You Found Me by marchdahlia (1/1 | T | 4,690)

Min Yoongi is in love with Jeon Jungkook. He has been since the first time he ever set eyes on the boy, falling headfirst into those huge, starry eyes. The other members know all about it. Jungkook probably knows about it, too.

Yoongi swore long ago that he’d never, ever tell Jungkook how he feels.

Yoonkook Week Day One - Beginnings AU

anonymous asked:

Do you ever think that maybe bieng attracted to women could be a phase?I honestly dont mean any offence or shade (ive gotten quite the weary eye from a few of my lgbt friends when I use the word phase, but I don't know any other way to put it, sorry)I was wildly attracted to women and men in the early part of my teenage years and ive actually dated 2.. But Im 25 now and its been exclusively men for quite a while?

(2)And its not only that..i feel pretty much platonically towards women in general(even the ones I got off to when I was 15 lol)I feel a bit..I dunno.. fake to label myself bi now?

So some people’s sexuality changes very little over time: they know what they like and it remains relatively the same save for early experimentation, etc. However, other people, like you, have more fluid sexualities and their preferences change over time. I know bi people who went through (sometimes years long) periods of their life where they were exclusively attracted to either men or women. One in particular had a similar experience to you where as a teen she was attracted to girls and in her mid twenties was only attracted to men, and then when she hit like thirty something she ended a terrible relationship with a man and felt done with them and is now dating women again. Things can change for some people, especially AFAB people who are affected by reproductive biology: I know lots of bi women who in their late twenties developed a stronger preference to men because their body was like “time to make babies!”

It’s alright to go though changes. It doesn’t mean you were fake bi when you identified as bi, and it doesn’t discount the reality or intensity of the attraction you had for women as a teenager. It also doesn’t mean that attraction is dead and gone forever, because like I said, things can change. If the label feels uncomfortable right now, don’t use it. Say “I used to date women” or “I’ve had relationships with women in the past” without using “bi” as an identifier if you want, so you’re describing just the experience without claiming the identity. 

So what you’re feeling/going through is normal. However, it’s NOT OK to use the word phase to describe it. Not gonna lie, when I opened my inbox and read the line “Do you ever think that maybe bieng attracted to women could be a phase?” I almost deleted this ask immediately, and had to force myself to read on. My literal first impression was that you were a homophobe and that this question was directed at me, a lesbian. That you were interrogating my attraction to women the same way it’s been interrogated for my entire life by every man who tried to coerce me into sex, by every religion teacher at Catholic school who desperately wanted to think I could be saved, by every homophobic and insensitive relative at every uncomfortable dinner party.

 I read your ask over enough times to realize that wasn’t the nature of your message, but regardless, my initial gut reaction was IN RESPONSE to the highly polarizing word “phase.” Phase is a word that’s been used historically to devalue and discount the experiences and feelings of LGBTQ people. It’s been used to gaslight and bully us into questioning our own identities constantly and feeling like we’re fake or lying. As a result, this word has become a homophobic microaggression and even if you are using it to describe yourself and your own experience, it still has a negative affect upon the LGBTQ community. I understand why your friends have scoffed at you for using it. It’s a hurtful word! 

Because this word has this history and connotation, it’s up to you to find a way to self-describe your experience that doesn’t rely on micro-aggressive language. Even if it’s just a synonym for phase, it will still be better and less damaging. Phase implies frivolity, experimentation, meaninglessness. It implies it was a fashion, something you tried on, grew out of. And all of these things are ways straight people already conceive of LGBTQ people, PARTICULARLY women’s attraction to other women. You will be hurting bi women and lesbian women’s struggle to have their attraction legitimized if you self describe this way to straight people. 

