#reblog to threaten a gay person | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shapeshiftersvt · 17 days

Text

M'Mothm'n.

Here's the thing about the Mothman. Even though he scared the ever-living shit out of the people who saw him, the speculation around him has become, over the years, actually very kind. What if he's only here to help? What if he's trying to warn us about impending disaster? What if that horrible feeling you got that something wasn't right, what if that was the Mothman telling you to look out, be careful, danger is coming, doom is nigh?

It's one thing to be a harbinger of doom; there are apparitions of ghostly black dogs all over the world that will give you that, red eyes and all. It's another to have one who actually means well.

I'm going to be an Old Queer for a minute, now, and talk about gay politics in the USA as I watched it over the past thirty years. My experience is my own; my history is shared, but not universal. Sound off in a reblog if you saw it happen differently. I want your story, too.

There’s a certain line the right wing in this country likes to use against The Gays, one I’ve heard since I was a small child. It goes: queer people are threatening our way of life. Queer people are the pebbles that start the avalanche of apocalypse, the collapse of civilization as we know it. If marriage becomes something other than Man + Woman, or if Man and Woman become something other than we think they are, then we will lose everything we know and love.

The rise of the Respectable Gay in the 1990s was a pushback against this. “See,” cried Degeneres and Savage and all the rest, “see how we’re so very normal? We want to get married and buy a house and have 2.1 kids and a white picket fence. Our marriage doesn’t threaten yours. How could it? We’re just normal, ordinary, white, moderately wealthy, people. We're like you."

This move shifted the narrative across the 90s and 00s. Homosexuality was officially decriminalized in '03, and we got gay marriage in 2015, and every year in between there was another Influential Gay Person saying "I just want to get married, that's all." There were even commercials about it, remember? “Gay marriage is just like yours. Only gayer.”

But... in the mid-2010s this was already wearing thin. Transgender people, gender non-conforming people, gays who didn’t go in for two-person marriage, everyone in the greater LGBTQ+ umbrella who had thrown their support behind gay marriage and waited our turn to get our rights; we'd all been mobilizing, too. We'd been putting together our own coalitions, under the aegis of the greater umbrella or not. And, here's the crux: we were, in fact, threatening the right-wing Christian ways of life. Just by existing in public, by talking and writing and performing and living our lives during the Transgender Tipping Point, trans and non-binary people like me were challenging the foundational definitions of Man and Woman as exclusive, all-encompassing categories of humanity.

It wasn't just the right, either. Straight liberals who were totally on board with gay marriage would look at us and say, "um, wait, really? Really, like that? Do you have to?" The discomfort was palpable. This was my experience with my own family; they were fine with me dating and getting married, but a new set of pronouns was forcing something on them. It was hurting something intrinsic to their identities. It was, in a very real way, threatening them.

I'm happy and grateful to say that most of them learned to discard the parts of their own foundations that excluded me from existence. This is rarely easy for anyone. I'm honestly proud of those members of my family who have learned to look the Mothman in the eyes, so to speak, and think, "He's just here to help."

("Pop your hood up," I told this model, "and look at them. They should see their impending death in your eyes."

Layton is an incredible model, a great human, and they know and love the Mothman. They knew exactly what I meant.)

It can be awful, sometimes. When I'm unapologetically myself in public, I can walk past a line of protesters at Planned Parenthood and see the hostility rise up, the anger and revulsion and fear. And I do think it is fear, at the core of it. I think something in them knows that I'm just one of 2.6 million transgender people out here, living my life, casually being a harbinger of their doom.

Next time they come to Brattleboro, I ought to greet them with red glasses and a twelve-foot wingspan.

#mothman #cryptids #queer cryptids #the cryptid collection #the trans experience

39 notes · View notes

gothhabiba · 1 year

Note

Would you be willing to elaborate a little on what identity politics means to you (or reblog the post if you have in the past cause tumblrs horrible search isn’t turning it up)? It’s something that has vexed me throughout my studies cause just when I think I have a handle on a working definition someone whose opinion I trust (you in this instance) says it’s wrong lol

The usage of the phrase that you're likely familiar with--the way that people often use it to-day, and the usage that I to some extent criticised in the post you're referring to--is one that basically aligns with a concept of "identitarian essentialism" or "identitarian deference." To adhere to "identity politics" is to believe that being in possession of a marginalised "identity"--being a woman, being Black, being gay--will automatically lead to a radical political consciousness, or can even stand in for developing a radical political consciousness; to reference a leader's 'identities' in lieu of debating their policies, and to fight to get people of certain 'identities' in positions of power rather than to change power structures themselves; to believe that a person of a given marginalised "identity" must always be listened to or obeyed in regards to a subject relating to that "identity" (as though people of the same identity never disagree). "Identity politics" is "listen to x voices" and black / rainbow capitalism and girlbossing and "we need more trans people in the military" &c.

But that isn't where we started out at all. The first instances of the phrase "identity politics" date to the 1970s (or possibly the '60s)--though, as is typical with terms suggestive of social or political frameworks, the ideas expressed in the term are arguably older.

The first known specific usage of the term is in 1977, in the Combahee River Collective Statement. Here, it refers to the political knowledge that can come out of “identity” (in particular, gender, class, and race), and to the necessity of reckoning with the full complexity of “sexual politics” as they interact with race and class in Black women’s lives in order to produce a truly radical politics:

Our politics initially sprang from the shared belief that Black women are inherently valuable, that our liberation is a necessity not as an adjunct to somebody else’s may because of our need as human persons for autonomy [...]. [N]o other ostensibly progressive movement has ever considered our specific oppression as a priority or worked seriously for the ending of that oppression. […] Our politics evolve from a healthy love for ourselves, our sisters and our community which allows us to continue our struggle and work.

This focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics. We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else’s oppression. In the case of Black women this is a particularly repugnant, dangerous, threatening, and therefore revolutionary concept because it is obvious from looking at all the political movements that have preceded us that anyone is more worthy of liberation than ourselves. […]

We believe that sexual politics under patriarchy is as pervasive in Black women’s lives as are the politics of class and race. We also often find it difficult to separate race from class from sex oppression because in our lives they are most often experienced simultaneously.

