huerca zafada

bihet feminism lite, you credulous troglodytes
Posts tagged "queer"

I actually don’t mind “femme” being applied to feminine-presenting gay men and non-binary folks, but it’s pretty fucking important to remember that A) it was a lesbian term first, and B) modern queer culture has a tendency to appropriate all feminine-centered terms and ways of being and turn them into a free-for-all for any motherfucker who wants to feel special. I’ve seen femme used for straight women, effectively erasing its roots of queer resistance; I’ve seen it used as a catch-all for anyone with boobs and a vagina; I’ve seen it applied to men solely because they’re skinny and wear nail polish. This is all bullshit. Femme has a history, it was once a way of life; that doesn’t it mean it can’t evolve, but if we are not conscious and protective of that history, it’s going to be utterly lost to homophobia and patriarchy.

P.S. Where’s the love for butch women? Studs? Bois? I’ve seen femme applied to butch women who happen to look more traditionally feminine in facial features and build, regardless of how they dress and present. Butch women who look masculine and don’t in any way entertain the male gaze are utterly ignored. If we can’t celebrate queer women unless they wear hot pink lipstick, low-cut dresses and spike-covered heels, something has gone terribly wrong.

539 plays

cryforthenightbird:

Prove It On Me Blues - Ma Rainey

Full lyrics:

Went out last night, had a great big fight

Everything seemed to go on wrong

I looked up, to my surprise

The gal I was with was gone.

Where she went, I don’t know

I mean to follow everywhere she goes;

Folks say I’m crooked.

I didn’t know where she took it

I want the whole world to know.


They say I do it, ain’t nobody caught me

Sure got to prove it on me


Went out last night with a crowd of my friends,

They must’ve been women, ‘cause I don’t like no men.

It’s true I wear a collar and a tie,

Makes the wind blow all the while

Don’t you say I do it, ain’t nobody caught me

You sure got to prove it on me.

Say I do it, ain’t nobody caught me

Sure got to prove it on me.


I went out last night with a crowd of my friends,

It must’ve been women, ‘cause I don’t like no men.

Wear my clothes just like a fan

Talk to the gals just like any old man

Cause they say I do it, ain’t nobody caught me

Sure got to prove it on me.

latinosexuality:

i’m sharing this link b/c i think it is an interesting, one we don’t often hear about celibacy. and when we do it is usually eroticized or isolated and grounded in spirituality (like this article is). i’m not saying i agree, i believe it is interesting (not odd), as much of the language used is…

Writer Mimi Swartz looks at therapists, including openly gay therapists, who help clients live in light of what is most important to them — instead of trying to convince them to believe and live as the therapist might like. So, for instance, this could mean encouraging a Christian gay man who wants to stay faithfully married to his wife to be open with her about his orientation, and develop strategies for not becoming involved with men.


Mm-hm. A therapist who encourages a client to pursue a path of unnecessary self-deprivation to appease a bigoted community is not doing the client a damn bit of good. It’s interesting that the article does not address the fact that liberal Christian churches who accept openly gay members do exist. They’re not common, but it seems to me that an individual who feels secure enough to be out to his wife and church is more likely than not to be living in a region that does host such groups. Of course, it’s also possible that coming out was not exactly his choice, and in order to stay a member of the community, he must play by their rules. The bigots who surround him, his mother included, are happy to use him as an example of an acceptable homosexual (i.e., the kind who does not engage in any kind of homosexual behavior). This is portrayed as an act of Christian love, because emotional manipulation is an awesome way to get people to do what you want.

Often such folks feel they cannot be open about what they see as their struggle with homosexual behavior for fear of at least making others uncomfortable, at worst being ostracized.

At worst they’d be murdered. The author is deliberately downplaying the danger LGB individuals face in conservative communities. It is not simply about not having sex. An out person is forever suspect.

But while not easy, and, yes, at times I’ve whined about it, for starters, this path has allowed me to see myself as more than just a sexual being. It also has protected my heart and allowed me to think clearly about relationships I’ve been in.

