Tag: Queer theory

gascon-en-exil:

thirdlittlefox:

gascon-en-exil:

florianesque:

my-diomedeian-compulsion:

schuylering:

AMAZING

It is a well known fact that Latin is the true language of the gays

the real reason i’ve been studying greco-roman culture for so long.

For those times when “le grec” is just too obvious.

But why is it in French?

I would appreciate some citation of the original source, but I do know that Claude Courouve is a scholar who has written on the language of French gay male sexuality. I can’t find any English translations of his work, but if you can read French here’s his book Vocabulaire de l’homosexualité masculine on Amazon, and here’s a more recent online article that extensively references his work. If the author of this citation is using him as a source it’s reasonable that French universities are the primary subject in this passage.

Thanks to @allonym for pointing this out:

The OP cites Male-Male Intimacy in Early America by William Benemann as the source. According to Amazon one of the book’s subjects is “the formation of European gay communities during American colonial times, with an emphasis on Berlin, Paris, and London—with English translations of material previously available only in German or French.” My hypothesis about this passage referring to French universities is therefore still likely to apply.

thirdlittlefox:

gascon-en-exil:

florianesque:

my-diomedeian-compulsion:

schuylering:

AMAZING

It is a well known fact that Latin is the true language of the gays

the real reason i’ve been studying greco-roman culture for so long.

For those times when “le grec” is just too obvious.

But why is it in French?

I would appreciate some citation of the original source, but I do know that Claude Courouve is a scholar who has written on the language of French gay male sexuality. I can’t find any English translations of his work, but if you can read French here’s his book Vocabulaire de l’homosexualité masculine on Amazon, and here’s a more recent online article that extensively references his work. If the author of this citation is using him as a source it’s reasonable that French universities are the primary subject in this passage.

Misusing the Language of Victimhood: Some Thoughts on Bronies

In all honesty this rant is only partially on the subject of bronies, because it’s been building for the past few months as I’ve been exposed to all sorts of low quality media with the same disturbing undercurrents.  These include the documentary Bronies I was just today pestered into watching, recaps of such criminally execrable fiction as the Fifty Shades series and the Hogwarts Exposed fanfiction series, this bizarre instance of online shipping getting involved with the struggle for marriage equality, and even this response of mine to a rant about female anime fans from months ago. However, unsuited as I am to ranting on anything involving social justice – I’m generally too self-centered for that sort of thing – this post would rapidly degenerate into a disorganized mess if I didn’t keep a primary focus, so bronies it is.  I’m also going to try very hard not to get into all the problems of misogyny and sexualization that inevitably result from a periphery demographic of straight men forcibly turning themselves into the voice of a fandom for a TV show aimed at young girls, because I’m well aware that those issues have already been explored by others in much greater depth than I ever could.  

What follows therefore is merely my impression of the brony phenomenon from the documentary, which, incidentally, that may be summed up very succinctly: “This is an awesome show about love and friendship and acceptance – no homo.”

I can’t even claim that as an exaggeration for comedic effect, because I can recall at least four moments during the documentary when an interviewee explains that those opposed to bronies view them as gay and then immediately clarifies that that’s not the case.  In two cases there’s even typically homophobic language used to make this clarification, with one interviewee displaying the curious tendency of certain homophobes to overuse the word “homosexual” in place of “gay,” and another saying that he had to assure his friends that they would not “catch the gay” from My Little Pony.  Indeed, even one of the professional psychologists questioned for the project expresses his apparent surprise that bronies are not creepy sexual deviants but in fact “normal” heterosexual men.  The documentary makes a token effort at representing diversity – one interviewee has Asperger’s, a handful are non-white or non-English-speaking, and female bronies make a few appearances and get directly addressed briefly near the end – but not one single person featured is LGBT.

I don’t doubt that LGBT bronies do in fact exist somewhere, though neither their absence nor the casual homophobia of some of the featured bronies would bother me so much if it weren’t for the way in which many of the interviewees describe their experiences as oppressed and misunderstood victims and go about representing their break from conventional masculinity.  One man from some backwater of the American South explains that his car was vandalized over some MLP decals.  Another from Israel laments that he has been unable to find any other bronies offline and so feels isolated from his community.  Several talk about the awkwardness of having to discuss their interest with their parents and friends – in essence, coming out as bronies.  Brony conventions are a colorful mash-up of creative fanwork, gender-nonconforming cosplay, gestures and references from the show that are mostly incomprehensible to non-fans, and most awkwardly the common use of rainbow iconography.