So the politics of "identity" do not work against a materialist analysis of class structure--they are brought up as something in addition to "pure" class politics that must be paid attention to if a materialist understanding of the factors affecting our lives is to be reached. The Combahee River Collective Statement is explicitly anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist; it was written in order to articulate a political connection between race, gender, and class-based oppression in response to environments (white, middle-class feminist organisations, Black nationalist organisations, socialist organisations) in which e.g. feminism and socialism were assumed to be in conflict. "Identity politics" asserted that race and gender mattered at all in class politics--it asserted that Black women had a right to articulate their own political position, vision, and strategy, rather than allowing white women or Black men or other communists to do it for them.

Howard Wiarda connects the early history of "identity politics" to political movements composed not only of people of colour, feminists, or LGBT people, but also "radicalized students," "Greens," and "Marxists"--"all these groups and even the term 'identity politics' itself were identified with left-wing or radical causes," with the through-line being the concept that "one's identity as a woman, a minority, an environmentalist, a homosexual, a young person, or any marginalized person made one particularly susceptible to violence, ostracism, and oppression" and that that oppression would need to be specifically countered. You'll note that several of these groups are not things that we would consider to be 'innate' to a person!

In the 1980s and 1990s, opposition to "identity politics" came from conservatives, liberals (who focused on pluralism and a non-specific sort of 'equality'), and Marxists (who lamented that they were distracting from pure 'class-based' politics). The concept of a political "identity" à la "environmentalist" seems to have withdrawn from the scene by this point, with critics focusing on identities that they claimed their opponents viewed as innate (such as "ethnicity" or gender). Marxist Eric Hobsbawm, speaking in 1996, makes what will be to us common claims: that identity politics are exclusionary ("collective identities are defined negatively; that is to say against others"); that they only allow people to hold one identity at a time ("identity politics assumes that one among the many identities we all have is the one that determines, or at least dominates our politics"--note how antithetical this is to the C.R.C.'s statement!); that they are essentialist ("Most identity groups are not based on objective physical similarities or differences, although all of them would like to claim that they are ‘natural’ rather than socially constructed"); that they are dangerous and lead to the breakdown of 'real' leftism ("the danger of disintegrating into a pure alliance of minorities is unusually great on the Left [...] without any obvious way of formulating a common interest across sectional boundaries"); that "minorities" cynically manipulate them for their own gain ("it may actually pay to classify yourself as low caste or belonging to an aboriginal tribal group, in order to enjoy the extra access to jobs guaranteed to such groups").

Let us assume that the identitarian / "sectarian" point of view that Hobsbawm criticized did actually exist in the 1990s under the banner of "identity politics"--if so, what had changed since the 1970s? Why does the term "identity politics" signify something different for Hobsbawm than it had for the C.R.C.? Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor connects this shift to the fact that racial position has become slightly less tethered to class position:

Any concept, once it is released into the world, can take on new meanings when confronted with new problems. Identity politics has become so untethered from its original usage that it has lost much of its original explanatory power. In its earliest iteration, Black feminism was assumed to be radical because the class position of Black women, overwhelmingly, was at the bottom of society. But the civil-rights revolution and concerted efforts by the political establishment created a different reality for a small number of African-Americans. Today, there is a small but influential Black political class—a Black élite and what could be described as the aspirational Black middle class—whose members continue to be constrained by racial discrimination and inequality but who hold the promise that a better life is possible in the United States. They stand in contrast to the Black poor and working class, who live in veritable police states, with low-wage work, poor health care, substandard and expensive housing, and an acute sense of insecurity.

But, while the positions that critics of identity politics take issue with may exist in certain circles--may even exist under the self-described banner of "identity politics"--I don't think that that gets all of said critics off the hook for their portrayal of idpol (as though identitarian essentialism is inherent to it), or validates their arguments about what will solve the problem they identify (namely, a return to a halcyon past of Enlightenment universalism without attention to "identity" that, these writers hold, prevailed before 1970). In 1997, Robin D. G. Kelley wrote that "a handful of self-proclaimed spokespersons on the Left" claim that

"The Left" has lost touch with its Enlightenment roots, the source of its universalism and radical humanism, and instead has been hijacked by a "multicultural left" wedded to "identity politics" which has led us all into a cul-de-sac of ethnic particularism, race consciousness, sexual politics, and radical feminism.

Much of the blame is assigned to women, gays and lesbians, and colored people for fracturing the American Left, abandoning honest class struggle, and alienating white men who could be allies but aren't because of the terrible treatment meted out to them by the Loud Minority. Universal categories such as class have fallen before the narrow, particularistic mantras of radical chic: race, gender, sexuality, and disability. Indeed, in their view class is not just another identity, it transcends identity. If the "Left" wants to save itself, we must abandon our ever shrinking identity niches for the realm of majoritarian thinking. After all, we're told, the majority of Americans are white and heterosexual and have little interest in radical feminism, minority discourse, and struggles centered on sexual identity.

Kelley cedes that "in some circles [identity politics] has tended to limit discussions of power to cultural politics"--however, "the 'Enlightenment train' will not lead us out" of this problem:

These people assume that the universal humanism they find so endearing and radical can be easily separated from the historical context of its making; indeed, that it is precisely what can undo the racism and modern imperialism it helped to justify. The racialism of the West, slavery, imperialism, the destruction of indigenous cultures in the name of "progress," are treated as aberrations, coincidences, or not treated [at] all. They insist that these historical developments do not render the Enlightenment's radical universalism any less "radical," and those who take up this critique are simply rejecting Enlightenment philosophers because they're "dead white males."

So criticisms that relate "identity" with certain philosophies or epistemologies (here, Enlightenment humanism) and with material histories (of slavery, imperialism, land theft and genocide) are automatically assumed to be nothing more than identitarian reductionism--people are assumed to be objecting to Enlightenment philosophy merely because its original theorists held the wrong "identities"--despite the fact that that's clearly a gross misreading of the arguments actually being made. Criticisms of "identity politics" seriously overreach when they cease to criticise actual identitarian essentialism, reductionism, and deference where they appear, and instead complain that any challenge to their ideas and any mention of race, gender, or sexuality must automatically be identitarian reductionism. More than anything else this is a silencing move--they are uncomfortable with how loud "minorities" have gotten and would rather not bother to engage with any of the vast body of scholarship that analyses gender, race, sexuality, and disability through the lens of materialist or Marxist politics, or that traces the connections between race (and slavery, colonialism, land grabbing), gender, and class.