Well, hello there, internalized sexism. The author would benefit from some self-examination here, but I’m not holding my breath. It does handily explain why no one gives a shit about the woman who is now trapped in marriage held together by the tender bonds of fear, self-hatred, and homophobia. The fact that she is unlikely to ever have a satisfying sexual experience within her marriage doesn’t matter, because celibacy is good for your soul. Suppressing a woman’s sexuality while oppressing the gays? It’s like Christmas for bigots!

tl;dr the article only sounds nice because the author is incredibly ignorant and naive, and I do not for one minute believe any queer person is helped by being trained to conform to heteronormative standards. They’ve been doing this to us for years. The only change is that they are ostensibly willing to accept that homosexuality is something that cannot be beaten out of a person, but this means little if all they do with this knowledge is adjust their bigotry to better oppress. It’s far more subtle, and can be portrayed as both magnanimous and the gay person’s own idea. That’s some dangerous shit.

saltmarshhag:

lakrymosa:

Hrm, question, based off of what sophisticatedlesbian is saying: Just because they’re with men, that means that they’re not queer? I have a boyfriend. Does that automatically negate my pansexuality and mean that I’m straight, despite the fact that I still hold an attraction for people as opposed to genders? That’s a little bi/pan/omniphobic.

Also, as much as I dislike Cho, I did find the article interesting and found this quote in particular to just prove her point:

Gays and lesbians might assume that we are not homosexual enough, and straight people might assume that we are in porn.

Considering that you guys have said she’s just “a married women defending lesbians”, I think you guys have proved her point.

Honestly? It seems like she’s trying to say she’s genderqueer and pansexual but can’t word it properly. Just because she’s a massive insensitive, offensive asshole doesn’t mean she can’t be queer.

jesus christ i should have known this would happen

I AM BISEXUAL MYSELF AND I WAS NOT SAYING MARGARET CHO AND AMANDA PALMER ARE NOT QUEER. i was openly questioning whether two women married to men should be the self-appointed guardians of “true lesbianism.” in fact i think that’s pretty close to my exact words. people in heterosexual relationships benefit from passing as straight and are not in a position to be oppressed by gay/lesbian people. bawww about “biphobia”/”panphobia” to somebody else. the fact that people chose to focus on this rather than, you know, her rape humor and fucking disgusting fetishization of trans people does say a lot about your priorities. 

and no i don’t buy that she’s “a little bit transgender” because she likes wearing combat boots and using profanity or whatever. cue “gender policing!” blah blah. 

probably could have stopped reading at “pansexuality” and still have gotten the gist, tbh

(via saltmarshhag-deactivated2013011)

saltmarshhag:

 privilegedandgoodlooking said: an interesting opinion I have not heard before! if you have energy to link me to any Things I’d be much obliged.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/04/26/violetblue.DTL&ao=2

I also discovered her new fetish, what she thinks is “the newest hottest thing to happen sexually”: transmen and trannyboys. Giddily, Cho gushed that she’s a born-again tranny-chaser — of the FtM (female-to-male) variety. “For me, it’s transmen. I’m doing a few things, like working with Ian Harvey. It’s not even FtM — it’s FtX. There’s a band from Toronto called The Clicks that’s all transmen, and it’s like a hot boy band. The girls just go crazy and scream for them — it’s like Beatlemania, but for queers! And packing, and the politics of packing, that’s, like, so hot.”

This video in which she implies that she is “trisexual” because she is attracted to “men, women, and trans people” and jokes that she is “not a tranny chaser,” but a “tranny catcher.”

This video in which she and Amanda Palmer mock rape a Katy Perry impersonator as revenge for “I Kissed a Girl.” Trigger warnings are obvious. And besides the rape humor, well I just side-eye the fuck out of two women both married to men acting as the self-appointed guardians of lesbianism. 

There are other videos on youtube where she is interviewed about “trannies” but I didn’t feel like clicking on them.

And then today’s article on what “queer” means which I expect to see getting 50,000 enthusiastic notes on Tumblr within the week. Hork. 

I’m kind of mesmerized by how much that the last article sounds like my concept of the subject when I was a 15-year-old virgin who had never met an openly queer person in my life.

(via saltmarshhag-deactivated2013011)

saltmarshhag:

bananapeppers:

closetospring:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

Definition of queer is DEFINITELY wrong. It is a reclaimed slur only to be used for those who it was aimed at, which is LGBT. The end. Period.


And the anon was right, there are a lot of other problematic claims in here, too.

lol androphilia is straight up wrong too. it does not refer to femininity in any way. (it’s cool tho, women are used to being “part of” the explicitly male default.) and it refers to men/masculinity— so CAN include physical sex. as i understand it the main purpose is to remove indication of the desirer’s gender/sex, i.e. a gay man and straight woman are both androphiliacs.

