Dead but Delicious

Like. It really troubles me that people apparently think they aren't supposed to have feelings for aromantic people because that implies they can't actually wrap their head around having romantic feelings and then not doing anything about it. And that's like. Really really troubling from a consent perspective.

If you're into rape kink, you MUST want to act on it, so you MUST be a risk to other people you interact with in your day to day life.

If you're into being in a dominant position you must be abusive.

If you're into certain fantasy monsters you can't be left alone near pets.

Developing romantic feelings towards a teacher? A friend in a committed relationship? Your coworker who is at a different stage in life? An emotionally unavailable or even toxic friend you know you couldn't be happy with? A boss with whom a relationship couldn't be ethical? Someone you love deeply who doesn't share your feelings and just wants to be friends?

It was written with help by Mia Mulder (Herself a trans woman making political critique video essays explaining and exploring these movements) and is a great starting point if you want to begin finding things to read regarding these movements. It is by no means all encompassing - it's a youtube video essay that is using these points to paint a bigger picture. But it's a good intro video for understanding the language of these theories and where they originated. It also goes into queer theory (:

Seperate from that, one of my favorite videos on gender is the Incel to trans woman pipeline from a ceicocat that revolves less around immediate theory, and more about the portrayals of desire at the disconnect one feels embracing it.

Finally, heres Kai After Kai's video on being nonbinary, which is strictly personal, but i think very moving.

Sheila Jeffreys (b. 1948) is another Lesbian Feminist academic, though where Raymond deviated her interest to sex work and trafficking, Jeffreys has developed and sustained an academic antatgonistic relationship with Queer Theory. Aside from that, some of her interests include discussions of “beauty standards” as male dominance manifesting, sadomasochism as male dominance manifesting, and transness as male dominance manifesting. Each of these will return in some capacity, because they are, to Jeffreys, inseparable. In “Unpacking Queer Politics” Sheila Jeffreys claims that “Queer space”, because of the gay male domination of its politics, emulates and thus reinforces the oppressiveness of heterosexual culture. Her focus is on the origin of the deviation from the aligned gay and lesbian agenda of the 1970s, which saw a shift from sexism (and thus gender and gender roles) as their mutual opponent, to the political focus on acceptance of the gay as natural within the realm of gender roles, which, for her, further empowers gender roles. The inclusivity of the queer umbrella and the acceptance of Trans people ultimately cause a weakening of the “lesbian agenda.” Queer seeks to lump in Lesbians and in doing so imposes a microcosm of patriarchy where the agenda of queer is ultimately shifted towards enforcing the power, positions, and privilege of its primary theorists, who happen to be white males. However! These theories were written in 2003, about the 70s onward, so… discussing the past 30 years almost 20 years ago, and have carried with them a certain…practice. I would argue that it isn’t controversial to say that Queer Theory, Queer Politics, and Queer lives are fairly distinct spheres and that arguing there is a leader caste of theorists, twisting the politics, in order to benefit themselves rather than the people is… misguided. Philosophy touches all of our lives, but we don’t go around defining our daily interactions using Kantian Ethics. Likewise, activists don’t exist just to expand the rights of the ruling class. Put another way, Queer Theory doesn’t map onto reality so neatly, but it isn’t meant to.

+

* There is one thing Jeffreys is kind of right about, and it may just be something   that draws lesbians towards the terf mindset: “All the principles of lesbian feminism came under attack in the 1980s and 1990s.   Separate lesbian organizing, culture and existence were attacked as some lesbians in the 1990s  developed a newly close relationship with gay men in queer politics. Woman-loving was regarded with suspicion as masculinity became the highest value in a mixed queer culture.” (p.30) She notes that the trend of coalescing queer organizations, a   “mixed queer culture” as she puts it, reconstructs gender hierarchy in its interests. Male interests are prioritized, handled first. Gay men have the most to gain from the coalition and only nominally uplift women  when it’s an “everybody wins” type situation.  Again, an interesting thing to question, but the conclusion leaves something to be desired.* From there, Jeffreys essentially extends Raymond’s condemnation of trans identities for their “reconstruction of gender” to the entirety of Queer, in that Queer has reintroduced the “gender inversion understanding of homosexuality.”  She’s saying that by associating with the dastardly transes, Queer has regressed the L’s and the G’s back to a “trapped in the wrong  body” understanding of what it is to be a gay man or lesbian woman, which is awfully similar to the way Raymond worried about “sex-role stereotyping.” Lesbians are absorbed into the queer movement and subsequently “declawed” because the movement as a whole  is, again, participant in neoliberal power structures and patriarchy, according to  Jeffreys. Which leads her to lines like this: “The lesbians who fled a radical lesbian feminist analysis of sexuality entered into a queer politics which was founded upon a traditional masculine notion of sexual freedom. This traditional view is represented historically by those gentlemen, such as the Marquis de Sade, whose power and privilege included the right to access women and children at will, both inside and outside marriage” (p.33)  Not all Lesbians are worthy, are politically pure, because, remember, being a lesbian who is political, and being a Political Lesbian or being a lesbian politically are very different. This ability to choose purity leads to the possibility that a Lesbian can be   wrong in how they are a Lesbian. Much the  same to the whole of non-cishetero peoples and movements. That’s where it goes. And Jeffreys  imagines, at the helm of this Queer Hydra; The Marquis de Sade, or those who he symbolizes,  elite men, sadomasochists, Transgressors.

[Morrowind at Night #4 | Foraging in the swamp during a rainy night | 15.05.2026]