Vaingloriously Not in the Same Vein

Bravo, Direct TV.

This is an excellent no-biggie-we’re-gay ad and I LOVE IT BECAUSE IT’S ABOUT FOOTBALL.

Hey white feminists and white LGBT people who have suddenly felt the need to praise Joan Rivers now that she’s dead

I’m just saying

Unless you can include championing for the rights of LGBT people of color and women of color in the story of an “activist’s” life, unless you can unequivocally say “oh hey, they weren’t bigoted when it came to other groups which can be included in this large group” then I’m sorry.

The person you’re describing is not actually an activist.

Considering the sheer amount of racial slurs and violence that Joan Rivers perpetuated or advocated, I can’t believe you’re able to talk about how progressive and amazing she was, just because she’s dead now and for some reason you don’t wanna talk ill of the dead, despite the fact that while she was alive, Joan Rivers seemed to like doing that a helluva lot.

On Bisexuality, Pansexuality, Polyamory, and Why Erasing All Three Identities in An Attempt to Become more Accepted is actually a Dick Move

So actually.

It’s super bullshit that bi people have to say “no I don’t date multiple people” or “no I don’t need a boyfriend AND a girlfriend” or whatever to justify their sexuality and always reiterate the fact that they’re “not greedy.”

because actually hey, guess what,  bisexual/pansexual polyamorous people DO exist and the fact that they have partners of different genders doesn’t make them horrible human beings, or somehow “invalidate” their sexual identity in ANY way. 

And ACTUALLY, I’m very tired of “all bi ppl are slutty” as a stereotype being rebutted by “oh hey actually bi people are in committed monogamous relationships” examples because that’s not actually helpful at all.

In fact, what you’re ACTUALLY doing is what the mainstream Gay Marriage/Gay Rights Movement has been doing for about the past ten years now. You’re erasing the more “objectionable” identities of the queer community in an attempt to appeal to mainstream, suburban, upper middle class (white), Christian America. 

And ACTUALLY…That’s bullshit.

Because here’s the thing—shitting on bisexual/pansexual ppl who have multiple partners, who identify as polyamorous is still limiting your view on what types of sexuality are “acceptable.” 

Look, it’s true—there are bisexual/pansexual people who ARE monogamous, who ARE comfortable with just one partner. It’s stupid to say that all bisexual/pansexual people are incapable of monogamy.  And I’m not saying that there’s a certain degree of passing privilege attached to being bi/pan, because there definitely is. 

But it’s just as stupid to erase those people who identify as polyamorous and also bisexual/pansexual. 

But honestly, unless you’re thinking about dating those people, or in a relationship with those people…it’s really not your problem. 

And this isn’t just straight people, either.

I’m looking at you, “gold star lesbians,” who shit on the existence of bi/pan women. I’m looking at you, gay men, who look at bi/pan men as simply “in denial.” I’m looking at the gay/lesbian community who still continue to judge and refuse to accept bi/pan identities within the sphere of “acceptable sexuality.” 

Why the fuck do you think you’re entitled to declare the ethics of somebody’s sex life if you’re not actually having sex with them, or romantically involved with them? 

And PS: doesn’t that actually sound super uncomfortably familiar? 

you know you’re high femme when you keep lipstick by your bedside just in case you’re struck with a mad urge to take a selfie.

you know you’re high femme when you keep lipstick by your bedside just in case you’re struck with a mad urge to take a selfie.

So like a message that I get a lot is “OH MY GOD THANK YOU ANOTHER QUEER ASIAN WOMAN ON TUMBLR!”

So yeah.

Queer Asian ladies.

Reblog this so people know where you’re at. 

Ok but what if mermaids didn’t just live in liquid bodies of water.

What if there were mermaids who lived in thunder clouds and lured air plane pilots to their doom

What if Amelia Earhart was just seduced by a tropical storm mermaid and they’re living happily together in some seasonal monsoon system somewhere above the Bermuda Triangle

you know a femme queer girl is serious about getting laid when she cuts her manicure off.