(apparently “androphilia” is also a movement by some gay men to ~reclaim masculinity~ but idk that much about it besides knowing it’s probs typical sissyphobia.)

oh my very goodness. lol, this photoset is so fucked. closetospring is right: androphilia means “attraction to men/boys” (andro = male, and -phil- = attraction/affinity/love). she is also right that androphilia, -philic, and -phile and the female versions gynephilia, -philic, and -phile are used:

  1. when someone doesn’t want to assign sex(es) to the people who have the attractions, or giving the sex(es) of the people who have the attractions is irrelevant in that instance

  2. because it’s shorter to write “androphilic people” than it is to write “gay and bisexual men, straight and bisexual women, and non-binary people who are attracted to men”

  3. when a person is monosexual and a non-binary sex or gender, and therefore neither straight/heterosexual nor gay/homosexual works for them
  4. because “gynephilic women” is inclusive of all same-sex-attracted women’s identities without using the word queer. not all same-sex-attracted people want to be referred to as a slur against them, however reclaimed a slur it may seem

  5. not all women who are attracted to women consider themselves gay or bi. not all men who are attracted to men consider themselves gay or bi. see also WSW (women who have sex with women) and MSM (men who have sex with men)

here is a Wikipedia entry

“physically” should be eliminated from the definitions for bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality

the definition for pansexuality needs to be rewritten entirely to eliminate its better-and-deeper-than-thou “hearts not parts!” mentality and to emphasis that it’s an expansion upon bisexuality to include non-binary sexes and genders

oh good Lord, queer

reblogging for commentary and to add

  • men and women are not “opposite.”
  • just to reemphasize, -sexuality in homosexuality is not limited to physical attraction at all, it refers to the person of interest’s gender/sex (which is just a means by which bodies are gendered by others anyway).
  • bisexual people can be attracted to people who are neither women nor men.
  • pansexual people can be physically attracted to someone they have no emotional attraction to whatsoever. 
  • androphillic and gynophillic have a groce association with transphobic/misogynistic sexology for some people. 
  • straight people who classify themselves as “anti-heteronormative” already have a good identity label: straight.

why do these always glaringly read like they’re written by someone who is fresh out of college freshman sex and gender 101 but want so badly to be an authority? oh tumblr.

(via saltmarshhag-deactivated2013011)

darlingtonia-californica:

waytogojeremy:

bananapeppers:

closetospring:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

wtfwhiteprivilege:

Hm. Learn things.

Definition of queer is DEFINITELY wrong. It is a reclaimed slur only to be used for those who it was aimed at, which is LGBT. The end. Period.

And the anon was right, there are a lot of other problematic claims in here, too.

lol androphilia is straight up wrong too. it does not refer to femininity in any way. (it’s cool tho, women are used to being “part of” the explicitly male default.) and it refers to men/masculinity— so CAN include physical sex. as i understand it the main purpose is to remove indication of the desirer’s gender/sex, i.e. a gay man and straight woman are both androphiliacs.

(apparently “androphilia” is also a movement by some gay men to ~reclaim masculinity~ but idk that much about it besides knowing it’s probs typical sissyphobia.)

oh my very goodness. lol, this photoset is so fucked. closetospring is right: androphilia means “attraction to men/boys” (andro = male, and -phil- = attraction/affinity/love). she is also right that androphilia, -philic, and -phile and the female versions gynephilia, -philic, and -phile are used:

  1. when someone doesn’t want to assign sex(es) to the people who have the attractions, or giving the sex(es) of the people who have the attractions is irrelevant in that instance

  2. because it’s shorter to write “androphilic people” than it is to write “gay and bisexual men, straight and bisexual women, and non-binary people who are attracted to men”

  3. when a person is monosexual and a non-binary sex or gender, and therefore neither straight/heterosexual nor gay/homosexual works for them
  4. because “gynephilic women” is inclusive of all same-sex-attracted women’s identities without using the word queer. not all same-sex-attracted people want to be referred to as a slur against them, however reclaimed a slur it may seem