Returning to the idea that (racial, gendered, sexual) "identities" are parochial, while "class" is universal--Kelley continues:

The implications [of the arguments of the neo-Enlightenment Left] are frightening: the only people who can speak the language of universalism are white men [...] and women and colored people who have transcended or rejected the politics of identity. Moreover, they either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that class is lived through race and gender. There is no universal class identity, just as there is no universal racial or gender or sexual identity. The idea that race, gender, and sexuality are particular whereas class is universal not only presumes that class struggle is some sort of race and gender-neutral terrain but takes for granted that movements focused on race, gender, or sexuality necessarily undermine class unity and, by definition, cannot be emancipatory for the whole.

Thus these critics presume that race and gender do not shape "universal" issues, assume that movements centering black women must only be of use to black women, ignore what "identity"-based movements have to teach them, and ignore the various ways in which these movements' goals, if accomplished, would benefit their more "universal" goals.

This situation--where only [heterosexual, abled, &c. &c.] white men are free of the odour of "identity" and so only they (and those who agree to attempt to approximate them) are able to lead "class-based" Leftist movements and articulate Leftist positions--seems remarkably similar to the situation that the C.R.C. was reacting to. Per Barbara Smith:

“By ‘identity politics,’ we meant simply this: we have a right as Black women in the nineteen-seventies to formulate our own political agendas. [...] We can obviously create a politics that is absolutely aligned with our own experiences as Black women—in other words, with our identities. That’s what we meant by ‘identity politics,’ that we have a right. And, trust me, very few people agreed that we did have that right in the nineteen-seventies. So we asserted it anyway.”

So many critics of identity politics reduced it to its crudest arguments, ignored it insights, failed to read the writings of its original prononents or only read them to misinterpret and smear them (it cannot be overstated how explicitly the C.R.C.'s statement disavows essentialism and parochialism in arguing that gender and race must be paid attention to to achieve class liberation--read the Kelley article for more on this), and seemed to assume that black feminists were somehow automatically incapable of being concerned with "universalist" or "humanist" concerns merely because they were black feminists (or, worse, black lesbian feminists). Ironically, it seems that these critics are allowing the racism baked into Enlightenment universalist humanism (wherein e.g. black people were outside the realm of the "universal" and "human")--racism which they deny exists or really matters--to poison their politics. (These critics also misunderstood or misrepresented the past--Kelley points to a long history of solidarity between Left and "identity-based" movements, even before 1970.)

These days, you're unlikely to find anyone professing "identity politics" as a part of their self-described political agenda--it's almost always a criticism levelled against someone else's politics, and it means something more like "identitarian essentialism." And the slurring of "identity politics" has not gotten any less racist since the 1990s, or any less based on "caricature, stereotypes, omissions," or "innuendo" (Kelley). Any person of colour who talks about race and class online likely knows what it's like to be accused of subscribing to "identity politics" (or, called an "ethnic nationalist," told they're "ignorant of" or "obviously new to" class analysis, &c. &c.) for the mere mention of race or gender in a leftist context, no matter how obviously grounded in materialist analysis.

Again, "identity politics" is a banner under which some identitarian or essentialist arguments did genuinely occur, and the phrase is still often used to describe tendencies that are legitimately harmful (no one is really arguing with this). And, to be clear, there is a distinction between people who offer legitimate and useful critiques of what they call "identity politics"--by which they mean identitarian deference or identitarian essentialism as they appear in liberal politics--and those who misrepresent the work of specific writers and activists, often black feminists, who used the term "identity politics" (Eric Hobsbawm and Todd Gitlin are sort of low-hanging fruit in this latter category).

The fact that the political landscape is changing such that being a professionally or politically élite member of a given marginalised "identity" group is becoming more possible, and such that it's more profitable (? or at least, possible) to emphasise one's marginalised "identities" when in such a position, means that identitarian reductionism (and criticisms of it using the language of "identity politics") aren't going away any time soon. Personally, I think it's far more specific, accurate, and useful to criticise "identitarian deference" or "identitarian reductionism" or "essentialism" or whatever it is that you actually mean at the time--it saves us from having to distinguish every time whether by "identity politics" we mean attention to how class is lived through race and gender (as the C.R.C. had used it), or a liberal co-optation of the same phrase in the name of multicultural pluralism (the type that e.g. Adolph Reed criticises). But, as with anything else, reading about it just requires sensitivity to discovering how the phrase is being used by a particular writer.

Readings:

Arguments against certain anti-idpol positions:

Robin D. G. Kelley, "Identity Politics and Class Struggle" (I really recommend reading the whole thing)

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, "Until Black Women Are Free, None of Us Will Be Free"

Mychal Denzel Smith, "What Liberals Get Wrong About Identity Politics"

Out of the Woods, "A Hostile Environment"

Mike Harman, "Identity Crisis: Leftist Anti-Wokeness is Bullshit" (responds to Adolph Reed's critiques of identity politics)

A post from @quoms circa 5 years ago on how anti-idpol arguments often themselves subscribe to idpol

Me (circa 5 years ago) on how (white) leftists use criticism of identity politics as an acceptable way to silence the concerns of people of colour, or to claim that we are uniquely ill-suited to analysing and articulating our own condition

Arguments against identitarian deference (though throughout the body of my text I kind of assumed we were up to speed on this):

Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, "Being-in-the-Room Privilege: Elite Capture and Epistemic Difference"

"Who is Oakland"

Kenan Malik, "Not All Politics is Identity Politics" (makes the common argument that identity politics started out helpful and even necessary in the '60s, and later devolved such that "contemporary" identity politics, "in practice," are identity reductionist)

Salar Mohandesi, "Identity Crisis" (similarly argues that the C.R.C.'s insights came to be "exploited by those with politics diametrically opposed" to theirs)

Asad Haider, "White Purity" (attacks identitarian deference & the assumption of common viewpoint based on identity, considers "identity politics" to be a form of liberal multiculturalism)

See also

/tagged/identity politics

#questions #Anonymous #identity politics #politics #liberalism #mine

360 notes · View notes

nikonladyz4 · 19 days

Text

Does the Maknae Line Fan the Ship Wars?

First and foremost I believe that Jimin and Jungkook are partners. I support their relationship and believe they got together in 2015 and committed in 2017.

But, I do question the shipping aspect of the maknae line and how all three maknaes seem to play into it.

