

A way of saying “know your place, old man”?

Maybe.

I think it’s consoling after all though. Because look what he does next.

He pats his head. A way of saying “it’s alright” in most cultures. Perhaps even an apology for reminding him of his hair/age a moment earlier.

That’s just what I think though. Your interpretations?

Tarot Tips for Newbs

It’s going to take a long time for you to get it all completely. That’s okay. Studying is fun. You are learning a language and this shit is dense, complicated, and very subtle. Go slow.

But! That doesn’t mean you have to learn it all before you see results. No worries, just… start. Play around, look at the pictures, experiment with different modes of shuffling. Try a reading right away, just for fun, and it will still tell you things, even if you’ve never touched a deck in your life.

Pay attention to the cards that drop or fall out. They’re messages.

Start with the Rider-Waite (Pamela Coleman Smith) deck, if you can. It’s much easier to pick up. Every single picture is full of common western symbols that just make sense in context. It’s designed to convey the meanings just with pictures. Many other decks do this too, but this one is like the “easiest translation” to read your first time. You can always buy tons of cute artistic decks later.

At first you’ll have a topical understanding of your readings - it will ring true about surface matters and you’ll feel great. But it only gets better! As you get more familiar with your deck and its symbolism, you’ll get insights from readings that don’t just say what’s obvious, but that show you completely new ways to think about situations. It’s so, so great for hard life moments.

The Death card doesn’t mean someone is going to die. It means transformation or change.

It’s okay to look stuff up. We all do it. No one knows it all by heart, and it gives you a much better reading to look at all the possible meanings instead of just the one or two you have memorized. Google is your friend.

learntarot.com/cards.htm is your quick reference. Biddy Tarot is also really good if you prefer prose to lists.

Study a lot of disparate sources to get a fuller understanding of the nuances of every card’s meaning. The booklet that came with your deck, several websites, books. Mix it all together and you’ll get a nice detailed little concept for every card.

It’s a total fucking myth that you can’t buy yourself your own first deck. You won’t wake any curses or have innaccurate readings or bad luck. It’s. …not a thing. Go shopping.

Tarot cards can be really sassy. Like, sometimes straight up rude. It kinda just comes with the territory.

Reversals aren’t so much hard to read as they are hard to …explain? They’re not opposites…more like shadows. Look at the inversion of the picture, think about the inversion of the idea, listen to your gut. Then look it up. You were probably right.

Also, direct any questions to my inbox or to google. Again, Biddy Tarot and learntarot.com are very excellent resources.

NOW, GO FORTH, HAVE FUN!!

You can call an experience or relationship traumatic even if there’s no one you can/want to blame for what happened.

If you were traumatized by what happened, that impact is real even if it isn’t anyone’s fault. There are situations where everyone involved does their best with the information and abilities they have and someone still experiences trauma.

Abuse is not the only traumatic experience, just a common one. Not having your needs met for totally blameless reasons can be traumatic. Having your autonomy taken away by illness or other random chance can be traumatic. Many traumatizing experiences can happen when you’re utterly alone. Even ‘ordinary experiences’ can be traumatic in some contexts.

There’s no reason for trauma that’s ‘too silly’. If you’re traumatized, it’s not because you’re 'too sensitive’ and it doesn’t automatically mean you’re minimizing other people’s experiences.

You’re allowed to acknowledge your trauma. You’re allowed to look at experiences you’ve had through the lens of trauma. You’re allowed to grieve and process your traumatic experiences even if you don’t understand why they were traumatic or if similar experiences didn’t tramautize others you know.

You’re allowed to acknowledge how badly you were hurt even if you can’t point a finger at one person who hurt you.

Heal Boners

Context: Happened in Warhammer 40k but I’ll translate into D&D terms as necessary to avoid confusion. Our sniper was badly wounded after a tough fight and my character, a biomancer, was the only other one with any healing ability.

Biomancer: “Hold still, I’m gonna try to heal that wound.”

Me: *rolls what is essentially a Nat 2 or so, healing more HP than the sniper even has*

DM: “You heal him so completely that he now has a boner.”

Biomancer: “Oh Gods why???” *becomes flustered and skedaddles the fuck outta there, questioning his sexuality*

Sniper: “Uhh… Thanks…?”

DM (OOC): “Are your characters gay for each other now?”

Both Players (OOC): “Maybe.”

Context: This happened after basically every fight for the rest of the game. The heal boners never happened to anyone other than the sniper. The biomancer did end up figuring out he was gay.