  5. not all women who are attracted to women consider themselves gay or bi. not all men who are attracted to men consider themselves gay or bi. see also WSW (women who have sex with women) and MSM (men who have sex with men)

here is a Wikipedia entry

“physically” should be eliminated from the definitions for bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality

the definition for pansexuality needs to be rewritten entirely to eliminate its better-and-deeper-than-thou “hearts not parts!” mentality and to emphasize that it’s an expansion upon bisexuality to include non-binary sexes and genders

oh good Lord, queer

It may be reaching a little bit,  but I have a hard time interpreting these kinds of cutesy labels as being any other than an expression of underlying homophobia.  Specifically, I think they represent a kind of subtle, very 21st century internet homophobia that sees homosexuality (but not heterosexuality) as inferior to a “liberated” approach to sex. 

do you ever get the sense that some people think that whichever label you go by locks you into a certain sexual expression, which seems a fundamentally heterosexist presumption

like, just because I call myself “gay”, I somehow am only capable of being attracted to masculine cis men?

pretty much my feeling. If my self-identification as bisexual leads some 20-year-old gender studies student to presume they know intimate details about the people I have dated and will date, I’m failing to see how the problem is on my end. And what is with the weird artificial separation of emotional and physical attraction?

I also find people who take great pains to tell us all how they don’t take gender into account nonetheless tend to retain marvelous awareness of things like fat, body hair, conventional attractiveness and so on, but of course those don’t have anything relation to constructions of gender right guys

(via optimistic-red-velvet-walrus)

bb-goose:

desliz:

When I first saw this and this, my first reactions were of amused bafflement. Surely no one could seriously think the utterly unremarkable responses described were indications of a unique orientation, one so very different from that of the dirty rutting slabs of flesh who are naturally driven into frenzies by naked flesh and lip friction? I mocked it and moved on. As I thought about it more, however, I realized what’s actually going on here. Here are two people, presumably teens and/or young adults, who really do believe that most humans do not experience attraction that moves beyond mere stimulation of nerve endings, and who really do believe that every display of the human body is incredibly compelling and erotic for the “sexual” viewer. How the hell did these ideas get into their head?

The answer’s rape culture, of course, and the lack of discussion in mainstream society about what mutually enjoyable sexual contact actually looks and feels like. Rape culture presents an image of sexuality, particularly female sexuality, in which intellectual involvement is rarely discussed. Emotions are, but they generally tend to be negative, revolving around obsession, jealousy, and indifference.  Bodies, particularly female bodies, exist for the sexual gratification of others, and bodies that that are judged unappealing are stigmatized. A Martian who made observations of our media might be excused for concluding that human sexuality was an all-consuming, compulsive exercise in which all emotional connection to one’s sexual partners was shallow and highly dependent on sensory appeal.

Tumblr kids, aren’t Martians, of course. They are simply individuals who have internalized the messages of rape culture to the extent that being mentally aroused by a kiss is a revelation. Rape culture has taught them that bodies exist to be stared at and fantasized about, so therefore it’s noteworthy when they are bored by a shirtless stranger. They have been taught that sex is a dehumanizing act of rubbing together. Their feelings are not rare, though the choice to attribute what they perceive as unusual reactions to asexual identity may be. What it reminds me most of was the pre-teen and teenage girls I met while investigating child abuse. These girls were all sexually active with boys and men who were in their late teens and early twenties. What struck me was the way these girls described how the felt about sex. There was no joy, little arousal. They had sex mostly because they had learned that sex is what you do when you have a boyfriend, especially if you are lucky enough to be young girl with a super cool older guy who has “needs”. More significantly, there was no indication that that understood this was abnormal. They knew all the ways one is supposed to indicate sexual satisfaction, but it was pure pantomime. It goes without saying that their boyfriends did not care that they did not enjoy it, so long as they did it. Rape culture reinforced all of this.

Non-asexuals are perfectly aware that learning to take control of one’s sexuality is not something you learn overnight, especially if you are a woman. You will be met with constant resistance. I never had a truly coercive partner, but I spent a long time settling for subpar sex because I didn’t know what I was looking for, and my partners were not motivated to do anything other than what they had always done. While it was relatively easy for me to come to terms with the idea that I was bisexual, I spent way too much time stuck on the idea that I was only attracted to a certain kind of woman, coincidentally the kind who is also appealing to men. Very few people are lucky enough to sort out what they want sex and physical affection and their relationships to be like without at least several years of fumbling. This is especially true if you are queer and closeted. We are encouraged to settle, if settling means being sexually available. Actual pleasure is only for straight men. When you finally realize what you’ve been missing, it’s mindblowing. Why did no one tell me earlier?