But experts agree that it is all very heterosexual, of course.

I’m obviously not questioning the sexualities of these bronies, and anything that gets people questioning and discarding some of the negative aspects of conventional masculinity can’t be entirely worthless, but when brony culture borrows liberally from queer experiences and then – apparently without even realizing it, much like the otaku troll I brought up in the opening paragraph – proceeds to dismiss and ignore those same people whatever sympathy I might have had for these people is immediately lost.  The other media mentioned earlier all do the same thing in some fashion; Fifty Shades and Hogwarts Exposed represent their authors’ (painfully distorted) conceptions of BDSM and nudism respectively complete with unbelievable and sometimes highly disturbing denials of homoerotic content, the anime ranter hangs his misogyny on his love for “2D” women and the persecution he and male anime fans like him allegedly experience at the hands of jealous “3D” women, and the fans bringing posters of their OTPs to marriage equality rallies elevate fictional characters to the level of reality while unintentionally trivializing the socio-political realities of the people they claim to be supporting.  

I’m reminded of something I read on my dash a few weeks ago about another controversial/niche lifestyle, veganism, being a privilege rather than a right or an intrinsic identity, because I think the same may be said of BDSM, nudism (the real versions, not the fetishized knock-offs), anime, shipping culture, or especially bronies.  As much as the interviewed bronies love to paint their victimhood in the same colors as the deviant homosexuals that they are most certainly not, I spent most of the documentary with the thought in the back of my head that their love for MLP bears little to no resemblance to my sexuality.  Instead, I’d sooner compare their experiences to my feelings regarding certain sexual fantasies of mine, uncommon ones that I don’t discuss on my blog or even with my lovers because I recognize that they’re somewhat unusual.  While I wouldn’t mind sharing them with a like-minded partner if I had the opportunity, I don’t feel personally unfulfilled or oppressed because I don’t get to talk about them to everyone, and I’m perfectly capable of having enjoyable sex without bringing them up in any way.  Unlike my sexuality, my ethnicity, or my religion, which are all crucial aspects of my identity that help define who I am and how I interact with the world, I can keep my kinks to myself and to those who share in them and not feel at all diminished for it.  That’s how I think that bronies and members of other such subcultures ought to think of themselves.  On the other hand, if they must be victims they at least ought to be inclusive victims, not defining themselves against more marginalized groups even when members of those groups might share their common interests.

As for the show itself?  I know very little about it, and the documentary didn’t go into much detail, but I confess that I really can’t see the appeal of a product with standard children’s show archetypes for characters and commonplace messages.  I sincerely hope that the answer to the question of MLP’s appeal to bronies doesn’t involve porn, though I have the suspicion that it does.  

lyledebeast:

jimintomystery:

Here’s the deal, fandom people.

Laws against same-sex marriage affect actual same-sex couples.  These laws do not affect your favorite same-sex couples involving fictional characters.

The only thing that determines if, for example, Dumbledore can marry Grindelwald is whether JK Rowling feels like jotting it down.  “Dumbledore waved his magic wand,” she could write, “and all the governments of the world suddenly ratified marriage equality, and Harry Potter very much enjoyed the cake at the reception afterwards.”  I realize Rowling would probably not write this, but the power is still hers to exercise, irrespective of real-world laws.

Or, y’know, you could write fanfiction.  I mean, I’m pretty sure Dean and Castiel aren’t even in love on that TV show, but you used fanfic to change that.  You can just as easily strike down DOMA and Prop 8 in your headcanon.  So those guys don’t need the Supreme Court to do shit, they’re already fine.  (Unless Dean is a mer-man in your fanfic and Castiel can’t figure out how to consummate the marriage, then I guess they’re not doing so hot.  But they can still get married.)

The point I’m making is that the rights of fictional characters are somewhat trivial.  So when you make a real-world civil rights issue about those characters, you’re kind of trivializing the issue. 

Take the sign in the first picture above, which essentially makes the following points:

  1. I am a fangirl, which is very important.
  2. My fandom is The New Normal.
  3. My OTPs are Bravid and Klaine.
  4. They are “my gays.”
  5. I would like my gays to be permitted to marry.
  6. Also perhaps other gay people in general, kthx.

That’s the message you send when you bring your fandom with you to a civil rights rally: “I care about my fandom so much that I will talk about my fandom while demonstrating for an issue that would be important to my favorite characters, if they existed.”