I want to to talk about this.
In anime the trope to hit younger people  and especially people you train or parents to kids is very popular.
The example that will most likely ring a bell with people now is when Dazai Osamu hits Atsushi during one of the new Bungou Stray Dogs episodes or, while an old example, in the pokemon manga when Crystal’s mom hits her:

When I saw this scene between Viktor and Yuri I was nearly convinced Viktor was going to hit him, I mean considering Yuri did not only insult Viktor himself but also his fiancee in this context in anime it is nearly confirmed the elder will hit the kid.
But he didn’t.
And this is what I love about Yuri!!! on ice. 
Despite giving Viktor the perfect motive to actually slap him and maybe even give him the excuse that “Well I mean…Yuri kinda went too far he kinda deserved it…” they still didn’t let Viktor slap him.
Yuri on ice wants to show us good relationships even when Yuri is honestly being a little shit and Viktor is pissed, Viktor knows where he needs to stop since he is the older one and he should be the responsible one since it was obvious Yuri did not know his limits, Viktor is acting like a real responsible adult that knows how to handle teens.
Not to mention Yuri actually kicked him numerous times before that, I mean Viktor could have just said “That’s payback for kicking me” but they just didn’t let him do that!!
This is why I love yuri on ice so much it conveys good relationships not only between Yuuri and Viktor but also between older people and younger people, when teenagers are being absolutely rude little shits and literally insulting you, you still do not use violence.
Honestly bless this show and its wonderful representation of relationships between any kind of people.

Yeah, so, Benedict and Martin having “immediate chemistry” when reading for Sherlock and John absolutely is the same type of chemistry found on the show. Mark and Steven even said it. “There, that’s the show.” And this program is a romance. Chemistry between two lead actors reading as romantic leads is not platonic. Actors can be platonic and, of course, be professional, but to use the word “chemistry” in this context translates to how well Sherlock and John get on, and neither instance is platonic. They knew what kind of show they were signing up for. They knew how their characters were supposed to feel about each other. And when they read together the room stilled – because the tension was palpable. Their connection was undeniable from the beginning and everyone knew it. “Chemistry” means natural, animalistic tension. It’s not something actors can manufacture. It’s raw and dynamic. Chemistry between two men set to be lovers is not platonic.

In conclusion, regardless of their commitment to their partners, Benedict and Martin had undeniable chemistry because they thought of each other as “fine as hell”.

The statue in the hot springs:

I was watching yoi with some friends and when the scene with this shot came up

one of my friends went, “wait, go back that statue has big balls” and we all just????

And then she linked us this:

Now, I’ve not seen a post talking about this on tumblr yet so forgive me if I missed something, but I wanted to share this just in case because IF YOU TAKE THAT IN CONTEXT WITH THE PREVIOUS DIALOGUE AND SHOTS IT’S KIND OF HILARIOUS

After this shot is when we see the statue in the same angle as Yuri is highly assumed to be looking up at Viktor with, so in comparison… even if that’s a joke on purpose referencing Viktor’s nakie goods or not, it’s still freaking hilarious.

BFI-Pre screening and why I know there must be more...

As promised, here’s what happened at the BFI pre-screening: Please read through the entire thing. I’m unfortunately going to have to give away a major spoiler to explain how I know there’s more. But first I need to give a bit of context so bear with me:

So, basically, Sherlock is still in a self-hypnotic trance on the TAB plane. (Remember how it actually ends in Victorian times? He’s not “awake” yet. This trance is not “EMP” even though it’s very similar. The process is based on the principles of Tibetan Buddhism that ACD Holmes spent 2 out of his 3 years learning during the hiatus. We know that our Sherlock was in Tibet too. The trance lets clues you didn’t even know you’d picked up on rise to the surface. The subconscious fills in the rest and connects  the dots. 


S4 is all in Sherlock’s subconscious so far. And it’s beautiful. You are privy to his inner thoughts, his heart, and his precious soul. 


It’s also a cypher for us viewers. Once you have the key, you can re-watch and try to piece all the clues that Sherlock had collected and didn’t even know he had. It’s euphoric to put it all together. And very touching too. You realize since none of S4 has happened, John never cheated. That whole scene we saw is Sherlock’s subconscious telling him that John has been emotionally cheating on Mary with Sherlock. That’s the person he texts constantly (look at the honeymoon blog!) Anyway, Sherlock is trying to figure out Moriaty’s return but his sub conscious shows us that the problem is inter-related to Mary, his childhood, John, and Moriarty.

That’s why I found TFP fascinating. It gives you a beautiful profile of his internal struggles with morality. 


I have to tell you this. Mary is not evil. Not at all. All will be explained.