You can say there was a period in your life you were attracted to women. You can say as a teenager you dated women but it’s not something you’re interested in any more. You can say your sexuality has been fluid over your life and your preferences change. But please, don’t call it a phase. 

what they say: i’m fine

what they mean: deadpool is one of my favorite marvel characters, but right now he isn’t good lgbt+ rep because marvel isn’t allowing him to be, because right now marvel views him less as lgbt+ and more as a tool to get money from the lgbt+ community. marvel says that deadpool is pansexual but then they never show him involved in any relationship that doesn’t look hetero (even when he’s with death, a fucking genderless skeleton, they make sure death has boobs and is called by she/her pronouns), they never show him do any lgbt+ pride stuff, never even have him actually talk about being pan, they’ve flat out had him call spidey sexy but then had him immediately follow it up with “but i’m not coming on to you because i like hot girls” which is the most no homo add on WHY would a pansexual person feel the need to say that?? even if they were more attracted to women, even if they weren’t REALLY hitting on the person they were flirting with, no pan person would phrase it in such a “no homo” way!! with any other character you could weakly argue that they only added that bc they’re in the closet, but wade fucking wilson?? in the closet?? it was clearly written by a fanboy who doesn’t REALLY view wade as pan but thinks it’s funny when he calls men hot bc “lol that sure is silly huh bc men being attracted to men is Weird”?? and yet marvel is still out there screaming about how they’re so lgbt+ inclusive when they’ve only done the bare minimum. the only time they’ve actually let wade wilson in any of his forms blatantly talk about being pan was when they were doing marketing for the first deadpool film and that was clearly just so they could lure in lgbt+ people, and then in the film we didn’t even get a line from him saying he was pan. all we would need is a LINE but nah!! and now ryan reynolds is out there saying “wade could have a bf” as if that would be so brave and groundbreaking for a character that is already supposed to be pan. and you know they aren’t actually going to give wade a boyfriend, they’re just acting like it’s on the table so that they can continue to leech off the hopes of the lgbt+ community without actually giving us rep. and yeah sure lgbt+ people don’t have to be out there being loud and proud to be valid, but with popular fictional characters (especially comic book characters) you HAVE to show them being blatantly lgbt+ at least once (or even just SAY that they are, no hints) or else phobic “fans” will just pretend they aren’t lgbt+ at all, and then marvel will continue to think that they’re doing enough which they aren’t. because lgbt+ people who have “het” relationships are STILL lgbt+ but it isn’t a coincidence that they’re the only kind of lgbt+ people that franchises like to showcase. they’re valid, but marvel is using them as a loophole, they’re looking for loopholes in lgbt+ sexualities so they can claim to be inclusive but not actually represent the aspects of being lgbt+ that they don’t agree with (ie, m/m and f/f), and at that point it isn’t okay and marvel is just using the validity of m/f lgbt+ relationships as a loophole. they’re saying “what so pan people who mainly have traditionally hetero relationships aren’t valid??” and are trying to demonize the people who are understandably angry with how bi/pan characters are given the shaft. even if they were allowing wade to be pan, Which They Aren’t, he isn’t enough. we should not be able to count all of marvel’s canon lgbt+ characters on our fingers. i’m so tired of major companies/franchises pandering to the lgbt+ community just so they can make more money off of us and they claim that they’re super inclusive, and then they don’t even try to represent us. they’re happy to take our money, but we still aren’t good enough for them to actually respect. it’s all so insincere and manipulative, and it’s just a different form of queer-baiting. deadpool is a great, complex character, he has real potential to be good lgbt+ representation, but right now he ISNT good lgbt+ rep bc he isn’t even really being allowed to be lgbt+ in the first place.

anonymous asked:

I’m not trying to be inflammatory, I’m just curious. How do het ace/aro people face SYSTEMATIC oppression? Gay/bi/trans people face oppression like difficultly adopting children, finding housing, they may be fired from employment because of their gender or orientation. So they are bared from normal parts of live because of their gender/sexuality. Gay ace/aro people face this too, but what do het ace/aro people experience on a societal level?

If you’d been following my blog at all or even bothered to peruse it a little before dropping this message in my inbox, you’d probably already know the answer to your question. 

You’d ALSO probably know that there are bi and pan aspecs too (e.g., I’m panromantic demisexual) which isn’t “gay” (does this term also include lesbians?) so I feel like your ask erases part of my own identity and that of others in the community.

For these reasons and more, I’d bet money that you’re not here because you’re “curious”. You’re probably here because you figure this is how you’re gonna stop a “self-imposing” aspec from speaking up for herself. 

Well guess what: That’s just hateful & sad.