What i really hate is how Jimin is the one to get dragged the most because of shipping. He is obviously close to JK regardless of the type of relationship they have (boyfriends or best friends) and friends with Tae.

I think JK and JM have been loud over the years but toned it down in 2022/2023 for one or more reasons, but one main reason being they knew they were going to enlist together and had to make people/government see them as friends/colleagues and not boyfriends.

Although we had some great jikook moments last year, there were also taekook moments. Were any of these moments intentional by any of the three or all three members for specific reasons?

What do you all think of these?

As stated above I think a major reason that JK participated in shipping moments with JM and Tae was to try and dispel the belief he and JM were romantically involved due to their upcoming enlistment. By all three playing the shipping games, there is plausible deniability of an intimate relationship with any one of the members.

The shipping moments seemed to get heavy around promotions, concerts or release of content. Goes back to the k-pop business model of supporting shipping because it makes money.

Although, Jk was loud about Jimin. He also had his moments with Tae. Jimin also had his moments with JK, Tae and Suga.

Then we have the events of this week with JK following a fan site that reposted a lot of Jikook content along with Taekook and BTS members. It seemed to be in response to the craziness after he liked both Tae and Jimin content on his TikTok page. Of course he unfollows and that creates another uproar of hate against Jimin.

Interesting enough, JK searches and views multiple shipping accounts under the names of Jikook, Minkook, vkook. There may be more, i got tired of searching…..lol

I honestly think the guys could care less about the fan hate. Their participation in fanservice/shipping/skinship is part of their marketing strategy. It also protects their real, personal relationships. The fan behavior and reaction is on the fan, not on the members. They have been trained to deal with fan behavior/reaction since 2011/2012. Yet, when one of the members crosses a boundary, JK seems to step up and address it in lives or songs.

In spite of them participating in the shipping games, JK and JM continue to show who they are to each other regardless of what the fans do or say. They proved this when they boldly went to Japan together, even when they were being threatened with death and antis reporting an alleged gay relationship to the military.

The ultimate show of their bond was the announcement of them enlisting as companions in the military. Spending 18 months together: training, working, living, sleeping, vacationing.

Edit: i thought I had lost this post when I fell asleep. I just realized the draft is saved and I can finish and publish. So this is similar to my post on a reblog.

#jimin #jungkook #jikook #military #enlistment #training #kookmin #minkook #mingukkie

25 notes · View notes

deadaldipshit-jpg · 9 months

Text

↳ ❝¡BORED❞

Minho x gn reader

Genre - angst

Word count - 0.4k

Warning - fake dating breakup. Unrequited feelings. Pretty angsty

An - had this idea for a while. Inspired by the song bored by ari abdul. Just wrote this ehole thing on my phone. Hope you guys like it. Please reblog if you like it.

"What do you mean you dont like me back. Did these past few months mean nothing to you? " minho said, staring at you with tears threatening to fall out of his eyes. You would have felt pity for him, but it was his fault.

"Arent you the one who said that going out on dates, spending time with others, and kissing was just for fun." Minho looked like a kicked puppy, but you continued. " You told me not to fall in love. So it's kind of stupid how you did"

You were fresh out of a relationship with a toxic partner and were really bored. You wanted the feeling of being in a relationship without having to put in the effort of falling in love. Luckily for you, minho was in need of a fake partner to get rid of a plethora of exs.

His one condition for both of you to date was that you wouldn't fall in love and that you would know that this relationship would include all regular relationship things, but it was just to make someone jealous. You accepted cause you viewed minho as just a random person who had the solution to your boredom

Tou spent the next few months in a fake relationship. You spent more than one night waking up in his arms, on the couch with him, holding you tight. His cold eyes that used to be unerving when he kissed you were warm now. His empty sentences carried so much meaning now. You were still the same. Putting the same amount of interest that you did when you started.

It took you a while, but you realized that he was the one falling in love with you. You couldn't afford to be tied down in a relationship with the person you didn't even really like, so you decided to break it off. You went to his place in the morning. He pouted for a kiss but instead heard the line. "Whatever was between us is over now."

"But I love you." Guess what? i dont"

"Yoh were the one who was agaisnt the idea of falling in love. And i never wanted to really daye you in the first place. I only did cause i wanted to know what it was like." He stared at you for a minute before saying,"So you used me." "It was both ways if you dont remember it"

"I will be leaving tomorrow. I get that you love me or something, and that's why i can't continue this." And you walked out of his front door.

Minho was shocked at the whole situation. But sitting alone in his house after you walked out hit him with the realization that this was not a book. It wasn't one of those fake dating stories, and he just lost his love. And they were never his to begin with

Taglist - @karma1289 @jaerisdiction @sunoooism @linocvpid @amethyistheart @very-gay-stay (Send and ask or fill this to join th taglist)

57 notes · View notes

bezierballad · 2 months

Note

please talk about your ocs! (i totally didn't run to your ask box after I saw the reblog)

Will do! I've also talked about these guys and discussed a lot of their story with my buddies @eemoo1o-animoo & @sebastian-ciel-mutual-bullying (Thanks so much you two, ya'll are awesome ^^)

(Bear with me folks this is still a WIP work)

The OCs in question are a trio of demon OCs—Tobias Gourmand, Napoleon Salver, and Maria DeVarre—who all serve the owner of an inn. (Adam Sinclair is his name. And his wife is named Evangeline. "Evie" or "Eve" for short. 😉)

The Sinclair Servants are basically meant to be foils of some sort to the Phantomhive servants (Finny, Mey-Rin, and Baldroy) but they're also basically the triplet demon servants from Black Butler II if they each had their own separate personality (also if one of them was a girl lmao)

Tobias is quite chatty with whoever decided to visit the inn, but is also considered to be the one with the least "tact" out of the three. Compared to his two companions, he's quite a bit more childish and less-levelheaded, and isn't usually seen without a mug of liquor in hand. That being said, he's a tad bit more of a flirt compared to the others, very smug and savvy.

Despite my personal preference to say his name second in order, Napoleon is actually the "ringleader" of the trio. He's the one that does most of the talking when other characters (such as Ciel, Sebastian, and/or Adam) are speaking to the trio as a whole. Napoleon is especially the one who has the most interaction with Sebastian in the story (in fact part of me feels like he's at least 45% gay for Sebastian but I digress). He's also considered the most manipulative of the three, but he's usually the one letting Tobias and Maria do most of the messier work.