Okay, here’s the BIG spoiler: Sherlock is the little girl on the plane

Yes, Sherlock is trans. 

And yes, Sherlock really is a" girl’s" name. That’s why sex alarms him. That’s why they repeatedly told us he’s not as tall as he looks. Also, in the cut scene from HLV, Magnussen talks about his women’s hands. There are many more little hints.

My soul was aching for him on that plane. I feel so much love for little Sherlock trapped in the airplane with everyone metaphorically asleep to his anguish.

Euros is Sherlock.

Sherlock is trans.

If you re-watch TFP in that context, it’s extremely touching. You’ll see that it was Mycroft who helped Sherlock. “SAVE MY SOUL MY BROTHER.”  I cried when I see Sherlock on the plane and all the adults asleep to his anguish. (sorry for repeating, poor soul. I love him so much.)

So, how was it confirmed? In 2014 I had hypothesized that perhaps Sherlock was trans due to the clues given above. I had dismissed the idea and replaced it with dissociative identity disorder. Read my LJ post from 2014 here: (add link)

Anyway, at the BFI pre-screening, I knew that Sherlock was still in a trance so I watched the episode in that context. It then became evident that my original hypothesis was right. I knew as soon as I saw him on the plane. 

When we were in line for autographs (with not much time for thinking). I wrote in my notebook “I know Sherlock is on the plane.” (Meaning both the metaphorical plane and the TAB plane). The “Sherlock crew” person read it and ‘smirked’ and replied “Which plane?” I think he was enjoying the wit of his question because it had now a triple meaning: Which plane are you talking about you silly fan? AND which plane; as in Young Sherlock Plane? or the TAB plane?). He was clearly amused by his own question to me. He repeated it three times (amused). I finally said, both planes. And the smile I received confirmed it. (Okay, something else was shared but I really don’t want to get the other Sherlock crew member in trouble).

I know some people are not going to believe me. Say that the exchange meant nothing. That the “Sherlock crew person” was literally just asking what the hell I meant by “I know Sherlock is on the plane”.  

But,whether or not you believe me, think about it: Doesn’t it make sense?

A) Hasn’t S4 been contradictory and plain weird in some scenes? 

B) Think of all the repeated sentences used in TAB/S4 that were exactly lifted from S1-S3. (That’s how the subconscious works, It’ll re-use sentences and faces to fill in the gaps.) I can post more about this with examples later.

B) Does TFP feel like the real ending. Wasn’t there so many impossible things in that episode?

C) If you take the fact that Sherlock is trans, and re-watch the episode, can you actually see it? (It’s so touching!)  

I’m not going to try to convince you, but please know that I wouldn’t post about this if I wasn’t sure. I am well aware what this means to the fandom. I know there are many hurting souls out there. Hope is a double-edged sword and I wouldn’t share any of this if I wasn’t positive because I know it could hurt people to get their hopes up. 

A special thank you to @welovethebeekeeper . She was a great help to me in trying to figure out what/how to share. She also listened carefully to what I had to say. *hugs*

If AF were to be made into a TV show, there’s a concept that I’d want it to use.

Season one wouldn’t even get to book 1; it’d open with Artemis post 10 year old mind wipe, who knew that magic existed but not in what context. A la gravity falls, season one would explore Artemis and the butlers as they basically go cryptid hunting while times passes without any news of his father’s survival. Each theory would end in a dead end, and the season finale would be the start of book one; they manage to get the book and set up a potential site, but Butler is still at a place where he’s enabling the search because he thinks it’s necessary for Artemis to find a way to come to terms with his fathers death in a gradual and healthy manner.

The last scene of the season would be at the tree, just as holly lands to complete the ritual. Then future seasons would deal with the rest of the series

okay but the best part of the back touch is that Kono has NO CONTEXT for what was happening. zero. none

and she still doesn’t

which basically means that she walked into Steve’s office and saw Danny’s hand suggestively on his back, them acting all shifty when she says she can come back, their overcompensating stances while she talked (which is even funnier when you realize they mirrored each other), and then Steve’s awkward smile as they turned away before he put his own hand suggestively on Danny’s back

she saw all this, has no idea why it was happening, and just rolled with it

this poor woman has seen Too Much

"He Could Have Pie, He Just Won't Eat It Though...": On the Absence of Pie in Season 12 and the Demystification of Mary Winchester

I am prefacing this by saying that I haven’t watched the most recent episode yet, so if Dean and Co. happen to eat pie in 12x13 “Family Feud” I had no way of knowing it. :)

That said, in the end, even if Dean did enjoy a slice in this week’s episode, it really wouldn’t change a whole lot, because so far we have seen Dean very rarely eat one of his favorite types of food in S12: pie. Sure enough, the reason why we may see Dean not indulge in eating as much pie may be entirely be explained by things outside of the show - like maybe Jensen saying “man, please no more sweet stuff” ;) - still within the context of a show the absence of pie his season feels very telling. Especially so as pie for Dean definitely was a typ of comfort food and held a good deal of connotations and associations that all circled round notions of family, home, safety and love.

