There should be more Queer Catigories

[HeyAll]

The problem is that readers will be split up, meaning stories will get less views overall.

I think a better solution would be for Lit to allow icons or something, so people would know what kind of content it is.

 

[AlinaX]

Just need a single tag: "patriarchy-approved content"

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Given that there's nothing stopping me, I often put the category (in case someone's just clicked from a contest listing), tags if there's something that might put some people off, and if I want to, a blurb worthy of a bestseller. A couple stories say "Warning: this story contains British English, bisexual behaviour, and lots of booze."

I suspect readers with more niche interests find the tags more useful whereas those more mainstream find the categories suffice.

I'm old enough to recall queer as an insult, but joined the side reclaiming it as soon as I was an adult simply because of the implications of non-mainstream society that came with it, and it was certainly more acceptable than 'bisexual' - this was round 1990 when anyone phoning Gay Switchboard or many other helplines for advice would get hung up on if they said they thought they were bi...

Queer was always used more against men than women though. There's still men at my work who really would be upset if the LGBT+ group used 'queer' in its name, though they're OK with younger people using it about themselves or as a general term to mean 'not straight&cis'.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm old enough to recall queer as an insult, but joined the side reclaiming it as soon as I was an adult simply because of the implications of non-mainstream society that came with it, and it was certainly more acceptable than 'bisexual' - this was round 1990 when anyone phoning Gay Switchboard or many other helplines for advice would get hung up on if they said they thought they were bi...

Queer was always used more against men than women though. There's still men at my work who really would be upset if the LGBT+ group used 'queer' in its name, though they're OK with younger people using it about themselves or as a general term to mean 'not straight&cis'.

My sister is older than me (therefore nearly ancient), and when she came out in 1971 she referred to herself as gay - so that's the usage most familiar to me. I don't recall her ever referring to herself as a lesbian.

When she was very political (in Thatcher's Britain during the eighties), she called herself (or the press did) a feminist activist - she was from the Germaine Greer school of feminists, very loud, very articulate, a powerful presence in a room.

As Kumquatqueen notes, "queer" came back into more common usage (as a positive, not a slur) in the nineties, I reckon, especially in academia, then in the performing arts.

 

[Bramblethorn]

My sister is older than me (therefore nearly ancient), and when she came out in 1971 she referred to herself as gay - so that's the usage most familiar to me. I don't recall her ever referring to herself as a lesbian.

When she was very political (in Thatcher's Britain during the eighties), she called herself (or the press did) a feminist activist - she was from the Germaine Greer school of feminists, very loud, very articulate, a powerful presence in a room.

As Kumquatqueen notes, "queer" came back into more common usage (as a positive, not a slur) in the nineties, I reckon, especially in academia, then in the performing arts.

Tom Robinson has a famous protest song "Glad To Be Gay", and as with many topical songs, the lyrics got updated over the years: https://gladtobegay.net/versions/

I first encountered it via the Secret Policeman's Ball version (1979), which references police using "queer" as a slur. That usage still appears, on and off, up to the 1994 Eton Assembly version.

But from the 1996 version, "queer" has shifted to reclamative use: "I'm here and I'm queer and I do what I do/And I'm not going to wear a 'straight' jacket for you". The notes there are relevant to Kumquatqueen's post - Robinson had considered himself "gay" for years but then got into a relationship with a woman, and eventually shifted to "sod it, you know, if living with a woman makes me bisexual, I'm bisexual".

"Simultaneously, the word ‘queer’ was reclaimed and used to include a wide, mysterious, nebulous and changeable idea of sexuality. Instead of being like straight society but with someone of the same sex, we can walk out of the cages of predetermination and see who we are and what we can become."

 

[Kumquatqueen]

My sister is older than me (therefore nearly ancient), and when she came out in 1971 she referred to herself as gay - so that's the usage most familiar to me. I don't recall her ever referring to herself as a lesbian.

By 1991 that usage was still going in Brighton but not in London - so as a woman you'd go to 'gay' venues listed in Time Out and the bouncers would go "why are you women trying to come in?" - while lesbians were determinedly butch only and definitely not tolerant of bisexuals. The gay men were generally more tolerant (and some more heteroflexible. Old joke: what's the difference between a straight man and a bisexual man? About six pints. What's the difference between a gay man and a bisexual man? About four pints...)

