I'm awkward but I think nice too. Ask me fun things if you want. Stay classy.

negeensadeghi:

negeensadeghi:

This fedora-wearing, hypermasculine white hetero cismale will not stop talking to me no matter how many times I have literally said I DO NOT WANT TO HANG OUT WITH YOU and NO I DO NOT OWE YOU MY TIME and STOP GUILT TRIPPING ME INTO TALKING TO YOU and STOP USING MY BEING A “PUBLIC FIGURE” AS A MEANS TO GET ME TO TALK TO YOU and I DONT FIND YOU THE LEAST BIT ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY DONT LISTEN TO ANYTHING I SAY.

NO MEANS NO.

BRB PUNCHING MYSELF REPEATEDLY IN THE FUCKING FACE. STOP TALKING TO ME. I IGNORE YOU BECAUSE I HAVE TO. STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP.

Send this to him:

Sep 21st at 1AM / via: negeensadeghi / op: negeensadeghi / tagged: gif. blood. violence. murder. / reblog / 9 notes
Zdzislaw Beksinski

View in High Quality →

Zdzislaw Beksinski

Sep 20th at 9PM / tagged: art. zdzislaw beksinski. horror. / reblog / 7 notes

dannyrandy:

essentialisinvisible:

I get the want to have bisexual role models and figures in society. I truly do but like when you label historical figures as bisexual just because they had relationships with men and women, you are helping take away the agency of those people in the past and many people currently. You can be…

"The only way you can label someone bisexual is if they call themselves bisexual from their own lips."

STFU forever

What’s your point though? lol

Sep 20th at 8PM / via: dannyrandy / op: essentialisinvisible / reblog / 202 notes

erynn-lafae:

Bisexual History: or how dare we describe historical figures as bisexual since … well … many didn’t speak English so they never used that word

bisexual-community:

the-curious-bisexual:

essentialisinvisible:

I get the want to have bisexual role models and figures in society. I truly do but like when you label historical figures as bisexual just because they had relationships with men and women, you are helping take away the agency of those people in the past and many people currently. You can be straight or gay and had relationships with other genders. Sexuality is fluid. It doesn’t make you bisexual to have been in relationships with men and women but if you want to identify as bi you can. This applies to historical figures as well. The only way you can label someone bisexual is if they call themselves bisexual from their own lips. Anything else and you are mislabeling people and erasing their identities, which we as bi people know all too well so please stop doing that.

But it’s not like many historical figures went round saying they were straight or gay either - so surely putting any sexuality label on a person who lived before these labels existed is mislabelling? I’m just not sure why it’s only mislabelling when we choose to label as bisexual people who clearly had attractions to more than one gender.

Also fluid sexuality is just an experience that some people have, it’s not true of everyone or an experience unique to people who could be called bisexual.

While it’s true that say Julius Caesar — a well know historic figure who carried on so much & so publicly that Gaius Scribonius Curio, another Roman consul referred to him as "every woman’s man and every man’s woman" (see Suetonius “The Lives of the First Twelve Caesars) - did not dash about referring to himself as "bisexual", it is equally true that the primary reason for this is because that famous general did not actually live in the 21st Century nor did he speak the Queen’s English.

And may we be so bold as to point out that the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas did not actually refer to themselves as First Nations, Native Americans or AmerIndians. And frankly until sometime in the 10th Century AD no one on “this sceptred isle” called any "blessed plot" of it England either.

However it must be said that one does not frequently hear people incessantly whining that to refer to any of these latter things is ahistorical. It is merely taken as a given, that it is a convenient way to describe various common things so a modern audience might have a clue as to what you are referring to.

Since the very definition of bisexual/biromantic is those who have the ability to have a physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to other people of various sexes and/or gender identities — as oposed to monosexuals (gay, straight or lesbian) whose attractions are only to those of a single sex and/or gender identity - it seems a bit unclear how you would want historical people who are clearly by their behavior "bisexual" to be described.

And further since sexual fluidity is simply an interesting biological "thing" found in all homosapiens and indeed probably in a great deal of the animal kingdom, but it is only something that is readily apparent in humans (who can discuss it) who are bisexual (because it can sometimes cause some people to wander back and forth across an artificial construct called the gender-line), what all does that have to do with anything, historic or otherwise? 

Or is the actual issue (as is frequently the case) that people would just as soon skip the entire subject and we can all go on pretending that everyone everywhere is all just biologically rock-solid stable cisgender and heteronormative

From the perspective of someone involved in queer historical research, this is a really fascinating issue, and one that is addressed in different ways by different researchers.  Here’s my two cents:

First, I don’t know enough about the study of indigenous peoples to reflect accurately about why there isn’t a heated debate about labels and their historical accuracy in that area of historical research.  I don’t even know enough to say for sure that there isn’t a debate!  It may very well be being discussed and simply not be a discussion that’s made it out of the academic circles and into public consciousness.

But, when it comes to sexuality, the concept of these sexualities is so new!  Even heterosexual did not become a identity until the late 1800s/early 1900s.  The way people defined their sexuality had far more to do with the acts and roles they took on than the gender of people they did them with  (at least, in the Western world in the 3-5 centuries proceeding the 1900s).  Because the people living in those times did not think of themselves in the ways that we do when we talk about gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, etc., many historians choose to talk about these people with other words, to better retain, reflect, and remain honest to the times they are discussing.

So, for instance, a man who slept with men may not be labeled “gay” in the article a historian writes, but rather described something more like a man who slept with men, or a man with same-sex behaviors, or with a word from the time period (like: fairy, queer, wolf, punk, trade, etc (if they had a label in that time & place)).