In the 12 seasons of Supernatural Dean’s love for pie has become just as infamous as his love for his baby. Even more so Dean’s eating habits as such have been used as an indicator for his emotional state of mind, his longings and wishes and especially over the course of the “Mark of Cain”-arc Dean’s hunger or lack thereof was drawn attention to as it revealed a lot about his emotional struggles (I have written lot on this topic, I’d insert links but as I am typing this on my phone I can’t) as well as the fight he faced within between human and demon. After all, little else is such a direct example of basic human necessities: the need to eat and drink to survive. That entire plot with Dean edging away from being human to becoming a demon was exemplified heaviest when Dean “left that cheeseburger uneaten” as Crowley reminisces before raising Dean as a demon in 9x23 “Do You Believe in Miracles”. Dean’s arc was contrasted with Castiel’s, who as a human for the very first time experienced hunger and thirst as two real necessities to be able to function.

The topic of hunger and food as indicators for humanity therefore have been very directly written into Dean’s personal story arcs from S8 onwards. Given this focus of recent seasons paired with the shows adamancy of inserting Dean’s love for pie as a recurring stylistic device over 12 seasons of the show in general, it feels very striking that Dean seems to have lost his taste or love for pie in S12 almost completely - the season in which he sees his mother returning from the dead.

As mentioned above Dean’s love for pie seems to be to a good extent directly connected to the memory and love of his mother. In fact, 5x16 “Dark Side of the Moon” even gives the audience as much of a “starting point” as to how Dean’s love for pie came to be in the first place when we see one of Dean’s memories play out in which we (as much as Sam) learn that the Winchesters’ “marriage was never perfect until after Mary died” and that Dean comforted his mother when his father had moved out for a couple of days after a bad fight (one now has to wonder if maybe that could have been due to Mary disappearing and hunting), told her that “daddy still loves her” and offered emotional support to his mother when he was a mere 4 years old. It’s that memory standing out clearest in relation to Deans love for pie as Mary not much later after she calls Dean “her little angel” offers him some pie. It’s by no means a truly happy memory imo, especially as it does kind of showcase how Mary tries to lighten the mood with the offer of pie. It’s this action really that frames and explains Dean using pie as “comfort food” in the most literal sense of the term. So of course this will sound somewhat over the top, but one could argue that every time Dean enjoyed a slice of pie in his life he remembered this moment with his mom. A moment nonetheless in which he again acted almost like an adult rather than a child (and yes, that is suppose will just always remain the tragedy of Dean Winchester: his lost childhood, that, as the show progresses, it seems was lost much earlier than when his mother died…

Keeping all of this in mind I think it is interesting to take a look at S12. The season of Mary Winchesters return. The undoing of the past. But for sure not the erasure of old wounds, scars or traumas, but rather the start to add a few new on top. Amara giving Dean “what he needed most” was his mother. She gave the Winchesters a chance to re-write their story, because maybe she wished her and her brother could do the same. What Amara wanted - and there is not a single doubt in my mind, because even though Dabb seems to have forgotten what he himself wrote at the end of last season, Amara wasn’t cruel just cause - was for Dean to be happy and find peace. Little did she know that bringing back the Winchesters’ mom would hardly bring that for him.

Now, as I have written about multiple times at the end of last season and prior the beginning of this season with Mary’s return we aren’t just loosely following the possible re-write of the Winchesters’ story (though much of this season to me feels sadly like “same old same old” and plain repeat), most of all we see the demystification of Mary Winchester - and that may actually be one of the most painful ones for the Winchesters and Dean especially as it seems countless times he is proven that his mother really is nothing like he remembered her to be. Of course there are few characters that have had such a “cult” surrounding them on the show as Mary Winchester. Her own children never really got to know her as a person as they simply were way too small for that to be the case, yet over time Mary was stylized, idealized and turned into a symbol that had very little in common with the very real Mary Winchester - as this season explores.