When she was very political (in Thatcher's Britain during the eighties), she called herself (or the press did) a feminist activist - she was from the Germaine Greer school of feminists, very loud, very articulate, a powerful presence in a room.

Greer was a lecturer when I was an undergrad. A bit passé by then, and totally opposed to the idea of trans people existing, which was a novel concept to many at the time but she was rather nasty about it. A friend had a tutorial with her and found her horribly pretentious - by that time there was no shortage of loud articulate feminists.

"queer" came back into more common usage

Queer definitely grew in usage during the 90s and 00s, but in Britain in many areas still had the previous meaning of 'odd'. Garbage's album "The queerest of the queer" wasn't intended to be about sexuality, but Shirley Manson has become a great feminist queer-ally icon.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Tom Robinson had a famous protest song "Glad To Be Gay", and as with many topical songs, the lyrics got updated over the years: https://gladtobegay.net/versions/

I first encountered it via the Secret Policeman's Ball version (1979), which references police using "queer" as a slur. That usage still appears, on and off, up to the 1994 Eton Assembly version.

But from the 1996 version, "queer" has shifted to reclamative use: "I'm here and I'm queer and I do what I do/And I'm not going to wear a 'straight' jacket for you". The notes there are relevant to Kumquatqueen's post - Robinson had considered himself "gay" for years but then got into a relationship with a woman, and eventually shifted to "sod it, you know, if living with a woman makes me bisexual, I'm bisexual".

"Simultaneously, the word ‘queer’ was reclaimed and used to include a wide, mysterious, nebulous and changeable idea of sexuality. Instead of being like straight society but with someone of the same sex, we can walk out of the cages of predetermination and see who we are and what we can become."

Robinson was booed off stage at London Pride when his relationship with a woman came out - but was welcomed at BiCon. He told that joke about pints needed to convert!

Like in the UK Queer as Folk a few years later, calling oneself queer as in Glad to be Gay had a real edge to it.

Interesting historical note: Robinson was invited to perform at Assembly for Eton College (the famous public school half the UK Government went to), and did so. He introduced Glad to be Gay and managed to get hundreds of privileged teenage boys around 1989 to sing along to the song, convincing them that if they didn't then they must be hiding something, and afterwards that the world hadn't fallen in so being gay must be OK. Among the boys was a sixth-form David Cameron, who ended up convincing the Conservatives to support an equal age of consent and eventually same-sex marriage.

 

[Lovecraft_Lore]

Yes. The categories need work.

I have written stories in the lesbians category. The view seems to be either that the lesbians were not porn type lesbians but real lesbians and people didn't like that Or that only lesbians can write lesbians characters.

I also wrote a gay male 'story' hidden inside an incest story. For a while it had 1.7 stars and has finally gone up to 2.6 stars. The point being that most people on this site don't want to find out mid-way into a story it is gay male. Or cute short haired butch Rachel Maddow type dyke. Or something other than a straight white couple, with Ivy league degrees, eating at a pancake house and owning their own business.

What category would a married pair of white lesbians who both get cucked by BBC be in under the current rules? Interracial, group, loving wife, or lesbians?

It would be nice if they broke out the story category and the sexual relationship of the story. So something like 'Category: Romance' and then 'Relationship: Gale male' so then people would know it is a guy on guy romance story.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

“I supported them until I got annoyed so now fuck’em” is not support. Just performance

Imagine being annoyed by other people...existing...where they can be seen by anyone. I really can't with this dude.

 

[KeithD]

Arguably there shouldn't be distinct gay/lesbian categories.

Arguably claimed straights should be adult enough not to get the vapors at clicking on a gay/lesbian story and not dump on it rather than just clicking off and going elsewhere. Unfortunately, a lot of claimed straights who read stories here aren't that adult.

 

[AlinaX]

What category would a married pair of white lesbians who both get cucked by BBC be in under the current rules? Interracial, group, loving wife, or lesbians?

Well, Fetish, obviously.

 

[pumpkindice]

Absolutely. But I think the answer is not more categories but to move away from a category-based system to a user-customized system, based on tags. Ultimately, what Literotica should do is create a site where users can set up customized home pages that deliver the kinds of stories they want, based upon tags.

There's no question that gay readers and authors get short-changed with the system as it is, but I don't think more categories is the answer, because it won't work for the site. Too many categories mean too much work and too much balkanization of readers. I hope Literotica ultimately moves to a different model, based on user preferences.