Don’t get me wrong.  It’s great that your fandoms have inspired you to campaign for social justice.  But when it comes to how you campaign, maybe you should be asking yourself what your favorite characters would do, instead of telling everyone who your favorite characters are.

How does the phrase “my gays” ever make it from a person’s head to a poster displayed to thousands of people (let alone online). How is this acceptable? How would “Let my women have access to birth control” sound?

Professorfangirl said she’d like to hear how I feel about fandoms (Sherlock, among others) defending slash ships by trying to turn their canonical status into a queer rights issue, and…it’s basically this.  The pics above are an entirely new level of offensive, but any shipping argument that can be reduced to “if you don’t support this ship you’re a homophobe” feels incredibly uncomfortable (doubly so if there are bi, ace and/or other queer options as well, interpretations being completely ignored in the interests of keeping up the illusion of a binary straight vs. gay shipping war).  It’s great if there are multiple interpretations for a character’s sexuality, but slash ships shouldn’t get to automatically occupy a moral/ethical high ground.  The only possible context in which I could see that approach being justified is in arguments in favor of more queer representation, although that’s a not a universal pass because not all representation is positive.

@Lyle: I can’t think of a single context where using “gay” as a noun doesn’t come off as patronizing.  

Nimüe’s Tale by Madeleine E. Robins

bedwyrssong:

I was wondering what some of my followers feel about the portrait of bisexuality in this short story. I read it first when I was closeted and homophobic, and argued that the only reason Nimüe feels attracted to the Lady is that she has a spell cast on her.

Is that true?

And yes, this is an awesome reinterpretation of the King Arthur mythos regardless, and I ship Nimüe and Pelles like none other.

Female sexuality of any kind has often been associated with the supernatural or otherworldly (ex. succubi, most female vampires, mermaids, sirens…I’m also recalling Nina Auerbach’s The Woman and the Demon which explores the juxtaposed angelic and demonic contours of Victorian womanhood, but that would be a big digression).  As far as Arthurian fiction goes I’ve only read a bit by Chrétien de Troyes and Mallory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, and I think Nimüe and the death of Merlin are only briefly touched on in the latter.  At first I thought Robins was going for a deconstruction of the woman-as-temptress/man’s weakness archetype, with Nimüe characterizing Merlin as an unsympathetic pawing sugar daddy, though she seems to renege on that theme later on in the story.

Of course, the “sugar” in this case is magic rather than money, but it really struck me just how much magic acts as a substitute for specific realistic concepts in this story, not only for material gain but for love (both real and feigned), poltical/social power (Merlin and the Lady’s influence at Camelot), medicine (standard for the setting, but still worth noting), and religion (at first I could have sworn from context clues that the Lake House was being depicted as an actual convent and Robins was going to go the sexualized Catholic clergywomen route, but again I was wrong).  Because the very nebulously-defined magic of this tale acts as a stand-in for so much it’s curiously very easy to lose nothing by interpreting all the story’s fantastical elements metaphorically.  Both Nimüe and Pelles are allegedly under the spell of the Lady, but her explicit betrayal of first one then the other explains their disavowal of their affections just as easily as magic.  Similarly, the supposed magic touch of the Lady’s hand reads as the tantalizing grasp of emotional intimacy (or emotional manipulation, as the case may be), and Nimüe killing both Merlin and the Lady via crushing mirrors her rejection of their controlling attempts at intimacy.

The sexual elements of the story that get mixed up with the magical ones are likewise rather fluid.  If Nimüe and Pelles were the only heterosexual relationship explored here I’d probably just call this yet another example of fiction that demonizes homosexual desire and ultimately replaces it with safe and mundane heteronormativity, but Merlin’s designs on Nimüe appear just as manipulative and even more unpleasant than the Lady’s.  Furthermore, Nimüe thinks back fondly on the Lady even after she’s been in Bretagne/Brittany for years, which I think reinforces the idea that her attraction to the Lady is genuine and not the result of magical manipulation.  If anything I’d question the validity of the Nimüe/Pelles dynamic, since their interaction is scarcely more romantic than that between Nimüe and Malla who wins so many points in my book for inserting some lovely Anglo-bashing into the story, and during the climactic scenes Nimüe is jealous of Pelles for being with the Lady, while the inverse doesn’t appear true at all.  I haven’t read anything else involving these two characters that I can recall, but from this story alone I don’t get the sense that their relationship is meant to be all that significant for Nimüe.