Not a single episode this season didn’t feature some sort of deconstruction of Mary Winchester as a person and character or a realization of who she is opposed to how she was imagined to be. It’s vital to see things for what they are, but there’s no denying it’s tough and eliminates foundations that provided at least some sense of stability - and so far we have not seen any kind of building new ground together for a stronger and more mature foundation. In the first episodes Dean learns that Mary “never cooked” or “continued hunting even when she was already married” and that many of his memories are unveiled to have been “false”. Getting to know their mother really is a constant progression of disillusionment for the Winchesters (and for Dean much more than for Sam since he doesn’t have any memories that could be rendered untrue or incomplete or downright “wrong”) and while I firmly believe that Mary does somehow care about her grown up sons, true emotion and connection doesn’t seem to be there. And one can’t really blame anyone for that because of course for Mary suddenly being alive is hard and she never learnt how to have grown up kids, because well… she never lived to have them in a natural progression.

Still, I think it is fairly well portrayed how much Mary struggles to form a meaningful connection with Sam and Dean. A relationship that could build into becoming the loving relationship that meant safety and home and everything being okay for Dean for example as seen in his memories - and one memory in particular featuring pie. Coming back to the symbolic meaning of pie again I think it’s valid to analyze the absence of it in S12 (I truly only remember Dean eating pie in 2nd episode when all was still fairly “okay” and happiness prevailing over Mary being back rather than the start reality setting in) in relation to the demystification of Mary as a symbol and mother figure. Pie may simply not provide the comfort and safety it once did for Dean, because like so much of his past and memories regarding his mother have been overturned and corrected, but not in a very healing - or worded differently - comforting way.

So in a way this season exemplifies imo rather perfectly the saying “You can’t have your pie and eat it too”, which describes you can’t have two good things at the same time, which seems awfully fitting to the whole Mary Winchester arc. And in that regard I think it is indeed very revealing how now that Mary is back “Dean could have pie”, but we don’t see him eat it…

So I was thinking if maybe this:

could somehow be related to this:

I don’t really have a clear theory about it. That scene from episode 10 tells me that there’s something going on here that we still don’t know about. But still, it makes me think a lot.

I don’t think that Yurio was trying to call Victor strong. I mean, even if he’s angry here, I’m sure he thinks Victor is strong, but I can’t picture him complimenting him like that. Less in this context, in which he seems to be trying to insult him more and more with every word he spits. I’m not going to talk about anything in this show as “I’m 100% sure that” anymore because it keeps surprising me again and again, but still. I’ll just assume this was not supposed to be a compliment.

What I think is more interesting is that it could still be considered a compliment, even without Yurio knowing. Because Victor is obviously able to be reborn, he’s been reborn already. He’s left everything behind and started a new life, and apparently, for the better.

So maybe, even if Yurio didn’t mean to say so, the show is leaving that message here. Not that we didn’t know, but it’s quite ironic considering that the words were originally meant for Yurio and he passed them on to Victor without even noticing.

I’m really curious to know what this scene will mean in the end.

Like, do people really not understand what a fucking miracle Moonlight (2016) is? I mean, the fact that it even got made. And the fact that it’s gotten so much critical acclaim. 

This is a film with an all black cast

That doesn’t divorce itself from its blackness.

That doesn’t translate its blackness. 

That also deals with the themes of identity and sexuality in a black context. 

It had a 5 million dollar budget. (The smallest budget of every Oscar nominated film) 

This is a film that has gotten antiblack backlash AND homophobic backlash. 

And it was still filmed, shot, written, and acted beautifully. 

This is a movie with everything against it. 

And yet here it is, slaying. 

#BlackGaySlay

I don’t know if this has been said before or not but I really do believe that one of the reasons why Yato likes Hiyori so much is that he sees so much of Sakura in her. 

Look at their features: 

While we can point out the obvious that, yes, both girls have brown eyes and hair, they also have similar facial features. W/o context and w/o knowledge of Noragami I could ask someone if they thought Hiyori and Sakura were related and they would likely say yes. They’ve also helped Yato see the wrong in his ways. I don’t feel like going into too much detail w/ this but we can all agree that Yato definitely likes Hiyori. That’s just easy to tell by the way he speaks of her. It’s also evident that Yato really loved Sakura as well. Hiyori even expressed this while talking to Father in ch 48: 

So, while he still thinks about Sakura, he looks at Hiyori and sees that she’s just like her. A lot of people will argue that the reason why Yato likes Hiyori so much is because of all the times she’s been there for him. This does play a huge part but I really, really, really think it’s because he feels like he has Sakura again when he’s around Hiyori and that thought makes me happy that he feels almost like she never left just because of Hiyori’s existence. Sakura was a light in the dark when he was a young god and now Hiyori is like a light in the dark for him. This is just a small thought of mine but I truly believe it. 

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.