Regardless though of your intentions, I’m here to say that there is in fact SYSTEMATIC oppression against aspecs. For example, Dr Gordon Hodson wrote this about his 2012 study: 

In a recent investigation (MacInnis & Hodson, in press) we uncovered strikingly strong bias against asexuals in both university and community samples. Relative to heterosexuals, and even relative to homosexuals and bisexuals, heterosexuals: (a) expressed more negative attitudes toward asexuals (i.e., prejudice); (b) desired less contact with asexuals; and © were less willing to rent an apartment to (or hire) an asexual applicant (i.e., discrimination). Moreover, of all the sexual minority groups studied, asexuals were the most dehumanized (i.e., represented as “less human”). Intriguingly, heterosexuals dehumanized asexuals in two ways. Given their lack of sexual interest, widely considered a universal interest, it might not surprise you to learn that asexuals were characterized as “machine-like” (i.e., mechanistically dehumanized). But, oddly enough, asexuals were also seen as “animal-like” (i.e., animalistically dehumanized). Yes, asexuals were seen as relatively cold and emotionless and unrestrained, impulsive, and less sophisticated.

When you repeatedly observe such findings it grabs your attention as a prejudice researcher. But let’s go back a minute and consider those discrimination effects. Really? You’d not rent an apartment to an asexual man, or hire an asexual woman? Even if you relied on stereotypes alone, presumably such people would make ideal tenants and employees. We pondered whether this bias actually represents bias against single people, a recently uncovered and very real bias in its own right (see Psychology Today column by Bella DePaulo). But our statistical analyses ruled out this this possibility. So what’s going on here?

If you’ve been following my column, you’ll recall that I wrote a recent article on what I called the “Bigotry Bigot-Tree” – what psychologists refer to as generalized prejudice. Specifically, those disliking one social group (e.g., women) also tend to dislike other social groups (e.g., homosexuals; Asians). In our recent paper (MacInnis & Hodson, in press), we found that those who disliked homosexuals also disliked bisexuals and asexuals. In other words, these prejudices are correlated. Heterosexuals who dislike one sexual minority, therefore, also dislike other sexual minorities, even though some of these groups are characterized by their sexual interest and activity and others by their lack of sexual interest and activity.

This anti-asexual bias, at its core, seems to boil down to what Herek (2010) refers to as the “differences as deficit” model of sexual orientation. By deviating from the typical, average, or normal sexual interests, sexual minorities are considered substandard and thus easy targets for disdain and prejudice. Contrary to conventional folk wisdom, prejudice against sexual minorities may not therefore have much to do with sexual activity at all. There is even evidence, for instance, that religious fundamentalists are prejudiced against homosexuals even when they are celibate (Fulton et al., 1999). Together, such findings point to a bias against “others”, especially different others, who are seen as substandard and deficient (and literally “less human”). “Group X” is targeted for its lack of sexual interest even more than homosexuals and bisexuals are targeted for their same-sex interests.

From news coverage of a recently published study (2016):

What should the average person take away from your study?

Since I first became interested in the issue, I have come to conclude that U.S. society is both “sex negative” and “sex positive.” In other words, there is stigma and marginalization that can come both from being “too sexual” and from being “not sexual enough.” In a theoretical paper, I argued that sexuality may be compulsory in contemporary U.S. society. In other words, our society assumes that (almost) everyone is, at their core, “sexual” and there exists a great deal of social pressure to experience sexual desire, engage in sexual activities, and adopt a sexual identity. At the same time, various types of “non-sexuality” (such as a lack of sexual desire or activity) are stigmatized.

For this particular study, I identified thirty individuals who identified as asexual and asked them first, if they had experienced stigma or marginalization as a result of their asexuality, and, second how they challenged this stigma or marginalization. I found that my interviewees had experienced the following forms of marginalization: pathologization (i.e. people calling them sick), social isolation, unwanted sex and relationship conflict, and the denial of epistemic authority (i.e. people not believing that they didn’t experience sexual attraction). I also found that my interviews resisted stigma and marginalization in five ways: describing asexuality as simply a different (but not inherently worse) form of sexuality; deemphasizing the importance of sexuality in human life; developing new types of nonsexual relationships; coming to see asexuality as a sexual orientation or identity; and engaging in community building and outreach.

I hope that average people would take away from this study the idea that some people can lead fulfilling lives without experiencing sexual attraction but can experience distress if others try to invalidate their identities.

