#essential reading

Greetings, fellow bloggers! We welcome you to join us in discovering, honoring, and promoting the potential future of social networking—commonly referred to as the "Fediverse."

The Fediverse, or Federation Universe, refers to a collective of online platforms that utilize the web protocol known as ActivityPub, which has set a standard of excellence in regards to both protecting and respecting users' online privacies.

There's a good chance in the past few years that you've caught wind of the fedi family's critically acclaimed Mastodon; however, there are many other unique platforms worth your consideration...

off the top of my head, the netherlands estimated that about 17% of their population was not-heterosexual, 11% of them being bisexual to a certain degree. canada found in a 2019 study that only about 70% of teens 15-17 (the age they studied) reported being exclusively attracted to the opposite gender, and similarly, ~15% saying they felt attraction to both genders (to a certain extent. 10% of the total, which was included in that 15%, said they were mostly attracted to the opposite gender, though did acknowledge some same-gender attraction). this is not due to a fundamental change in rates of same-sex attraction, rather a change in factors such as awareness/acceptance/visibility/lifespan.

this is not mind blowing but just for reference: we have evidence for same-sex romance or sex in every time period, in every part of the world. there is not a single point in history, in any place on the planet, that was not having gay sex.

especially since it gets misinterpreted a lot, and misused by the wrong people, it’s worth reiterating that historians saying “you can’t call historical figures gay/lesbian, they had different notions of romance/sexuality, blah blah blah” is not historians saying “they were not romantically/sexually attracted to each other, and there’s no way they could possibly have had sex.” similarly, just as a personal pet peeve, historians saying “this society did not seem to practice same-sex marriage” does not mean historians are saying “this society was homophobic” or “this society had no recognized queer marriages” or “this society did not have alternative queer relationship statuses.” it especially does not mean historians are saying “no gay marriage = no same sex attraction in this society.” hell, sometimes all it means is “we haven’t found evidence they practiced it, but we also have no evidence they didn’t.” correcting these misunderstands could be its own thesis paper. historical revisionism/bias exists, obviously, but that’s not what i’m talking about.

i could talk for hours about the piles of historical information we have, about what we’d call queerness today, or same-sex behaviour/attraction. do not get me started, i will be writing several-page essays and it will distract me from my real life responsibilities.

in the USA, to claim that pre-1990s or whatever, gay people were not experiencing requited same-sex attraction, or getting into dating-like relationships (whether they called it that or not) is absurd. to claim that it was rare too, is wrong. i’m not saying everyone was going around in openly gay relationships and having all of their feelings requited by everyone they loved. what i’m saying is that, in addition to those who labelled their relationships as romantic/sexual, you have an extremely high prevalence of what we’d now think of as homoerotic friendships, or extremely close friendships, including explicitly sexual ones, who didn’t necessarily label it as a gay relationship. that, or if they thought of it as gay, they kept that label quiet. if anything, the “byler realism” argument wouldn’t be that they wouldn’t be gay, or that will’s feelings wouldn’t be requited, or that they wouldn’t date/have sex. the real valid “byler realism” argument i’d propose, is that they would be more likely to act on their feelings (in whatever way, to whatever degree) in a way that isn’t explicitly mutually acknowledged as being a “traditional” gay romance, in the same way as a “traditional” straight romance would be. and even that isn’t necessarily “realism,” because plenty of requited queer romances did acknowledge themselves as gay, and as partners, and as dating.

everyone always talks about the hite male sexuality report from 1981. the methodology is pretty… rough, so don’t look at it for stats/actual numbers. but purely for the responses alone, just skim through it. there’s a reason it still gets brought up, and when talking about 1980s byler “realism,” its definitely extra worth skimming through. it’s available online for free.

i’d also like to suggest, for the byler “realists” who can’t possibly imagine it being realistic, to imagine the show as this scenario: there are no requited gay romances in hawkins apart from mike/will and robin/vicky. every other person in hawkins who’s ever experienced same sex attraction has either kept it to themselves, or been rejected. mike/will are the only instance in all of hawkins of two men getting together in a “traditional” romantic relationship. because, to assume queer feelings have never once been requited a single time in all of hawkins, would be significantly more unrealistic.

i’m already forgetting if there other aspects to the “byler realism” argument, but when it comes to the “will has feelings for mike, confesses, and they date” aspect, there is absolutely nothing unrealistic nor even necessarily rare about it. to say the opposite would be more unrealistic. and given the quantity of media set in the 80s, featuring exclusively straight couples, it would be more “realistic” for a show like stranger things to give the occasional gay character some dick.

👏👏👏👏👏

Everything here. Everything everything. Bless this post and bless you for typing it all out for us. I won't muddle it by repetition or adding on to what's graciously detailed to all of us here - just to say I have such an appreciation for this topic in regards to historical study and research and it's essential that people try to learn and read up and keep a curious mind in regards to queer history and the reality of our forever existence. This is humanity. We're here, we always have been, always will be.

Such a small part in this wonderful post, but it's succinct and correct little point.