I like your idea in theory, the only issue I have is that it seems very self-sorting to me. Part of the fun is reading a story from a category you might not have otherwise and liking it. That's how a lot of people discover other content they like, queer included. This seems like just another recipe for self-selecting bubbles.

I don't think there is any perfect solution, but I'm not keen on the idea of making literotica more like social media, which is the peak of trash.

It could be that I mis-understood your idea, and if that's the case, I apologize.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Greer was a lecturer when I was an undergrad. A bit passé by then, and totally opposed to the idea of trans people existing, which was a novel concept to many at the time but she was rather nasty about it. A friend had a tutorial with her and found her horribly pretentious - by that time there was no shortage of loud articulate feminists.

Greer always gave me the impression of being a victim of her own early success. Her first book was huge and influential, and much of her later career feels like an increasingly desperate attempt to recapture the relevance she had back then.

 

[MaiaEmpire]

Oof, I'd like to weigh on this, if I may.

I'm mostly writing for personal enjoyment and for practice, and it's aggravating trying to figure out a category. Basically, the majority of my characters so far are bisexual, and the group dynamics are pretty much a free for all. I've set it up so that for future installments I can take these characters I am developing and put them into whatever scenario I find interesting. So technically, they should be in a sort of Bisexual category, but that doesn't exist. So I end up having to split off new stories into various categories based on the best fit. And to top it off, some of my stories run long since, well, I like dialogue and exposition. So I suppose they should all be in the Novels and Novellas category!?

I shudder to think that I'm mislabeling all of my stories and turning people off. Or that I'm angering people, since I throw in a gay scene here and there. I happen to like the characters I've written, especially my primary character, and I just like writing her in different situations.

I don't know. I guess I'm doomed.

 

[stickygirl]

Greer was a lecturer when I was an undergrad. A bit passé by then, and totally opposed to the idea of trans people existing, which was a novel concept to many at the time but she was rather nasty about it. A friend had a tutorial with her and found her horribly pretentious - by that time there was no shortage of loud articulate feminists.

Queer definitely grew in usage during the 90s and 00s, but in Britain in many areas still had the previous meaning of 'odd'. Garbage's album "The queerest of the queer" wasn't intended to be about sexuality, but Shirley Manson has become a great feminist queer-ally icon.

From what I know of Greer, she had easy targets to tilt at in the 1970s, she was aggressive and didn't care who she offended with 'X'wave feminism. I take nothing away from her success in getting the subject talked about, but she acted as though she had dreamed up those ideas herself. She was adept at keeping herself in the spotlight.
She is still aggressive, still doesn't care who she offends and still tilting at windmills. She hasn't moved on and now clutches at controversial straws (being against gender equality?) in an effort to stay relevant. Her rancorous attitude towards trans people has back-fired on her, because people of my generation see her as an angry old bag whose views are out dated and should be ignored.

Modern culture, including music is the proof that encouraging gender equality in schools, allowing queer centric content on mainstream tv, and abolishing anti-LGBTQ laws allows young people to blossom into the best version of themselves. Undergrads and teens will always lock horns over something but being queer is not a reason anymore.

Sounds like tags are the best way forward and also educating readers to search using them. If I ordered pizza and it arrived unexpectedly with olives, I'd have to pick them all off before I could eat it. The same with stories - it's in no one's interests to give readers unexpected content - we lose points and they lose erections

 

[TadOverdon]

And this is the reason why I'm shifting from gay acceptance to "I'm sick and tired of it". Respect of someones viewpoint and preferences goes both ways. All the sometimes literal screaming about LGBT crap only alienates you more and makes the previously accepting people turn against you.

I'm missing something here. What is being exposed to ideas or attitudes that seem to sometimes weary you actually costing you? It may make you uncomfortable as an individual, but it does you no apparent harm other than trying your patience. How much of other people's rights to self-expression should they curtail to suit your personal taste?

 

[GinnyPPC]

My observation is roughly in line with AWD's: it's widely accepted among young adults, though some (not all) from the older generations will balk at it. I'm somewhere in between; my generation is a bit less likely to use it than AWD's, but not likely to object to it.

Agree with Bramble on this, I use the queer term rarely, and generally when referring the wider body of LGBTQIA+. And I'm old enough that, when speaking, I generally just say LGBT and the rest is implied.

Agreed, but then I think categories should just become tags and navigation should be handled by a tag-based search.