This is a new and expanding area of historical research, writing the diversity of our sexualities back into our history books.  We just have to be careful how we label these historical figures and communities, because they do NOT have the same way of thinking about themselves or their identity as we do now, and so the modern labels we use in the LGBTQ+ community often do not fit.  This should also be true for “straight” historical figures, however unfortunately we don’t discuss “straight” historical figure’s sexualities with as many labels we we discuss “queer” sexualities because heteronormativity still says straight is the norm, so it doesn’t need labeled.

That doesn’t mean we don’t want to talk about the bisexual behaviors of historical figures and to emphasize the fluidity and diversity of human sexuality throughout history, it just means we are conscious of how the words we use shape the assumptions we bring to our reading.  

Bisexual now means a romantic/sexual attraction to people of the same and other gender.  It often is tied in with ideas about coming out and a community.  It is considered to be a central part of a person, something they are born with and cannot change.  Not all historical figures or times had that understanding of what their “bisexual” behaviors/desires meant.

If the modern word bisexual and it’s meanings do not fit the time or the person, it is typically considered best historical practice to find a more suitable label to describe the person/group/act that is being discussed so that our discussion can be as true to the time as it’s possible for us to be.

If, as you pointed out, the audience of the article/book wont understand or be comfortable with any label other than a modern LGBTQ+ term, an author may put a disclaimer in the introduction of the book/article saying that they are using the term “bisexual” to mean _____ and not ___.  This is far more common in the histories written for a general audience than an academic readership.

My suggestion is to just describe the sex lives of historical figures when talking about queer history. I think that is more accurate than labeling them with Western, modern labels and more direct even. By the way, this is great commentary. 

Sep 20th at 8PM / via: erynn-lafae / op: essentialisinvisible / reblog / 202 notes

bisexual-community:

Bisexual History: or how dare we describe historical figures as bisexual since … well … many didn’t speak English so they never used that word

the-curious-bisexual:

essentialisinvisible:

I get the want to have bisexual role models and figures in society. I truly do but like when you label historical figures as bisexual just because they had relationships with men and women, you are helping take away the agency of those people in the past and many people currently. You can be straight or gay and had relationships with other genders. Sexuality is fluid. It doesn’t make you bisexual to have been in relationships with men and women but if you want to identify as bi you can. This applies to historical figures as well. The only way you can label someone bisexual is if they call themselves bisexual from their own lips. Anything else and you are mislabeling people and erasing their identities, which we as bi people know all too well so please stop doing that.

But it’s not like many historical figures went round saying they were straight or gay either - so surely putting any sexuality label on a person who lived before these labels existed is mislabelling? I’m just not sure why it’s only mislabelling when we choose to label as bisexual people who clearly had attractions to more than one gender.

Also fluid sexuality is just an experience that some people have, it’s not true of everyone or an experience unique to people who could be called bisexual.

While it’s true that say Julius Caesar — a well know historic figure who carried on so much & so publicly that Gaius Scribonius Curio, another Roman consul referred to him as "every woman’s man and every man’s woman" (see Suetonius “The Lives of the First Twelve Caesars) - did not dash about referring to himself as "bisexual", it is equally true that the primary reason for this is because that famous general did not actually live in the 21st Century nor did he speak the Queen’s English.

And may we be so bold as to point out that the aboriginal inhabitants of the Americas did not actually refer to themselves as First Nations, Native Americans or AmerIndians. And frankly until sometime in the 10th Century AD no one on “this sceptred isle” called any "blessed plot" of it England either.

However it must be said that one does not frequently hear people incessantly whining that to refer to any of these latter things is ahistorical. It is merely taken as a given, that it is a convenient way to describe various common things so a modern audience might have a clue as to what you are referring to.

Since the very definition of bisexual/biromantic is those who have the ability to have a physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction to other people of various sexes and/or gender identities — as oposed to monosexuals (gay, straight or lesbian) whose attractions are only to those of a single sex and/or gender identity - it seems a bit unclear how you would want historical people who are clearly by their behavior "bisexual" to be described.

And further since sexual fluidity is simply an interesting biological "thing" found in all homosapiens and indeed probably in a great deal of the animal kingdom, but it is only something that is readily apparent in humans (who can discuss it) who are bisexual (because it can sometimes cause some people to wander back and forth across an artificial construct called the gender-line), what all does that have to do with anything, historic or otherwise? 

Or is the actual issue (as is frequently the case) that people would just as soon skip the entire subject and we can all go on pretending that everyone everywhere is all just biologically rock-solid stable cisgender and heteronormative

For most of human history people have had sex and relationships with people of more than one gender. Julius Caesar’s actions were not surprising because of the people he was having sex with but  probably the number of people he was having sex with. Queer historians look at stuff like that all the time then label those people and relationships as gay. That is not cool either but it does its job in showing what we describe as homosexual behavior has been going on for centuries. I see bisexuals doing very similar things with historical figures and those people tell the stories of historical figures who we as bisexuals can relate to. It works to dispel the myth of heteronormativity which I think is good. Even so, labeling someone as bisexual even historically does not allow for the variety of sexual identities and sexual behaviors throughout history. It also perpetuates the idea that sexuality as socially constructed by late 1800’s/early 1900’s sexologists and psychologists is valid and real throughout all of time. I think we can celebrate the sexual diversity of people in history without labeling them and just describing their relationships and how they loved. Those acts of love and sex done without shame to people of any gender throughout time help smash cisnormativity and heteronormativity now just by us knowing them. My suggestion is not to ignore the sexual behaviors and relationships so cisnormativity and heteronormativity persist but to examine them more deeply so those thingscan be smashed even more.

Satan talks to Sin and Death by Gustave Dore

View in High Quality →

Satan talks to Sin and Death by Gustave Dore

Sep 20th at 7PM / tagged: art. gustave dore. paradise lost. / reblog / 2 notes