The point is that it is a damn shame that people can grow up not realizing a kiss can be both emotionally gratifying and sexual. That kiss described in that post? Sexual. Say it with me. It’s not a bad word. It’s not a word that will doom you to an eternity of mindless meatpuppethood. If we don’t start confronting this shit with discussions of how damn joyous sex can actually be, of what good sexual contact actually feels like, we are only assisting in rape culture’s endurance. We cannot fight sexism by creating a neverending series of meaningless little categories like “demisexual” and “heteroromantic”. Such divisions reinforce the idea that rape culture provides truthful depictions of the human sexual experience, and there is nothing more dangerous than that.

You a clever bitch and so much of this resonates with me

But I’m not sure I agree with the idea of rape culture being at work when a self-described asexual woman brags about ignoring some ~shirtless hunk~. I see the point about rape culture reducing bodies to things that simply gratify other people, and I wholeheartedly agree with the emphasis on female bodies falling victim to this especially. But how does the internalization of rape culture come into play in this particular case? Idk but as ridiculous as I find that post, I’m not comfortable labeling her a participant in rape culture, directly or not.

I meant in the sense that sexualization of female bodies might lead someone unfamiliar with the concept of male gaze to conclude that all  images of conventionally attractive bodies serve a sexually gratifying purpose, much as you have women who point to naked man butts on HBO as some sort of evidence that men are objectified, too. Asexual rhetoric is so dismissive of sexism that “sexual” women are described as equally predatory and voracious, and thus you get posts like this, where it is implied that such women would be unable to tear their eyes away from naked manflesh (because they’re all straight, too). This would also dovetail with the practice of women being blamed for rapes perpetrated by men they had previously expressed attraction to. That’s not an element here, but the point is that rape culture can only benefit from women dismissing other women as indiscriminate consumers of male sexuality.

(via will-graham-i-am)

When I first saw this and this, my first reactions were of amused bafflement. Surely no one could seriously think the utterly unremarkable responses described were indications of a unique orientation, one so very different from that of the dirty rutting slabs of flesh who are naturally driven into frenzies by naked flesh and lip friction? I mocked it and moved on. As I thought about it more, however, I realized what’s actually going on here. Here are two people, presumably teens and/or young adults, who really do believe that most humans do not experience attraction that moves beyond mere stimulation of nerve endings, and who really do believe that every display of the human body is incredibly compelling and erotic for the “sexual” viewer. How the hell did these ideas get into their head?

The answer’s rape culture, of course, and the lack of discussion in mainstream society about what mutually enjoyable sexual contact actually looks and feels like. Rape culture presents an image of sexuality, particularly female sexuality, in which intellectual involvement is rarely discussed. Emotions are, but they generally tend to be negative, revolving around obsession, jealousy, and indifference.  Bodies, particularly female bodies, exist for the sexual gratification of others, and bodies that that are judged unappealing are stigmatized. A Martian who made observations of our media might be excused for concluding that human sexuality was an all-consuming, compulsive exercise in which all emotional connection to one’s sexual partners was shallow and highly dependent on sensory appeal.

Tumblr kids, aren’t Martians, of course. They are simply individuals who have internalized the messages of rape culture to the extent that being mentally aroused by a kiss is a revelation. Rape culture has taught them that bodies exist to be stared at and fantasized about, so therefore it’s noteworthy when they are bored by a shirtless stranger. They have been taught that sex is a dehumanizing act of rubbing together. Their feelings are not rare, though the choice to attribute what they perceive as unusual reactions to asexual identity may be. What it reminds me most of was the pre-teen and teenage girls I met while investigating child abuse. These girls were all sexually active with boys and men who were in their late teens and early twenties. What struck me was the way these girls described how the felt about sex. There was no joy, little arousal. They had sex mostly because they had learned that sex is what you do when you have a boyfriend, especially if you are lucky enough to be young girl with a super cool older guy who has “needs”. More significantly, there was no indication that that understood this was abnormal. They knew all the ways one is supposed to indicate sexual satisfaction, but it was pure pantomime. It goes without saying that their boyfriends did not care that they did not enjoy it, so long as they did it. Rape culture reinforced all of this.