One thing about moving to a tag-based system, is there should be a method for user input. I've seen other systems where, if enough users suggest a tag, it gets added.

 

[SimonDoom]

One thing about moving to a tag-based system, is there should be a method for user input. I've seen other systems where, if enough users suggest a tag, it gets added.

The problem with this is it won't work unless the author already has added it as a tag. Authors can choose whatever word they want as a tag, subject to the review and approval of the Site.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The problem with this is it won't work unless the author already has added it as a tag. Authors can choose whatever word they want as a tag, subject to the review and approval of the Site.

I think Ginny's suggesting changing that, so that readers can add a tag that the author didn't think to include.

I can see it being helpful, but could also lead to problems if readers are adding tags the author doesn't want. At the least, authors would probably need to have right of veto on tags.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think Ginny's suggesting changing that, so that readers can add a tag that the author didn't think to include.

I can see it being helpful, but could also lead to problems if readers are adding tags the author doesn't want. At the least, authors would probably need to have right of veto on tags.

I concede you are more knowledgeable about these things than I am, but how could it be helpful?

A tag is only helpful if an author has selected that tag for a story. If you give users the right to add tags, how does that help? If a reader/user does a search for stories with a tag but there are no stories for which the authors have selected those tags, then there will be no search results.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I concede you are more knowledgeable about these things than I am, but how could it be helpful?

A tag is only helpful if an author has selected that tag for a story. If you give users the right to add tags, how does that help? If a reader/user does a search for stories with a tag but there are no stories for which the authors have selected those tags, then there will be no search results.

I think they're saying stories could attract additional reader driven tags over time, which the author would obviously need to vett. Those tags would be added to the tag pool, which shows the most used tags.

It's not a bad idea, like reporting a story but in a positive way.

The author veto element would be essential though, because the fucktards would mis-use the system and flood it with bile. That's the downside.

 

[MaiaEmpire]

A friend once asserted that everyone is a degree of bisexual, all they need is the right situation. Sometimes the situation is a couple of drinks, and sometimes it is the complete absence of the gender one is attracted to for an extended amount of time. Of course, that's just the physical nature of it. Your orientation isn't about who you have sex with, it's who you want to sign a mortgage with.

As far as the term "queer" goes, I've always felt it was more of a question of general behavior in society at large than your sexual attraction. Someone who dyes their hair into a rainbow and wears bright neon at a pride parade would be "queer" because they are outside of traditional societal norms. Several gay male friends I have simply want live normally, and if you saw them walk down the street you wouldn't look at them twice. They are irritated that they are automatically grouped in with the flamboyant, noisy individuals who seem to co-opt the narrative.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I concede you are more knowledgeable about these things than I am, but how could it be helpful?

A tag is only helpful if an author has selected that tag for a story. If you give users the right to add tags, how does that help? If a reader/user does a search for stories with a tag but there are no stories for which the authors have selected those tags, then there will be no search results.

Not in a search - adding tags to a story, when the author's tags have missed something that readers of that story think should be tagged.

 

[SimonDoom]

Not in a search - adding tags to a story, when the author's tags have missed something that readers of that story think should be tagged.

OK. I totally misunderstood what you were getting at. That's an interesting idea. So the idea is that reader A could read a story by author B, and reader A could add tags to that story? That seems like a good idea to me. But Lit would have to lift the 10-tag limit.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Several gay male friends I have simply want live normally, and if you saw them walk down the street you wouldn't look at them twice. They are irritated that they are automatically grouped in with the flamboyant, noisy individuals who seem to co-opt the narrative.

But if nobody looks at them twice, aren't they're doing their own inclusion by wearing labels they don't want?

Reminds me of a middle aged gay couple who would often catch the same bus as me, into the city - they were discreet, not flashy. And it always amused me that the taller one had never got the queer dress sense card, because his taste in clothes was abominable, trousers too short, an awful dress sense. Mate, I thought, you're meant to be gay, doesn't that mean a good taste In clothes? Cliche, I know, but really? Do better!

His partner was by contrast very dapper, always in a neat suit, tasteful tie. Too short, really - there must have been near ten inches different in height between them. The tall guy always looked miserable - but it wasn't a very long commute, and he listened to something in his ear-pods.

Shameless self promotion time - it was the same commute that inspired this story, from a 750 Word Anthology, two years ago:

https://literotica.com/s/a-girl-on-the-bus