Maria is without a doubt the most stoic of the three (in fact most of the time she rarely says anything), and since she's a kitchen maid she's usually barely seen ever interacting with the inn guests. Despite physically appearing to be the youngest of the three (looking no older than Ciel himself) Maria is actually far more mature and level-headed than one may think (second only to Napoleon but moreso than Tobias). She's also quite skilled with knives (more specifically the bigger and heavier butcher's cleavers to contrast with Sebastian's fancy dinner cutlery), in fact if anyone were to try and act creepy with this girl, she would no doubt threaten to stab that person.

Some may interpret these three as a "weird little demon family" and they're not wrong. Me personally I interpret their relationship with each other as "roomates/siblings who are usually on the same page, have the same thoughts and mindsets, and do a lot of the same things but occasionally get on each other's nerves". Sometimes I even think of them as a silly little "clique" of demons. Above all else, however, they're partners in crime.

Now, here's how they would play into the rest of the Kuroshitsuji world (specifically how Ciel, Sebastian, & the rest of the gang would come into play).

It basically goes out like this; Ciel and Sebastian are sent by the queen to investigate this inn. The reasoning is rather to-the-point; many people who have visited this inn are usually never seen walking back out.

There's a lot of your typical Kuro arc shenanigans, but there's also a lot of interaction with Sebastian and the Sinclair servants. A lot of "demon-to-demon" interactions.

Their relationship with Sebastian is... rather complicated. I'm still unsure whether or not these three would be able to tell if Sebastian is a demon or if Seb himself even knows that they're demons yet. If so, then chances are these three see Sebastian as, well, weird.

Like, "you're telling me that guy over there fawning over a litter of kittens is a member of our species? As if." They even make a few occasional mocking jabs at his expense (much to Seb's annoyance)

Anyway, there's a planned B plot with the reapers (specifically Grell, Ron, & Will) where they see that many souls have been strangely going missing. And they are, in fact, rather pissed. Will especially is rather triggered and believes Sebastian is the one at fault here (which Sebastian himself knows is absolute bullshit because he's been dieting fasting for what? Three years straight?)

Gee I wonder if the demons who are working at the inn know about this.

I could keep going on and on, but I think it's best that I stop there for now. This story has a looooooot going on, and that's far from even the tip of the iceberg.

Either way, thank you so much for the ask! And for those who were patient enough to get to the end of my bad storytelling and infodumping, thank you for reading 👋

#kuroshitsuji #black butler #sebastian michaelis #ciel phantomhive #kuroshitsuji oc #black butler oc #grell sutcliff #ronald knox #william t spears #tobias gourmand #napoleon salver #maria devarre #kuroshitsuji ocs #black butler ocs #original character

14 notes · View notes

its-tortle · 6 months

Note

it wasn't a hate speech, I wrote about it, I'm sorry that something offended you.

ok, I'm bad at writing. try again. short version - why of all social things its a transgender people? you write (I wrote same) you have no self-interest other than equality. You write about Ukraine one time, you write about Israel one time. You know what I mean?

I mean, you like Taylor - you post about Taylor a lot. You post cute gay couple a lot - because you love it. And from social - you post a lot about trans. Only trans you post a lot.. More than about women rights or bisexual people. Why? :-) You are a woman, you are young, you have your own life, friends. Why you dont speak about this.

I'm asking this because I don't know any trans people in real life (like you as I know) other than tiktok, yt. but I know people of all orientations. my governem doesnt have enough money for education and medicine. I mean that everyone simply has problems. but you write about them. I don't have a problem with them, and neither do you.

I just don’t understand why so many posts on tumblr about trans rights, especially from people who are not in the trans community at all. So yeah, the short question - why trans?

(you don't have to reblog at all about anything, but you reglog about trans. and yeah, if its a post about hp you only write on tags jkr on negative part)

hi! sorry it took me a moment to get to this, and sorry that i misunderstood your ask in the first place. it's a valid question, truly, though i'm not sure i alone am able to give you a full answer for it.

there's definitely a number of reasons as to why trans issues seem to be disproportionately represented on my blog and many others, some of those reasons are personal and some of them sociopolitical.

the first and maybe most obvious personal reason is the simple one of queer solidarity. i'm bi, i've dated women, and that makes me part of a larger group that is as diverse and colorful as it is littered with a history of prosecution. trans people are very much a part of that collective, and i want them to feel as supported as they have made me feel when i've met them at gsas and pride events and fandom spaces. while i don't relate to their issues exactly, their overall struggle against the cis heterosexual matrix still connects with me. we're all under one umbrella.

also (and maybe this is where a bit of the sociopolitics comes in) trans people are one of the most immediately and publicly threatened groups within the lgbtq+. while so many other sexualities and identities are obviously affected by current events and politics, the queer hate spread in right-wing politics these days is specifically anti-trans. i'm half american and have grown up in western europe, and the impact of this hate mongering is felt in my own communities. while i know most about us and some uk anti-trans politics, i know the sentiment is more widespread than just those places. it feels like one of the most urgent queer issues right now.

and because i am queer and because i am western, the algorithm and the news and the people i follow on social media are posting about this anti-trans rhetoric. i don't think i ever deliberately seek out trans supportive content, but it's what i see on my feed/dash, so that's what i reblog. if i saw as much disability support or ukraine support, etc., i would reblog that too.

sure, there are things that i don't reblog that i maybe should, but again, i'm not here to be an activist and i don't like reblogging content about issues i'm not fully sure/educated about. the palestine/israel issue, for instance, is so much more complex than 'trans people deserve to exist', so i'm not as comfortable hitting a quick reblog. not because i don't care about it or because it's not on my mind, but because it's not as black and white and i don't feel like a worthy informant. i talk to my friends and my parents about it, but i don't need my incomplete opinions to be posted publicly online.

and i know i keep saying this, but i'll say it again: i am not here to be an activist. there is a definitely a conversation to be had here, and maybe i should be doing more, but i also resent being made to feel like i have to weigh in on every world issue because my silly little blog about queer tv shows and taylor swift has 1k followers. i reblog what resonates with me, i reblog what i understand. i want this blog to be a happy place.

