@queerquaintrelle / queerquaintrelle.tumblr.com
Pinned
❝A symbol, freak of nature. Something loved, something despised all of those things. I tell you I can’t give it up and quite frankly I am not in the least afraid.❞
Follows back from: meerawrites.
❝l’art pour l’art.❞
PEDRO PASCAL
Sundance Film Festival 2024 // "Freaky Tales" premiere in Oakland, California, 2025
People say they want weird, but then use "weirdo" and "weird" as insults/to describe bad things and "normal" as a compliment/to describe good things.
People say they want weird, but then have the most strict Puritan mindset about art and fictional things.
People say they want weird, but then call actually weird things "cringe" or immoral.
People say they want weird, but they really don't. They want the most tame, mainstream, and socially acceptable "weird" so they can call themselves "weird" and look Different™.
I need to buy drinks with him and discuss the pathetic meows meows.
I for one think Anne Rice did not like Gabrielle because of trauma related to gender identity/dysphoria, patriarchy, New Orleans Irish (Roman) Catholicism, parental trauma and she said repeatedly how Lestat is the man she would want to be and Gabrielle says something to Lestat - excuse how Freudian and 18th century-ish it is, you are my male part/self. He is right and should say it
(Source).
I’m reading Anne Rice's “Twenty-Six Years With my Beloved Immortals” essay on my lunch break, and it’s feeding me better than my actual lunch. Especially The Vampire Armand part, I mean:
“Armand is not someone whom I love or embrace, and his mind is alien to me. He is the uncomprehending villain of my first two Chronicles. But his sensuality I fully understand, and it was through his sensuality that I reached him and knew him and could turn him inside out for the reader. For Armand, images mean everything, be they ikons, or faces in paintings, or the face of Christ on Veronica's veil. Armand comes from the cold of Russia to the embracing warmth of Venice and down into the present time with a steely heart and a greediness for art and blood. Yet even in his worst pain he falls under the spell of two lost children. Ah, well, maybe I do love him. The book's transgressive. It's wicked. It's full of a boy's love for a man which turns gradually to a boy's love for a monster. It's about a child monk gone mad. It's about a child's heart made immortal. If it isn't lush and delicious to read, replete with sadness and some time horror, I've failed. So be it.”
Also, love this photo:
Hey, Turn AMC fandom I know we are an extremely quiet fandom, nevertheless, I brought you something ft old meme that is still accurate.
Aside from the blatant homophobia and biphobia toward this change, a common complaint I have seen about the Michaela Stirling gender swap and Bisexual Francesca Bridgerton is the fact that it cheapens her (Fran’s) plotlines of infertility, love after loss and the different kinds of love by having her be instantly attracted to Michaela within thirty seconds, feeling the kind of love her siblings have with Kate, Simon and Penelope.
Being queer does not negate one’s fertility, exhibit A, me, an infertile bi woman. And Fran could and should still have an infertility storyline while in a relationship with a woman. We could possibly see her struggle conceiving with John and then when she re-enters the marriage mart, she could be finding someone to secure her future by having a child and earnestly be attracted to them (as she’s BI), while beginning to see Michaela as more than just her late husband’s cousin.
And having that moment between Fran and Michaela doesn’t completely undermine the point Francesca and Violet’s arc was making, even though I get how it can be seen that way. The whole point of the arc was that both kinds of love can coexist, both quiet love and sweeping romantic love, and one does not diminish the other. And as a bi woman, that moment between Michaela and Fran and the kiss at the wedding read more as Fran slowly beginning to realise that maybe she’s interested in women, and that doesn’t mean she’s attracted to Michaela in particular right now, she just spurred a bit of an awakening
ALSO bi people are still bi no matter the gender of their partner!
Also I have heard people explain that Fran and Michaela can’t have a proper happy ending due to the time period. To that I say, it’s historical fantasy, lighten up, anything could happen and the writers could weave a way to give them a happy future together.
Honestly, I was so ecstatic to see not one, but two bisexual Bridgerton siblings! (honestly hoping for a genderqueer reimagining of Sophie bc I feel like that’d be a vibe and also sapphic Eloise bc that bitch is as straight as I am which is to say not at all)
TLDR: stop being obtuse about the Michaela Stirling change and see its potential for interesting stories xoxo
Your first pride story was touching and all but you still married a man.
Yeah, bisexuals do that sometimes.
Just gonna reblog this again. For reasons.
I feel like this exchange really sums up the core of biphobia. Bisexuality pisses people off because they don’t want to think about interiority or complexity in another person. They want to boil it down to marriage, partnership, “who you end up with” (even “who (plural)”, in some circles, but still ultimately geared toward whether that answer is sufficiently Queer). It reflects a shallow desire to view people as objects with set qualities that define them as Queer or Not Queer, just like a homophobe, only inverting the in- and out-groups. This way of thinking is directly at odds with liberation. Bisexuality requires you to acknowledge that queer is not a noun, it’s a verb; that sexuality is not merely a sum of one’s attachements or sexual choices but a personal and fundamentally private mode of being. As a human dialectic without resolution, as an ongoing synthesis, the bisexual identity poses an existential challenge to conservative logic and cannot really be co-opted into it. If you’re not fighting for bisexuals I don’t know what you’re fighting for, but it’s not liberation.