Non-asexuals are perfectly aware that learning to take control of one’s sexuality is not something you learn overnight, especially if you are a woman. You will be met with constant resistance. I never had a truly coercive partner, but I spent a long time settling for subpar sex because I didn’t know what I was looking for, and my partners were not motivated to do anything other than what they had always done. While it was relatively easy for me to come to terms with the idea that I was bisexual, I spent way too much time stuck on the idea that I was only attracted to a certain kind of woman, coincidentally the kind who is also appealing to men. Very few people are lucky enough to sort out what they want sex and physical affection and their relationships to be like without at least several years of fumbling. This is especially true if you are queer and closeted. We are encouraged to settle, if settling means being sexually available. Actual pleasure is only for straight men. When you finally realize what you’ve been missing, it’s mindblowing. Why did no one tell me earlier?

The point is that it is a damn shame that people can grow up not realizing a kiss can be both emotionally gratifying and sexual. That kiss described in that post? Sexual. Say it with me. It’s not a bad word. It’s not a word that will doom you to an eternity of mindless meatpuppethood. If we don’t start confronting this shit with discussions of how damn joyous sex can actually be, of what good sexual contact actually feels like, we are only assisting in rape culture’s endurance. We cannot fight sexism by creating a neverending series of meaningless little categories like “demisexual” and “heteroromantic”. Such divisions reinforce the idea that rape culture provides truthful depictions of the human sexual experience, and there is nothing more dangerous than that.

bananapeppers:

tuanthecat:

Warning: homophobia

Wish there was more publicity about this stuff, it happens every day. It’s nice to hear the positive voices in there too, but all it takes is one bigot to ruin a day or a life.

So for all the people questioning the Leisha Hailey thing, yeah. A peck on the cheek is all it takes.

Also I’m sick to death of people acting like men occasionally getting turned on by us makes life easy for lesbians, or means we’re “accepted”. My dad does it, my friends do it, I’m sick of it. Being a sex object against my will isn’t my idea of equality, and getting approached by strange men who are turned on by me and think they have a right to take part in my sex life? Is damned terrifying. Homophobia is homophobia, and I’m nobody’s porn.

Sick of being sexually harassed by my father. Sick of being sexually harassed on the street. Sick of people telling my girlfriend and me to unlink our arms. Sick of the constant vigilance required to exist as a couple in public. Sick of our mere visibility being “not family-friendly.” Sick of having to take time to fix the psychological damage every time I hear shit about me, my girlfriend, and our orientation ‘cause it doesn’t stop stinging just because we have chosen to be out and challenge homophobic reactions whenever possible. Sick of people thinking it’s easier for dykes ‘cause we’re fetishized—hey, I still remember the hiking trip where my straight friend’s and my guide said I needed to be careful on hikes because if, hypothetically, he met me while on a solo hike and somehow found out I was queer, he would shoot me and leave me on the trail to die. I trusted our guide to get us up and down the mountain safely, and he just told me he’d easily murder me? (He chose to tell me once we three were alone and deep in the woods, btw.)

My girlfriend and I get accepting responses, too, and I appreciate every single person who gives us a genuine smile or approaches us with something positive. You all stand out to me. Woman in my neighborhood who pumped her fist and said “Legalize!”: I love you. That made my day. Guy in café who talked to us because he was adopted by a loving gay couple: You rock. Thank you for telling us your story. My mother, my sister, and my friends: Thank you.

I don’t want to bypass the positivity, and I’m damned lucky for an out lesbian, but it’s important for straight people to know, and for other queer people to hear reaffirmed, that the, e.g., 50% of the time when we get bullshit unequal treatment in public vs the 50% we do not is still a huge fucking deal. It’s a huge deal to our sense of safety, to our self-worth and self-esteem, to our mental wellbeing in general. It’s a huge deal to the other queer people who witness the way we’re treated and fear for themselves in turn. It’s a huge deal when straight people witness the way we’re treated and (re)learn that targeting queer people for public shaming and harassment is acceptable.

I’ll end with a link to an amazing post explaining that the minutiae of our public affection is a calculated risk ‘cause we’re not stupid but we’re not gonna hide forever, either, and we know a double standard when we experience one: “Kiss this, Southwest”

All this over a kiss