ribs shrink & tangle

[sheikahfication]

I feel like I’m cosplaying a white man every time I say something or think about playing Fallout New Vegas

[3000s]

tumblr giveaway

reblog to win one of that

[pythiaswine]

i really do believe that heterosexual historians who never did any critical gender/sex studies in their lives could never, ever understand that people WILL be gay regardless of risk. having intimate relationships with people of the same gender is an imperative to happiness for people who cannot love the opposite sex. people everywhere in history had sexual relations that would potentially ruin their lives (eg extramarital/premarital) but often we don't know about it because people don't normally leave damning evidence of their actions — they do, however, leave evidence that implies intimacy (leave evidence of their very existence) with plausible deniability.

but why when it's a gay person, all of a sudden it's unrealistic that two people could have been intimate because it would have been dangerous or like, some other bullshit excuse (Ronald "too cold in valley forge" "no time for it" Chernow, i'm looking at you).

because why is physical intimacy only extraneous, a time-waster, an unnecessary and implausible dalliance only when it's gay?

thinking about this a lot lately as I'm establishing myself more as a queer historian, and realizing through my undergrad that queer history remains under-studied because it is not taken seriously, and implications of queerness throughout history have been brushed off by historians (and whatever chernow is) who seem to have authority on a topic/person but do not make an honest effort to understand queer experiences in history, often because they simply do not SEE it.

anyway, realizing it's valid to want to focus on queer history and write about queer people during my master's is healing. also, realizing i do have authority to critique historians and other academics. not only is it a part of discourse and learning, but it is right to question traditional ways of thinking and interacting with people in history that are outdated and harmful.

[alexzquill]

I think you are entirely right. The norms have been set in stone for decades by historians that can't even grasp the concept of 2 people of the same gender loving each other before the 2010s. To deny the mere possibility is quite frankly - in my opinion at least - historical dishonesty. There is nothing that genuinely, concretely denies that hypothesis apart from underlying homophobia and the very real lack of understanding of how queer people lived before queerness was finally more or less accepted.

Queerness could only exist behind closed doors so obviously the only traces we'd have would be letters between two individuals who probably never thought said letters would be read and the fact that so many historians go against that hypothesis based on the "risks" baffles me. It completely disregards the endless ways queer people have always found to communicate and be together: codes with flowers, with handkerchiefs, with shoelaces; moments behind closed doors where no one could see. And the point you bring up of adultery is so so true. If women were willing to take the risk of cheating on their husbands, two queer people could be willing to take the risk too.

Imo, the idea that the game is not worth the candle basically is genuinely a critical lack of understanding of what queerness is and means as an identity. There are still people TODAY who live in countries that would do to them what was done to queer people in the 19th century: beatings, humiliation, death, and they still take the risk. It's infuriating to think that so many historians think of these suggestions as illogical on the mere basis of their own narrow-minded assumptions.

I sincerely hope that our newer generation of historians, whether queer or not, will be more open about queerness of the past.

[pythiaswine]

Imo, the idea that the game is not worth the candle basically is genuinely a critical lack of understanding of what queerness is and means as an identity.

^^^ THAT RIGHT THERE!!!!!!

[gardening--tools]

oh! the Black lead is annoying and insufferable and u want him to die? but you like the other two (white) leads just fine? oh the Black woman who's made morally questionable or evil decisions is irredeemable and no matter what new information you learn there's just "something off about her"? but the white woman who's made morally questionable or evil decisions is understandable or even just yass evil girl boss moment slay? three page essay due on my desk monday explaining why. with citations. the rest of the class and i are dying to hear your analysis.