So once upon a time me and my college bestie were roommates together and we were part of this rather large group of queer people that was all friends and met weekly for the Lambda Alliance meetings and one night in like the Spring it was raining super hard and all of us decided to go out dancing in the deluge that is south eastern virginia thunderstorms and then somehow we ended up playing truth or dare in utterly soaked clothes and our underwear and there was a boy who had pink hair who was rather attractive like everybody agreed even tho I was like “alright, sort of meh, but no probs” and like he was the most attractive person there to me because I just knew everybody too well and like he ended up sleeping in our dorm room and in my bed since I didn’t have to get up and long story short I ended up sort of falling into a hookup situation because I was horny or whatever and he was clearly into but I was just like not and afterwards he was awkwardly like “So what is this” and I was like literally “SO WHAT IS WHAT” because I just did not understand his assumption that I would want more and after reassuring him that I had absolutely no romantic feelings for him, two hours later, I turned to my bestie and was like “wow that boy was overrated” and she was like “yeah but I like him, like I’m into him” and I was like “OH MY SHIT OH MY SHIT REALLY I AM SO SO SO SORRY” and like moral of the story it could have been a real friendship-breaking gossip girl meets the L-word moment but it actually wasn’t because we both acknowledged the need to communicate, then partied it up afterwards, and the pink haired boy ended up dating my gay manfriend bestie and now we look back upon those days and laugh our asses off because wow pink haired boy’s dick really wasn’t that great, it was just that he was a new person into the queer crowd and basically I am still besties with the roomie because true friendship means you don’t like pink-haired queer boys get in the way of honesty and and caring for each other. 


The first time 
I actually believed I was beautiful
Was when,
at age 20

A trans friend of mine 
Surveyed my Asian eyes 
Looking accusatorially at my reflection
Staring at my protruding tummy
Stretching and poking at my skin
As I wondered out loud whether
I could wear a midriff baring top
Because I didn’t have “that typical skinny Asian schoolgirl figure”

And she whispered to me
Her eyes meeting mine in the mirror
"I would kill to have a body like yours.”

And I looked up at her tall, strong body
And her lovely, wispy ginger curls 
And with a Jolt of electric epiphany
I realized that 
Society had told her 
(The exact opposite of me)
What Society had told me 
(The exact opposite of her)

That we were both
The very definition of 

But maybe 
Could it be?
We actually had the power
To define ourselves 
…as beautiful 

And my heart broke
For the both of us
Bleeding invisibly under our skins 
Living our whole lives 
Being told to ignore
The glorious pleasure of
Our own beauties 

Stop making young queer people agonize by asking them the question “ARE YOU SURE IT’S NOT JUST A PHASE?”

Because here’s the thing.


Labels like “lesbian” or “queer” or “gay” or “bisexual” etc. are there to help identify a person’s desires and needs as they wish to express them to OTHER PEOPLE AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME.

In fact, there are many people who assumed that they were heterosexual, but later in life, found love with same sex partners. But of course, nobody says THEIR STRAIGHTNESS was “just a phase.”

"Just a phase" implies that sexual orientation is cut and dried, always and forever, a label you have to stick by and always identify with, or else. Which is just silly. Sexual orientation is a label. An identifier. Sexuality can change, and often times it does.  "Just a phase" also implies that queerness is generally temporary, especially when followed by "what if you want children?" (a question that is also very silly, especially in this modern medical era!)

So really, it doesn’t matter if maybe right now a person identifies as “bisexual” or as “homosexual” or “gay” or “lesbian,” but might feel differently later.  These are terms that are perfectly valid when applied to simply one’s present orientation, and whether or not these labels might change in the future is a moot point. Predicting the future is generally really hard. If a young person is coming out and coming to terms with queerness and their own complicated feelings re: sexuality, the least you could do is react in a way that doesn’t imply that sexuality is something that needs to be proven with age, time, and maturity.  

We inundate our children with tales of heterosexual romance, images and stories featuring charming princess and princesses, barbie and ken, and “that just means he/she likes you.”If a young child’s affections for another (different gender) child are considered “cute,” “romantic,” and “valid,” a young person’s take on their own sexuality, queer or otherwise, is equally valid. 

Sexuality, like many other personal identifiers, is something that can only be quantified by the person who is choosing to be labeled and identified as such.*  


*This post, of course, discounts people who co-opt terms like “queer” and “lesbian” in a disrespectful way to mean something or apply to something it shouldn’t. Ex: straight, cis men who say that they are “really lesbians” in order to get in queer women’s pants