#i also truly cannot remember the last pro trans post i reblogged #i know i have rbed them!! but is it that much of a trend?? it's not that evident to me #anyway i hope this makes sense #i sympathize with you and think this is a good conversation #but i hope you see where i'm coming from #i also hope you're not a terf or anything if you are pls unfollow me thank you :)#anyway thanks for taking the time to rephrase and type all this out!#i see u and i appreciate the effort #especially as it's not your first language #tortle answers #i wonder if literally anyone else is following this exchange #anon

13 notes · View notes

ihatepeoplesomuchuwu · 9 months

Note

Hey I am very out of the loop of what happened, what happened to carnivorekitty? Are they still around? Whats going on?

Basically, someone called out him on tumblr. If you look up carnivorekitty, you should find the post. It was a lot that happened and so many people were upset, hurt, mad, and angry on both sides.

The call-out was for Tom's likes/follows on Twitter, a lot was said on both sides but involves talks about GaG(Gays against groomers), Neopronouns, People under the age of 18 havings trans surgeries, a comic artist that was called a nazi, trans dark humored posts, pride parades having nudity/too much skin in front of children, and racism. A lot of people were mad and insulting Tom/other people that were in the comments(both sides were like this, not just the ones who didn't agree with Tom). After that, Tom announced a hiatus but later left the platform and privated his Twitter.

It might be best to read them both for yourself so if you'd like the links, I will post the links(ain't no way I'm gonna reblog the one from pastel 🤣 Could only find one person who reposted it without leaving huge amounts of hate-). A lot of people see the situation differently, and It was a lot to take in. What I said in my second paragraph has basically what it involves in both posts. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful but I feel like it might be best to read them yourselves and have a better understanding of the whole thing.

!! Under here is the posts if you would like to read them. I have them under here because of personal reasons, and I don't want to upset anyone/myself with the posts !!

!! ONE LAST THING. PLEASE DO NOT GO HARASSING/THREATENING ANYONE. I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY HARASSMENT TO ANYONE. Please and Thank you. !!

- The call-out post -

- Tom/Carnivorekitty's Response -

#carnivorekitty #l4l #lfl #lurking for love #niwinoodle #anonymous #I swear I will take a break #..... someday-

34 notes · View notes

anarchosimdicalist · 10 months

Text

URSULA ALLEN’S BACHELOR CHALLENGE

I’m doing the bachelor challenge thing! I thought a BC with all elders would be kinda fun and cute so that’s what I’m doing. I've kinda written myself into a corner of doing a BC with someone who would absolutely hate being on The Bachelor or anything like it, so I'm doing away with the TV premise. While Sage is kind of a presenter here, his segments aren't necessarily diegetic. As such, don't think of your contestants as people applying to be on a show.

RULES

Applicants must be elders

All genders welcome

Occults welcome (but I’m not counting a 100+ year old YA vampire as an elder, as much as I like that one What We Do In The Shadows bit)

Tragic backstories welcome, silly goofy backstories also welcome, no backstories also also welcome.

CC welcome but maxis match preferred, and no script mods (eg mod traits). I have all packs except Batuu.

At least 1 negative trait preferred.

1 applicant per person (subject to change depending on turnout)

Tag ‘#ursulaallenbc’ and @anarchosimdicalist in your contestant posts - if I don't reblog it within a day or so feel free to send an ask or DM.

Deadline: 10th August (also subject to change depending on turnout)

More about Ursula and Sage under the cut!

URSULA ALLEN

AGE: 72 PRONOUNS: She/her SEXUALITY: Bisexual CAREER: Author TRAITS: Gloomy, Perfectionist, Bookworm ASPIRATION: Bestselling Author

Though she has been writing since she was a child and published semi-regularly since the 80s, it was her middle-grade fantasy Tower series that got her properly famous in the late 90s.

Since then, she’s had a child, been divorced, publicly came out as bisexual, published upwards of 60 books for children and a good few for adults, built a legacy as the favourite author to a generation of kids, and amassed a modest fortune.

While she's happy to have the kind of security that her money provides, she doesn't like having a lot of stuff. Her house is pretty minimalist, her clothes are high-quality but she doesn't have many, and she only really splashes out on fancy food. A good chunk of her money goes to charity.

She has what she refers to as "artistic melancholy" and what her son quite easily identifies as "depression".

She comes off as kind of gruff and grumpy, but if you're willing to see past it she can be quite warm. She loves to complain and she doesn't suffer fools gladly but she's also very wise and prone to philosophising.

She's very passionate about what she does. She has no intention of retiring any time soon, though she could afford it. She wouldn't really know what to do with herself if she ever stopped writing.

Always been good with kids, though she only ever had one.

SAGE HAMMOND

AGE: 24 PRONOUNS: He/him SEXUALITY: Gay CAREER: ???? TRAITS: Childish, Lazy, Cheerful ASPIRATION: Joke Star

Very close with Ursula. She made up stories for him as a kid, supported him through his transition as a teenager, and now as an adult they're kind of a single unit. A little codependent but generally healthy.

Has an English degree, somewhat inspired by Ursula though he's not really interested in becoming a writer.

Has lived with Ursula since graduating. Feels like he should move out but he doesn't really know what to do with his life and can't find a job.

Flamboyant silly guy. Colourful aesthetic constantly threatens to intrude on Ursula's big minimalist house.

#ursulaallenbc #ursula allen’s bachelor challenge #sims 4 #ts4 #sims 4 bachelor challenge #sims 4 bachelorette challenge #i know ‘got famous off middle grade fantasy in the 90s’ is um. loaded.#but she’s actually meant to be more of a mix between jacqueline wilson and ursula leguin. in my mind.#though she’s her own woman ofc

9 notes · View notes

exitpursuedbyasloth · 9 months

Text

(So I originally wrote the following in a reply to the post screencaped above. I wanted to reblog this as the S3B is premiering in a couple days and I have major concerns over this potential plot direction. However OP blocked me for my reply and I can’t, however they’re my words so I will repost them as I see fit. Including the original post for context only, and I added some additional clarifying comments.)

…that would be pretty terrible, ngl.