Some of the social isolation we aspecs experience comes from religious communities. Indeed, the popular myth that religious people revere aspecs is very much NOT TRUE. For example, read “Myth 8″ from the VISION Catholic Religious Vocation Guide:

MYTH 8: Religious are asexual

Question: What do you call a person who is asexual? 

Answer: Not a person. Asexual people do not exist. Sexuality is a gift from God and thus a fundamental part of our human identity. Those who repress their sexuality are not living as God created them to be: fully alive and well. As such, they’re most likely unhappy.

All people are called by God to live chastely, meaning being respectful of the gift of their sexuality. Religious men and women vow celibate chastity, which means they live out their sexuality without engaging in sexual behavior. A vow of chastity does not mean one represses his manhood or her womanhood. Sexuality and the act of sex are two very different things. While people in religious life abstain from the act of sex, they do not become asexual beings, but rather need to be in touch with what it means to be a man or a woman. A vow of chastity also does not mean one will not have close, loving relationships with women and men. In fact, such relationships are a sign of living the vow in a healthy way. Living a religious vow of chastity is not always easy, but it can be a very beautiful expression of love for God and others.

Religious women and men aren’t oddities; they mirror the rest of the church they serve: there are introverts and extroverts, tall and short, old and young, straight and gay, obese and skinny, crass and pious, humorous and serious, and everything in between. They attempt to live the same primary vocation as all other Christians do: proclaiming and living the gospel. However, religious do this as members of an order that serve the church and world in a particular way. Like marriage and the single life, religious life can be wonderful, fulfilling, exciting, and, yes, normal. Yet, it also can be countercultural and positively challenging. It’s that for us and many others.

If you thought religious life was outdated, dysfunctional, or dead, we hope you can now look beyond the stereotypes and see the gift it is to the church and world.

NOTE: YOU CAN BE A GAY CATHOLIC PERSON BUT NOT ASEXUAL, BC ASEXUALITY DOESN’T EXIST (yet somehow we’re also “most likely unhappy” and “oddities”). I sincerely hope and believe that not all religions characterize us aspecs this way. But here are some personal accounts I found on a reddit site answering the question “Do any religions have a negative stance toward asexuals?”:

Please note that the Christian pastor in the last example was fearful (or something?) that an asexual was helping to lead a youth group and kicked them out of the church as a result.

It pisses me off so much that countless people are going to see BATB and then returning and going ‘uwu all those hateful angry gays were wrong!! le fou was so great!!’ like

1) even if, magically, le fou was a fantastic character and fantastic rep, it doesn’t change the fact that people ABSOLUTELY can be wary of Disney fucking up yet another thing

and 2) le fou’s gayness was a joke when it was explicit, but he still wasn’t allowed to be truly gay - I went with my straight family and they all missed EVERYTHING. he dances with a transmisogynistic joke guy at the end of the movie for like four seconds - ACCIDENTALLY - his affection/care for gaston is a joke when gaston isn’t manipulating him with it, and the funny gay sidekick desperately in love with a mean straight guy isn’t… good rep at all

finally 3) gay actors being in the movie means shit if they’re playing straights, especially when the gay character is a joke and there’s an awful transmisogynistic joke

all of y'all can shut up

I think straight men generally don’t view women as autonomous, especially with regards to our attraction and sexuality. We divide ourselves by identity and experience, but they don’t clearly differentiate between women who aren’t currently expressing a willingness to be pursued by men. 

The individual identities of lesbians and bi women blur for them, and they only really distinguish between them so far as it relates to themselves. I’ve read that even straight women are frequently accused of being lesbians by male abusers, and of course we’ve all seen or heard of men accusing any woman who turns him down of being a lesbian. It seems to me that straight male conception of women’s sexuality revolves around themselves and to what degree they believe women are “cooperating” with their expectations. 

For example, when I was being abused by a man, me trying to assert my identity as a lesbian was something he saw as threatening and he’d often pull out really strong manipulation tactics to get me back in line (gaslighting, pretending I never said anything, threatening to out me, feigning injury, threatening to kill himself, etc.). He preferred me to identify as bisexual.

