sen.w.love @senwlove - Tumblr Blog

religion is so fucking funny the world is just too beautiful there must be a higher entity behind all this. lets oppress women

senwlove

buddhism going so there's actually no higher cosmic being responsible for your existence because tangible existence itself is an illusion and a constant flux but let's oppress women

lost-my-gender-in-the-war

I need a Batman comic where the villain successfully poisons the water supply, but weeks later there’s still no effect. It turns out that everyone has an insane water filter and only drinks bottled water, because it’s Gotham. The water supply only goes to sprinklers in the suburbs and AI data centers (which blew up, but it’s unclear whether or not it had to do with the water supply because everyone wanted that)

ceruleanheaven

religion is so fucking funny the world is just too beautiful there must be a higher entity behind all this. lets oppress women

I think 4s and 81s are too dismissive of landoscar. I mean I understand not wanting to yaoify every interaction of their driver but your drivers are genuinely a little gay for each other it's not even funny.

#landoscar

l0veyourselfirst

hungary 2026

senwlove

this is a concerning level of gay yearning

l0veyourselfirst

hungary 2026

sillystigmata

sailorsally

my question is WHY is it always QUEER love that should be open to interpretation??? Why is it always queer love that should be AMBIGIOUS??? Why does queer love have to be 'heavenly' and can't just be romantic/sexual???

Why doesn't straight love have to fulfill any of the above demands?????? EVER?

neverkilledanyone

Every time I see the extraordinary care with which academics treat Patrochilles I get a little sad. Like, ofc, in the ACADEMIC world, it is a worthwile endeavor to treat any alleged romantic relationships (especially unspoken ones) with care and skepticism but the same care and skepticism is not excercised nearly as often for heterosexual couples, if ever.

Also, maybe keep that skepticism to the academic world??? When you're teaching history in primary/secondary school, you very rarely have time to delve into all the pro and con arguments for a historical relationship so you need to keep it fairly simple. If a student is very interested they might go on to study it at uni/in their own time (thanks JSTOR) and THEN they'll have time for scholarly debate about a couple.

Until that point, please just let us assume that people were couples bc I'm tiredd of not only having to prove my own queerness but also the queerness of any historical figure who was probably queer in some way but there will always be some proof that they could be straightTM (which is a very modern concept btw)

People need to understand that there is a time and place for academic debate and also for just generalising and making a few (reasonable) assumptions.