Nimüe’s Tale by Madeleine E. Robins

Ancient Athenian Pederasty

exponential63:

renlyslittlerose:

 Occasionally I’ll see posts on tumblr that discuss male same-sex relations in ancient Greece in a very dilute, glossed-over and superficial manner. Usually these posts contain a note of glorification of the practice of same-sex relations, and make the ancient Greeks sound like the perfect, most accepting, beautiful groups of peoples in the world at this time, and how we’ve just reverted in our way of thinking.

 And that’s just plain bullshit.

 Sometimes I reply to them, other times I ignore it, but today I figured I’d write up a quick little thing on how male same-sex relations really worked in ancient Athens. I’ve picked the city-state of Athens for a variety of reasons (ancient Greece as we know it today did not exist in the ancient world— rather, Greece was comprised of a variety of city-states that, depending on their mood, either got along great or wanted to destroy one another). First off, Athens probably as the most well known form of institutionalized male same-sex relations of all the city-states, because the Athenians, bless their little hearts, really loved to talk about themselves. They wrote things down, they kept documents and files, and we still have those documents in which to look back on to get a fairly substantial idea of how things worked. Places like Sparta did not keep records like the Athenians, and indeed, the only works we have at the time on Sparta were written by an Athenian named Xenophon.

 As well, Athens is a city that most people, even with a basic understanding of Greek history, knows about. It’s the place where everything was happening, and it was the place that really, really, really valued male same-sex relations.

 And, to keep things easy and nice and neat, we’re gonna do this in point form! Because point-form is loads of fun and gets more attention than a long-winded block of text.

Read More

Fascinating and informative.

‘It was believed that true, spiritual love of a woman was not possible, for women were incapable of higher forms of thinking’: Clive Durham, anyone?

I believe it was Graham Robb who described classical pederasty currently existing in two forms: as it was actually practiced in ancient Greece as described by the OP and as it was (mis)understood by early modern gay intellectuals seeking validation in the works of venerated classical writers.  Their interpretations are almost certainly more direct contributors to any rosy idealizations of Greek love, real or fictional.

And for what it’s worth, they probably contribute more to the contemporary expressions of pederasty, daddy/son relationships as well as the twink aesthetic (both as a form of delayed adolescence and as a way of sidestepping age of consent laws).  The difference is that it’s no longer the only widely-recognized model of same-sex relationships, and greater variety within the gay community means we’re able to step outside the boundaries of Greek ideals – real or interpreted – fairly easily.

Interview Responses for Downton-Gabby

Under the cut are responses to some questions by Downton-Gabby for her research paper on queer representation, because I forgot how restrictive Tumblr’s mail system can be.  (Also, if you’re a member of the queer community you can send her an ask if you want to contribute too)

1. What are people’s reactions when you first come out to them as gay?

I’ve had a willowy build and unusually youthful appearance since early childhood, which, when coupled with a few conventionally feminine interests, meant that coming out wasn’t a very difficult process for me – most of my relatives, friends, and classmates just assumed that I was gay, and even though I technically came out at 20 it didn’t affect much.  Quite a few have expressed dissatisfaction, disgust, or some other negative response to my sexuality – New Orleans, perpetually drunk and socially libertine though it may be, is still surrounded by the conservative prejudices of the Anglo-American South after all – but they were doing so in some cases even before I hit puberty.  Nowadays I rarely bother to tell anyone, though as the majority of my social interaction now is with gay/bi men it hardly matters.

2.  Do people tend to have misconceptions about you because of your sexual orientation, and if so, what are they?

It’s a bit strange to entirely separate how people treat me for sexuality and how they treat me for my ethnicity (because the French have been characterized in the English-speaking world as vain and effete for probably close to a millenium), and it doesn’t help that I do legitimately have a few of the stereotypical interests of campy gay men: ballet and musical theater, wine, martinis, and fruity cocktails, and an utter shamelessness when it comes to discussing anything related to my sex life.  I’m also legitimately physically frail and have adopted a faux-childlike disposition that (when done within reason) pairs well with the twink aesthetic.  I like to think of such things as being responsible for my own characterization, which for me comes most into play not with straight people but with other gay/bi men on hookup apps.  I identify as a twink but not as femme (in this context, a usually-derogatory term for an effeminate gay man), not because it would insult me but because I really don’t think I’m feminine-acting enough to quality for the designation and I know there are men who like that sort of thing, assume it of me because I’m a twink (and/or because I’m French), and would be disappointed if they met me.