Canon Radovid (in the games, he’s like 12 at the end of the books, although his future turn is hinted at) turns genocidal towards sorceresses and other non-humans both for political power, but also because of the festering resentment of the abuse, manipulations, and wrongs he sees him and father suffer at the hands of the sorceress Phillipa and Dijkstra, including his father’s assassination by an elf at the behest of Phillipa. Phillipa controls him throughout his teenage years. That hate festers in him for years until he grows up, and instead of simply getting revenge on those who personally harmed him and his family, he decides the only way to rule was with an iron fist, and turned that fist against all sorceresses, witches, magic-users and non-humans (both because he hates/fears them, but also for political gain, as these things tend to go). He encourages the non-human hate, uses humans superior numbers to overwhelm and destroy groups of non-humans and magic users. He’s relatively militarily adept too. He made sure of that, because he wanted revenge against Phillipa even as a boy. I don’t think the show would abandon everything that makes Radovid Radovid (but then again, Eskel...), I don’t think he’s just going to be Some Guy. So his sadistic bigotry towards and genocide against all non-humans and (most) human magic-users will come into play at some point. And if it does, his relationship with Jaskier will HAVE to factor in somehow, that’s unavoidable at this point. But should this theory OP mentions come to pass (and there is a good chance it might, I have been concerned about this since it the news leaked of who Jaskier would be paired up with), that would mean the show made a conscious choice to have adult Radovid turn villain…cause his boyfriend dumped him? His boyfriend of like a couple months chose his family of 20+ years over him, and that was enough to make him lose it and just start stabbing everything? Or cause he was angry that Jaskier was using him as a shield because Phillipa was threatening him? And Radovid, a grown ass man, cannot handle this? This would put a homosexual relationship at the core of a xenophobic campaign of witch-burning, be the catalyst of it. And they would put that on Jaskier’s shoulders? Because he dumped Radovid?

Why? What does this do but add cheap angst where it wasn’t needed? There is no need to A.) Start Radovid’s xenophobic hate campaign 15 years early (they have so many world-spanning plots they already can’t write well, why add more?), and B.) connect it directly to someone in the main core cast by having them be the inciting incident for Radovid. That’s unnecessary, that doesn’t offer any narrative improvement to the story at all (FFS, the world is bigger than Geralt, Yenn, Ciri, and Jaskier). And is this the reason Jaskier is now canonically bisexual? Was that the only reason they did that, just to make him the casus belli of a genocide? That really would not be the kind of queer rep anyone should praise, and by god, does it feels downright spiteful.

And to be clear, I don’t think every queer story has to be all sunshine and happiness or perfectly positive (something I’ve been accused of when criticizing questionable writing of gay/bi characters in the past). But there is a vast ocean of difference between “Sunshine and perfection” and “Hey! Let’s change this catalyst for this genocide from ‘Paranoid Fascist takes what should have been a beef between him and like 5 people, and turns it into a full scale witch-burning industry and non-human genocide, for both political gain and cause he’s a paranoid xenophobic fascist’ to 'gay prince super bummed his boyfriend dumped him’, and let’s make sure we wait to show the boyfriend as canonically bisexual until the last possible second, just so people wonder if that’s the only reason we even bothered ”. A vast fucking ocean.

I’m fine with adaptational changes that add to or improve the canon material, or are just different but stand strongly on their own. But this? Would be a terrible miserable hateful idea, and is just cheap writing for forced angst (and I honestly would not put it past the Witcher writers, which is the worst part).

How is this good? How would this an improvement? What does this add? How does this stand on it’s own? Why would they take a bloody campaign of witch-burning and genocide that had a believable catalyst already, and retcon it happening because of The Gays? Cause a dude dumped another dude? If they did this, the writers would have to consciously make the choice to change the catalyst of the genocide to ‘a gay guy was like super bummed that his boyfriend left him for a Witcher’. Do y'all see what that looks like?

#The Witcher #Jaskier #Radovid #The Witcher Netflix #The Witcher S3 #brand new kinds of homophobia #if they plan to keep Radovid to his canon route why change his personality and mannerisms so much??#[I mean I think I know why...]#[But that's another kettle of fish and another post entirely]#Honestly this is one of the worst choices the writers could have made #which is why I think they'll make it #Jaskier/Radovid #Jaskier/Radovid critical

7 notes · View notes

mitigatedchaos · 3 months

Text

[ tumblr user ]

#oh god this is what happens when you go full gendpol #so many potential kinks

I generally keep this blog pretty locked down when it comes to posting horny on main, but sophia-epistemia asking, "So, where are the classically-painted nude luigis?" was a bit funny, because like.

The entire point of picking that for the example of a hypothetical blog that's "90% politics, 10% horny" is that it's tame, non-threatening, and obviously fake, though also the kind of very specific interest a Tumblr user in particular might enjoy.

You can easily visualize it already, can't you. The tasteful rose-pink-lavender blog background, sprinkled with flower petals. The pink text at the top, starting with a "she/they. lesbian. 28. NY" (or a gay male in Georgia, or someone identifying as aromantic). The gold text for the blog theme, just above the reblog, like, and reply buttons. The painting of Luigi against a blue drapery, posed tastefully in front of a fruit bowl to hide just the right bits.

The blogger calls them "luigis." The submit button at the top of the blog reads "submit luigis." Anons and mutuals send in matching luigis as they encounter them out in the wild.

But that example was completely fake.

I'm the kind of person that can drop an incredibly power-dynamic-laden piece of worldbuilding with a snap of my fingers.

#gendpol #the blue website #tumblr tumblr tumblr

5 notes · View notes

sapphos-darlings · 2 years

Note

I realized that I have a lot of internalized shame about my SSA. Trying to relate with my guy friends gets alienating because it's clear to me that how we're attracted to women isn't the same. How would I heal this internalized homophobia? A lot of it is typical reasons like being 'different, 'predatory' etc but I also don't have a good model of what a healthy wlw relationship looks like

This might be a cliché, but I so much recommend journaling. Having your own little hidey hole where you can have a good, thorough conversation with yourself about your own thoughts.

For starters, you could try these topics: What is a healthy WLW relationship? - Let yourself daydream; describe your ideal relationship, no matter how unrealistic and corny it might be. - What makes for a good partner? What are your needs from your partner, what do you expect, what do you want, and what will you not tolerate? - What about you, what kind of a partner do you want to be? - In the context of specifically romance with a woman, are there specific things you're concerned about? > Would you worry about these things in someone else's relationship? > Would these things worry you in a heterosexual arrangement? - Summary, if you want, about what a healthy relationship would look like based on these thoughts (and more, if you, for example, want to play around with swapping up genders in your favourite media relationships, for one.) Is WLW attraction predatory? - Go through what "predatory" means to you. - Examine where this feeling is coming from. > What external sources have told you WLW attraction is predatory? - Do you feel the same way about gay men? Why/why not? - Counter the argument, either by exploring why you know it's wrong, or by questioning the parts of it that you feel uncertain about, and talk yourself through them until you reach a conclusion. - Experiment with scenarios; if a woman found you attractive, would you feel objectified? If she told you you're pretty, would you feel threatened or dehumanised? Why, why not? How can you avoid coming across in a way that would be scary for you to encounter if you were the target of it? - How would the previous scenario differ from a situation where a woman is catcalled or propositioned on the street, or pressured by a stranger at the bar?