But simultaneously, he didn’t respect bisexuality either. He would go through my computer when I wasn’t there and get angry at me if I had any evidence in my saved files or computer history of my attraction to women. He didn’t want me interacting with other LGBT people. I was forbidden from drag shows and gay clubs. He clearly didn’t actually want me to be bisexual. In his mind, bisexuality meant that I had no “reason” to leave him because I was capable of attraction to men, and therefore should surrender attraction to women because it was “unneeded” within a monogamous context.

Bisexuality, to abusive straight men, is basically a state where you have no right to turn them down because you’re theoretically capable of attraction. And that entitlement, in my opinion, is where a huge amount of abuse bi women face comes from. This idea that their sexuality is one that needs constant punishment to keep in line and to prevent them from “becoming lesbian” (which to the abuser just means “able to get away”). I think that’s why male abusers are so aggressive towards their bi partners when they have lesbian friends. Lesbians are seen as an inherently corrupting influence, as in the abuser’s mind, they haven’t been properly punished into submission and now aren’t attached to men as a class at all, which is threatening.

Straight women, on the other hand, are willing to acknowledge attraction moreso than they are willing to acknowledge connection to womanhood as a class. 

Straight women will try to convince questioning women that they too are straight, and will try to soften and accommodate attraction within the safety of straight womanhood, but if that fails and you actually do claim an identity label of bisexual or lesbian, straight women are quick to conceptualize you as outside of womanhood. This is most obvious with how straight women talk about and interact with butches, and the insistence that we’re “basically men” but it occurs on a spectrum of subtly for all women who love women. 

You quickly notice after coming out that the invisible rules of womanhood as a gender no longer apply to you. Physical touch, shared changing spaces, conversations about romance, conversations about men as a class, how you dress, whether you wear make up, whether you shave– all of these things will suddenly become highly scrutinized and the invisible rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable between women is noticeably different for you. You will be subtly divorced from womanhood, and then assumed your ideas about feminism and womanhood as a class are lesser or irrelevant because of this perceived distance. 

The differences between bisexual and lesbian- to the straight woman- are muted by whatever attraction a bi woman is currently speaking to (and by whatever degree an individual bi woman is gender nonconforming or unapologetic in her feminism). 

Straight people might act as if they would accept lesbians over bi women (”they’re seen as threatening non-women who lure ‘good’ women to their ‘side’ and hated for it, but straights aren’t trying to actively erase part of their identity”) or visa versa (“they’re seen as ‘flawed’ straight women who can be forced or coerced into line, so as long as they perform for homophobes they can be conditionally accepted”) but it doesn’t take long to figure out that neither of these is actually acceptance, and their treatment of us has more to do with how we’re currently behaving and much less to do with our actual identities. 

They create an illusion that they might treat us better if we identified one way or the other, and it’s unfortunately very effective at turning us against each other. But ultimately, homophobes are going to hate us for our attraction to women and for our distrust of men no matter how we identify. 

We are inherently disobeying the rules of the class of ‘woman’ and the reaction for all of us (though taking different forms in different contexts) is that men seek to abuse us back into that class and women seek to quarantine us as a separate gender altogether. 

anonymous asked:

Excuse me, but... why do you hate when straight woman go to a gay bar? I'm a straight woman and I live in Madrid, and here lot of straight people like going out around the gay area (Chueca). I sometimes go with my boyfriend, with my friends, and sometimes with my gay friends, who are very happy I go out with them in Chueca. For me, going to a gay bar is like going to any other bar. Wouldn't be homophobe if I said, no way I am gonna go to a gay bar/gay area? Sorry for my english.

Hi love. Your English is fine! 

This is a complicated issue, and I will try and speak about it to the best of my ability. First off: if I said I hate when straight women go to gay bars, I was speaking hyperbolically and being reactionary, which is totally my right as a lesbian who seeks safe space the same way any gay man does. But the truth is,  that I don’t SIMPLY hate it, every time, always. I hate the way it changes how gay bars feel to me, and I hate the culture it creates and lends itself to. It’s something I have nuanced and complex feelings about. 

Like, I understand why straight women enjoy going to gay bars. I know often times straight women just want to have a good time and get away from straight men, and as someone who ALSO wants desperately to get away from straight men,  I get how gay bars can provide that space. 