[pythiaswine]

i really do believe that heterosexual historians who never did any critical gender/sex studies in their lives could never, ever understand that people WILL be gay regardless of risk. having intimate relationships with people of the same gender is an imperative to happiness for people who cannot love the opposite sex. people everywhere in history had sexual relations that would potentially ruin their lives (eg extramarital/premarital) but often we don't know about it because people don't normally leave damning evidence of their actions — they do, however, leave evidence that implies intimacy (leave evidence of their very existence) with plausible deniability.

but why when it's a gay person, all of a sudden it's unrealistic that two people could have been intimate because it would have been dangerous or like, some other bullshit excuse (Ronald "too cold in valley forge" "no time for it" Chernow, i'm looking at you).

because why is physical intimacy only extraneous, a time-waster, an unnecessary and implausible dalliance only when it's gay?

thinking about this a lot lately as I'm establishing myself more as a queer historian, and realizing through my undergrad that queer history remains under-studied because it is not taken seriously, and implications of queerness throughout history have been brushed off by historians (and whatever chernow is) who seem to have authority on a topic/person but do not make an honest effort to understand queer experiences in history, often because they simply do not SEE it.

anyway, realizing it's valid to want to focus on queer history and write about queer people during my master's is healing. also, realizing i do have authority to critique historians and other academics. not only is it a part of discourse and learning, but it is right to question traditional ways of thinking and interacting with people in history that are outdated and harmful.

[thesituation]

my stance on the trans athlete debate is always and forever going to be that sports should be completely desegregated because humans have one of the smallest levels of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom and the disparity we see between male and female performance is entirely caused by social factors rather than anything biological. “should trans women compete against cis women” i think cis men and cis women could compete fairly but that’s apparently a little too spicy for people to wrap their minds around bc they’ve been told their whole lives women are biologically inferior & never thought to question that. or wonder if it’s maybe a self fulfilling prophecy of some kind. are women biologically inferior or do they appear so because patriarchy demands that of us?

[willgrahamscock]

you really have to wonder why is ai so widely accessible when all our lives we’ve been told nothing in life is free

[willgrahamscock]

disabled people have to live below the poverty line to have access to things that give them independence, but ai is largely free and marketed as a tool to make life easier for everyone, it’s a therapist, it’s a partner, it’s an ‘art’ tool it’s getting people degrees in school… and then you read the studies where they’re proving ai is causing severe cognitive decline and it all makes sense, that’s exactly the type of people that can be controlled en masse, people that cannot think without being spoon fed information

[willgrahamscock]

we are seeing this in every day life, “it’s not that deep” no because you are incapable of thinking about it that deep because chatgpt can spit out anything for you In seconds, media literacy is at an all time low, tv shows are made with a formula that assumes you’ll be doing another task while you have it on, and this is all on purpose, why do you think short form content is pushed on every platform when it’s also been proven that it fucks with the way our brain works, we’re being trained to not to think, to not resist

[willgrahamscock]

[judgejudyofficial]

good morning it's don't crash out Thursday where we try our hardest not to crash out. on Thursday

[thekenobee]

This is how your email finds me:

[lyriumrain]

Another wonderfull secret

[theoptia]

Rainer Maria Rilke, from Rilke and Andreas-Salomé: A Love Story in Letters

Text ID: I’ve never seen you without wanting to pray to you. I’ve never heard you without wanting to place my faith in you. I’ve never longed for you without wanting to suffer for your sake. I’ve never desired you without wanting to be able to kneel before you.

[junegoose]

Hot take but I don’t actually think Carol Sturka is a mean lesbian. She’s not mean. Yeah she pokes fun at her fans in private but she also keeps their fanmail and spends hours with them at signings. Yeah she complains to Helen a lot, but she still goes on their weird vacations and deeply values Helen’s opinions. All of Carol’s “meanness” would be called bluntness or humor or righteous indignation if she was a man. Why do people talk about her like she’s catty. Why are people perpetuating the idea that a woman being honest about her anger is mean

[warningsine]

[technoturian]

Inspired by this post.

[toomanyvocals]

VINCE GILLIGAN: I hate AI. (Variety; Deadline)

[mariacallous]

[flintandpyrite]

Here are the 2024 vaccine recommendation schedules. They’ve already been wiped from the cdc site. Save them and share widely, especially to your friends with kids.

[twixie-forever]