Difference between you and "The Guys" - Hanging out with men, what kinds of differences have you noticed in your attraction to women in comparison to them? - How does it make you feel to talk about women with men? > Why does it make you feel that way? - What kind of conversation around your attraction would you prefer? - Is "different" inherently a bad thing? Would it be better or worse for you to be attracted to women like men are attracted to women? Why?

Finally, create a healthy environment online for yourself regarding your attraction to women. Since we're on Tumblr, you can make a blog just as a scrapbook project for yourself, where you reblog content like posts and pictures that represent what you love about women and what makes you feel good about being WLW, or little things that you daydream about, or others around you daydream about. Follow blogs that make you feel good, avoid discourse like it's infected with a new strain of COVID, and anonymously be the woman loving woman that you want to see in the world. You can talk about things that you wish you saw more about, or you can say nothing and just observe and collect. It's up to you and what you feel comfortable with. Building a positive image of yourself, and giving yourself a safe space to enjoy and love as you do, are crucial cornerstones in feeling good about yourself as a SSA person. Forget about echo chambers; you deserve a little nest in which you can explore yourself and the world like a newborn kitten, safe in your padded cardboard box under the floorboards, except that it's covered in pictures of pretty women, and every pee marker is replaced by a scribbling on the wall about the nice, good, great things about loving women. Surround yourself not with every brand of living thing in the world with their conflicting perspectives, but only with other cats and kittens (lesbians, bisexual women who talk about loving women), and create a social circle for yourself where you aren’t different anymore.

Shape in your mind a gay woman you can love, and then model yourself after her.

I say this all the time, but there is nothing wrong with you or how you love others. Loving, wanting, needing others is never wrong. You are human, and human beings love others. It is so integral to us as people. Fight against the message that you should be like everybody else, or like the Authority wants you to be. You are good, and your attraction is exciting and beautiful and valid, and you will love and be loved.

#wlw #lesbian #bisexual #internalized homophobia #internalized lesbophobia #mod sade #ask

27 notes · View notes

gladiator-gladiolus · 1 year

Text

My prejudgement of the engage cast: Brodia edition

This is as of before I venture into chapter 5, so obviously I don’t actually know ANYTHING about anyone except what I’ve accidentally absorbed through fanart. This is all purely based on their appearance and the vibe. I’ll reblog with what I actually think of them after I’ve finished the game, or have sufficient enough exposure to them ＼＼\٩(๑`^´๑)۶//／／

(These are still really harsh, no i do not mellow with time and yes I’m an excellent person with first acquaintances how could you guess??)

Alcryst

Listens to my chemical romance

has Mysophobia

Kevin the teenager but make it anime

Haha Emo

An eMpAth

pathetic little meow meow who’s had a bucket of water dumped on him periodically

I don’t know if I’ve said it before but THE most morally unsound of the entire game but in a nice way (chaotic good style)

war crime is okay if you win the war then threaten anyone who brings it up

Very emotional but doesn’t show it on the outside, probably depressed but that’s his default setting

Depending on your choices in game, he’ll either snap and become a killing machine and like it or turn into a certified Alear malewife

practices his eyeliner while crying in a locked bathroom (bonus points if it’s his parents bathroom)

Has nice parents but acts out like he has a rocky home life

has a brother he doesn’t like

Comes across like he thinks he’s the best but actually he’s insecure

doesnt actually want to be royalty

Must be under surveillance 24/7

Smokes weed

Lapis

Tastes like yoghurt if you licked her

very good at handicrafts

has the biggest sapphic ship with Citrinne (now I’ve said that they’re automatically gonna be related)

I have a massive crush on her and Citrinne, we could be poly 😳❤️

why are her eyebrows above her fringe???

has magic eyebrows

secretly likes to have expensive, nice things but doesn’t want anyone to know because she feels bad about it

judges you but then says she would never

has a massive appetite and will eat anyone wait I mean anything

would collect crystals in a modern au

doesn’t like children but looks like she should

Citrinne

Knows what she likes and likes what she knows

Is she gay or European? A genius would say why not both

Snobby and upper class but would snap your neck if you told her that

Same vibe as Dorothea

social justice warrior

sarcastic in an intimidating way

wine aunt

Also likes expensive things but is very money conscious

her time is precious but if you were ill she would spend all day and then some caring for you

thinks giving Starbucks gift cards for birthdays makes her a god

Money launders

Diamant

Constantly comes off angry for no reason but only because he isn’t very articulate

Believes in the power of camaraderie and friendship more than the care bears

Seems strict and unfeeling but in reality is SO the opposite

Diluc got a hair cut

a gym bro but too introverted to fully display his bro power

the most romantic man you’ve ever seen <3

takes everything very seriously and struggles to relax

Can do eye liner better than you GUARANTEED

Vegetarian

Doesnt care about his appearance

Sexy but he doesn’t know it 😩

easily embarrassed about literally anything

Amber

I’ve never even heard him speak but I already want him to stop talking

literally just shut up

acts like he’s THE man but is actually just a cringefail

wanna be Ferdinand von Aegir

Will mansplain, malewife, manwhore and manslaughter all at the same time

Pretentious bitch

cant do 2 piece puzzles

Jade

Also a lesbian

can crush a melon with her thighs

Brodia is the nation of gay women and I’m here for it

Married to her axe because that’s definitely what she wields

the only aspect of her personality is that she likes weapons

Oh and women

Extremely and unapologetically blunt

A vigilante and her opinion is always correct

that’s all I’ve got to say

I take back what I said about Solm potentially being my favourite Nation, these guys are way swaggier （−＿−；）

Previous posts in the series-

#fe engage #fire emblem engage #alcryst #alcryst fe #fe17 #lapis fe #Jade fe #amber fe #brodia #citrinne #citrinne fe #diamant #long post #they’re gay your honor

16 notes · View notes