However, many straight women can be super disrespectful to that space because they don’t understand the historical significance of gay bars for gay people. Here are some of the things that are really damaging that I see on the regular. Not all of them are specific things all straight women do at gay bars, but they ARE inevitable affects of the PRESENCE of straight women and straight culture within an LGBTQ space: 

1. straight women sometimes get offended when lesbians hit on them at gay bars, which is absurd because….it’s a gay bar. You’re in our space. I also regularly witness straight women acting particularly disparaging or even DISGUSTED by butch women in gay bars, which really hurts and is so cruel and disrespectful. The amount of times I’ve seen gay men band together with straight women to mock butch culture/appearances is innumerable. 

2. At least in LA, its become such a commonplace thing for LOTS of straight women to go to gay bars, that they out number the amount of lesbians/wlw. First off, this just feels awful and isolating for us, but additionally, it makes lots of wlw so uncomfortable that they don’t feel safe cruising/asking women to dance because the probability of the girl being straight is really high. Can you imagine how lonely, scary, and frustrating this would feel for wlw to go to a bar that is supposed to be FOR THEM and feel afraid and outnumbered by straight women? 

3. Lots of straight women treat gay bars like some wild tourist space.  They get to come to the gay part of town and watch the gays interact in their natural habitat, they get to see crazy wild freaky things like boys in make up and butch girls in plaid and go-go dancers and hot guys making out! How titillating and exciting and funny! Now, I’m not saying you do this, personally, but you have to understand that MANY straight women DO. It feels awful and hurtful to just want to go out and dance and be yourself AWAY from the cruelty and scrutiny of straight people, and end up at a bar where you’re getting watched like a sideshow ANYWAY. 

4. Many straight women bring their boyfriends. For numerous wlw and MANY gay men, straight men are traumatizing. They are our abusers. They’re the last thing we want to see in our safe space. NOTHING makes me feel more unsafe and invaded and shitty at a gay bar than the presence of straight men. And if there are straight women, there are likely going to be straight men, at least eventually.  Now, even aside from them making me feel flat out unsafe an horrible, it’s also just disheartening and irritating to see straight couples taking up space in an LGBTQ environment when I’m literally trying to get away from them! I don’t want to see straight people making out. I don’t to see straight people dancing. I don’t want to see straight people standing by the bar pointing at us. If I wanted all that, I wouldn’t be going to a GAY BAR.  

5. Again, at least in LA, it’s so common for straight women to go to gay bars that straight men will actually go to gay bars with the intention of finding straight women, because they KNOW it’s a place where single women congregate. I kid you not, it’s a pick up artist “trick” to go to gay bars. This means, predatory straight men in LGBTQ spaces, trying to hit on women. This INCLUDES WLW because sometimes they can’t tell the difference or literally don’t care!!! I DO NOT WANT to be around straight men, even the ones who are there with their girlfriends, so I ESPECIALLY don’t want to be around the type of straight guy who is looking for a hook up!  I don’t want to be hit on my straight men, I don’t want my bi friends or my femme friends who came to a gay bar looking for solace and to escape unwanted attention to be hit on or checked out by straight men IN THEIR OWN SPACE!!!

I remember the first time a straight man hit on me at a gay bar, I started dancing with him, close and kind of sexy, because it’s not uncommon for lesbians to dance with gay men like that in a playful way. Then, he started touching me, and I thought it was a little weird but was like “whatever he’s probably gay” and THEN HE KISSED ME and it was like my fucking world came crashing down. I felt so terrified and unsafe and dirty, and when I tried to scramble away and was like “Oh my god I’m gay stop” he literally said, and I will never forget this, “I don’t care. You didn’t a minute ago.” 

Whether or not you realize it, the presence of straight women in LGBTQ spaces leads to the eventual normalization of this type of behavior. Straight people and particularly straight men are ALWAYS coopting space that doesn’t belong to them and making it unsafe for LGBTQ people, who are ostracized outsiders who live in danger everywhere else. If I can’t go to a gay bar to get away from these types of men, where can I go? If my friends can’t go to a gay bar to pick up women, where can they go? 

NOW, you mentioned you were from Spain. I have never been to Spain and have relatively no idea what the gay scene/bar scene is like there. Some of this might not be relevant to you personally, and I’m sensitive to the fact I’m speaking from the experience of someone who grew up clubbing in West Hollywood/LA, so this might not apply to you. It might be different in Spain, and I get that you want to support your gay friend when you go out with him. That makes sense to me, and I know there are ways straight women can be respectful in LGBTQ spaces. 