I will say that, to me, the single most annoying general misconception about gay/queer people is that we can’t be religious.  I am strongly Catholic and consider it to be an integral part of my culture (and, to make a long story very short, one of the few remaining cultural markers for Francophones in Louisiana that Anglo-Americans haven’t completely stripped from us or turned into a kitschy tourist attraction), and even though I’m casually irreverent much of the time that has nothing to do with my sexuality and everything to do with the French national approach to the religion.

3.  Do you think that people who have less knowledge of the queer community tend to have more misconceptions about you and other homosexuals?

Eh, I’m not so sure about that.  I know the old adage about prejudice being based on ignorance and how just meeting people of a marginalized group can discourage bigoted attitudes, but then I also live in the American South, home of possibly the most unapologetically anti-black racists on the planet despite the fact that white Southerners have been living alongside African-Americans for centuries.  In terms of media representation, I think the kind of knowledge being imparted matters significantly; it has to be something that defies stereotypes and other forms of culturally normalized prejudice.  

I highly doubt you’ll be mentioning Downton Abbey in your paper, but since you’re obviously a fan of the show I can use Thomas as an example.  He has many fans and much fanfiction and meta written about him all over Tumblr and other sites, but I get the distinct impression that most Thomas fans are either queer or were queer allies before they ever saw the show.  That’s because, despite somewhat frequent moments of sympathy (some of which are not immediately obvious), Thomas comes too close to the gay villain archetype, and even more problematically Fellowes has him using his sexuality as a justification for why he thinks and behaves so antagonistically much of the time.  The show does such a poor job of providing its audience with concrete evidence of how Thomas is legally and socially oppressed in his environment, and displays very little explicit homophobia from its characters even during the scandal with kissing Jimmy in S3, that I don’t think it really would inform anyone who wasn’t already predisposed to reading him sympathetically.  Using fiction to impart knowledge about marginalized groups is a delicate process, and then it’s an often thankless one given that there will always be those who simply shrug and carry on with their hatred and oppression according to their own personal rationalizations.

As a queer, you read into texts. You hope that something is gay. Like you hope someone is. Scrutinizing for signs and signals. You read too much into things. And so, you take something you love and you read gay romance and subtext into it. And it’s not there enough—you simply read some more in. Rewrite it.

“The Monster Queer Is Camp” by Paul Magrs in Queers Dig Time Lords. (via fuckyeahlesbianliterature)

I hate when people call this ‘childish’. As if we should shut up and get used to stories not being about ‘people like us’.

(via camaelczarka)

Or, alternatively, when homoerotic readings of male characters in media are attributed solely to the delusional ravings of horny straight women (and strangely one rarely hears criticism of straight men fetishizing lesbians…double-teaming misogyny and homophobia, yay!), because acknowledging that queer people consume and critique fiction would just make everyone uncomfortable.

amielleon:

moniquill:

thegestianpoet:

itfeelssowrite:

thegestianpoet:

i demand more period pieces about gays with happy endings. all kinds of queers actually. if you honestly expect me to believe people in period movies have clear skin and nice teeth and shaved armpits then you can also let me believe two queer people can happily settle down together. give me happy queer historical fiction or give me death 

But. Historical fiction. But. But historically … are you telling me you want to pretend like … I can’t right now. Aesthetic changes are on a completely different level than how LGBTQ members of society were treated throughout history.

Ugh.

ok so can we consider lesbian sex an aesthetic change because that’s one i’m willing to root for 

Yes, because as we all know, if oppression exists NO ONE CAN EVER BE HAPPY EVER. It can never, ever turn out ok. None of the women incolved in Boston Marriages ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_marriage) were ever actually having sex. History is utterly devoid of ‘Maiden aunts who lived all their lives with their school chums’ quietly happily existing as members of their communities. None of the ‘confirmed bachelors’ of history were actually gay couples. There have never been any other cultures on earth in all of history that code queerness in any way other than with pitchforks and torches, and don’t even get me STARTED on trans or nonbinary folks! Every single period piece with queer characters MUST end in tragedy and horror, right? Every single one. ESPECIALLY lesbians. We wouldn’t want people to have representation or hope or anything like that.

Personally I think it says something that when we think of historical fiction, we instantly think of mainstream culture in prominent Western civilizations.

Honestly, you don’t even need to go to unusual cultures in time and space. People have often found little groups to bond with, even if an undercurrent of hostility exists in the background.

Reblogging because I know many of my followers are interested in the argument for queer happy endings in period fiction.  I also found this long research/conversation post by the Thommy fandom from a while back that’s pretty relevant here.