My question to you is, why are you defending the heterosexual staus-quo? A thing that does not need a single point of defending? Does not need an argument in its favor. You are still for all intents and purposes, telling people they are free to ignore queerness and think it doesn’t exist, contrary to one of your last posts. The heterosexual reading, the platonic reading, the friendship reading doesn’t need defending. How about we defend some of the other kinds for once?

This content is protected against AI scraping.

No, I’m stating the facts.  We can’t force anybody to look if they choose to do otherwise.  They’re free to look away if they want.

I didn’t say it would necessarily be a good human act if they chose to.  (Although sometimes people need to do things for their own protection, rather than because they want to maintain their own ignorance.)

And I also said (in this post: http://prettyarbitrary.tumblr.com/post/72562652449/hi-i-dont-think-the-bbc-are-afraid-of-showing but I’ve posted a lot today, so you might have missed it) that this is the very problem with coding queer relationships into a text rather than displaying it outright, the way that happens for heterosexual relationships.  Because it leaves people free to ignore it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your post must include a link to this post.

How does this work?
Responding with a post on your own blog? You can connect it back to this one with a Webmention by writing something on your site that links to this post, and then entering your post URL here. I have comments moderated for approval to control spam, so it may not show up immediately. If you want to update or remove your response, you can update or delete your post and then re-enter the URL here again. (Learn more.)