But please, consider all of this. Also, you said something that really stuck out to me: “ For me, going to a gay bar is like going to any other bar.”

That stings, because for us, going to a gay bar is NOT like going to any other bar. Going to a gay bar is like going home, or it should be. You have to understand we don’t get to feel safe or supported most of the time when we exist in the world. We have to seek out those safe spaces, so when those safe spaces get infiltrated by the people who make the rest of the world unsafe for us, IT HURTS. We don’t want gay bars to be like any other bar, they need to be treated as the very specific, historically significant, cultural phenomenon that they are. It’s not just a rainbow on the wall that makes a gay bar a gay bar. I hope that makes sense. 

Further reading here! 

if you are white, you have no right to tell people of colour what is and what is not racist.

if you are a non-muslim, then you have no right to tell muslim people what is and what is not islamophobic.

if you are straight, then you have no right to tell lgbtqia+ people what is and what is not homophobic/biphobic/acephobic/etc.

if you are not part of an oppressed group of people and/or a minority, then you have NO right to tell those people what can/can’t offend them.

On Supergirl and Homophobia

I am seeing a lot of posts saying how calling out what happened at SDCC as homophobic is ‘ridiculous’. I’d like to address first the scope of what homophobia is, then move onto how the incident was driven by homophobia. 


When you hear the term homophobia, it conjures up images of assault or of slurs being thrown out in the open. This is often not the case. Incidences of homophobia can range from the above to smaller instances that make you question whether of not you’re being ‘hysterical’ or ‘dramatic’ for thinking you’re being discriminated against or not. Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. 

Keep reading

Dear straight women

@straight women who want to talk to me about how ‘cute’ and ‘adorable’ they find gay men, and how they just ‘love’ gay relationships and yaoi or whatever:

Don’t be surprised if I have literally zero patience with you whatsoever, and tell you to get lost.

Seriously, this gets old very, very, very quickly. It’s happened far too many times before. It wasn’t cute the first time, and it’s not cute now. It wasn’t okay the first time, and it’s not okay now.

You don’t understand how many times I have been with my best friend, who is a straight man, and some straight woman has said to us (knowing that I am gay), “Aww cute! You two should make out!” Thankfully, he’s not an asshole, so this doesn’t bother him.

But it bothers me, very much so. I have lost friends before because they thought that I had a crush on them, and never bothered to ask me about it. I haven’t spoken to somebody I used to be best friends with for almost three years because of it. So this is a sore spot for me.

When you say things like that, I get an overwhelming need to shuffle away from my best friend. I am a very tactile person, and you make me consciously evaluate every touch, every hug, every bit of physical contact I have with him. Although thankfully, it doesn’t make him uncomfortable with me - he is one of the rare ones.

But the problem goes much deeper. How many times have gay men been outed because some straight woman has taken a photo of them making out in a gay club? Too many times. It happened to a friend of mine last week. How many millions of words of fanfic or slash or whatever exist that portray gay relationships as a constant sex-fest, written by - you guessed it - straight women? There’s probably one being written right now.

When you fetishise our relationships, what you are telling us is that you only care about our relationships for your own gratification. When you write fiction that’s constantly steamy and sexual, you are telling us that you think that sex is the vast majority of our relationships. When you take pictures of us kissing and post them publicly on Facebook, you are not only telling us that, to you, our relationships our yours to intrude on, but you’re being extremely creepy and putting us in danger as well.

So no, I’m not going to sit there and listen to you gush about how much you ‘love’ gay men.

If you really love us, maybe you should actually help us fight the homophobia we face, rather than thinking that your obsession with us and your fetishisation of us is somehow revolutionary.

There’s this really cynical part of me that says: Yeah, men’s hockey culture is homophobic as fuck. But wider Canadian culture values two things above all others: Winning at hockey, and moral superiority over the USA.

So given that Jack is super good at hockey, it would take ONE prominent American making a snide remark about him for a huge chunk of Canadians to declare Jack the Greatest Canadian Ever, only slightly behind Tommy Douglas (who was previously elected into the position by a nationwide CBC poll).