Tumblr has been becoming an increasingly popular platform to host webcomics. Here are just a few of the fantastic LGBT webcomics that you can follow on Tumblr right now. For more LGBT webcomics on Tumblr and around the web, see our masterlist.
Queermo’s Journey (qmjourney): (teen, transgender) Life is confusing. One artsy queer dude’s attempts to muddle through it.
Get Your Man (getyourmancomic): (mature, m/m) The lovable tale of a Mountie in the Canadian North-Western territories and how he both did and did not get his man.
GQutie (gqutie): (teen, genderqueer) A comic about one artist’s gender adventures.
Check, Please! (omgcheckplease): (teen, m/m) A story about hockey and friendship and bros and trying to find yourself during the best four years of your life.
Becoming Me (bmcomic): (teen, transgender) A loosely autobiographical comic about life in hormone replacement therapy and not having a job.
Relativity (relativitycomic): (everyone, f/f) Fifteen years from now, Irina Novak sets off on the first manned lightspeed flight, with unexpected consequences to herself and her marriage.
Eth’s Skin (eths-skin): (teen, various) Under a sickle moon on an empty stone beach Eth mistakes a selkie skin for their own, and ends up having to make a journey to a distant cove in order to put things right. It’s a queer (and genderqueer) fantasy full of monsters and low tides, cool non-binary individuals, queer relationships, and a pet pygmy harbour seal named Goblin.
Sonnet (sonnetcomic): (everyone, m/m) An ongoing comic project introducing a collection of fairytales and short stories told through poetry and illustration.
Knights-Errant: Pavane (knightserrantcomic): (teen, transgender) Wilfrid is on a quest. A quest for what, you ask? They won’t say. Either way, it’s going to be bloody.
Lost Pieces (lostpiecescomic): (mature, f/f, transgender) The summer Tora Felton turned eighteen, everything she’d come to know starts to change.
Hotblood! (hotbloodcomic): (mature, m/m) A comic following the adventures of James Evander Leicester Rook (a total washout Civil War vet who happens to be a centaur), Asa Langley (America’s most irreverent steel industry icon and Rook’s employer), and a great deal of money. The year is 1871.
ok, i’m gonna try to actually formulate this argument instead of just screaming my thesis over and over again into the void. my thinking on this is pretty indebted to this article by radtransfem. it’s been a few years since i read it last and i don’t really want to reread the whole thing right now b/c i’m lazy so it may be that my opinion diverges from hers. the part of her argument that i want to talk about is at the very beginning anyway:
“A slut is a person of any gender who has the courage to lead life according to the radical proposition that sex is nice and pleasure is good for you,” write Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy in The Ethical Slut: A guide to infinite sexual possibilities.
In doing so, they create space for every sexual possibility except for one: the possibility to consider whether sex may not be nice.
Some might suggest this space exists, already populated by woman-haters, given the shame, hatred and violence on offer for women who dare to have sex on their own terms. But these moralistic right-wing views don’t hold that sex is not nice – they hold that women who have sex (and others who are seen to be treated as women in sex) are not nice.
As such it is both progressive and radical to say that sex is not shameful for women, and that a woman should not be punished for her sexual choices; radical, because shaming and punishment are both commonplace.
But in the present day it is not radical to say that “sex is nice”. If anything, it’s tautological. Sex, for all practical purposes, is defined much of the time as only “that which is nice” – in many feminist discourses, if it is not nice, it is not sex.
This precludes certain ways of thinking about sex. I would like to look at the things we are able to think when we allow ourselves to criticise not just singular sex acts but the ‘niceness’ of sex under patriarchy as a whole.
i co-sign this passage unreservedly. i am a survivor of rape and abuse at the hands of a straight white cis man. my ex used sex-positive rhetoric and ideas, particularly kink positivity, to manipulate and coerce me into having painful, violent sex with him over and over again. he framed every rape as something i had done to him, as my failure as a partner who did not communicate clearly enough. if i had just told him what i wanted so that he could understand it, he posited, the rapes would never have occurred. i was so wrapped up in the idea of being a ggg partner, and in my firm belief in the niceness of sex, that i wasn’t able to recognize the abuse as it was happening.
i realize that this situation is typical for people in abusive, romantic relationships. i am not trying to blame the sex-posi movement for everything my ex did to me. what i would like to talk about are the issues inherent in an ideology that made it so easy for him to emotionally manipulate me and wave away his abusive actions, including unambiguous physical and sexual violence, as breakdowns in communication.
- "good, giving, game": compulsory sexuality and sex positivity
dan savage is a misogynist, a transmisogynist, a biphobe, and a transphobe. he’s also one of the loudest and most recognizable voices of the sex-posi movement. he coined the term ‘ggg’ on his shitty sex advice column, savage love. here’s the definition:
[O]ne should strive to be Good in bed, Giving ”equal time and equal pleasure” to one’s partner, and Game ”for anything—within reason.” [x]
this seemed like a pretty reasonable sexual ethos to 19-year-old me. try to make your partner happy? make sure their needs are being met? seek someone who will likewise prioritize my needs? sure!
the problem with the concept of ggg-ness is that it puts you in the position of feeling obligated to prioritize your partner’s needs above your own. uncomfortable with x sex act for y reason? that’s not very ggg of you. it’s not like he wants to shit in your mouth* or something.
the underlying assumption behind the term is that sex is nice, so why would you not want to try new things? why would you not want to have a lot of it? if sex is nice, then the only people who aren’t ggg are selfish jerks, freaky-deaky moralists, or damaged goods.
the presumed niceness of sex is present in the label itself: sex positivity. there can be no room under the sex-positive umbrella for negativity about sex, for an understanding of bad sexual experiences as anything other than aberrant. sex-positive rhetoric may include people who are uninterested as sex as an afterthought or a footnote, but typically the sex-posi response to people’s negative feelings about sex falls into one of three categories: talking over them, incredulity, or backpedaling. ”you just don’t understand.” ”but that wasn’t really sex because it wasn’t consensual!” ”but why wouldn’t you want to do it?” ”you could at least try." "oh, well, of course if you’re asexual… anyway.” all of these responses make perfect sense when we accept the niceness of sex as axiomatic.
- "if it is not nice, it is not sex": rape and sex positivity
rape is commonly defined as non-consensual sexual intercourse. a lot of people argue that rape is not sex because it is not consensual. sex positivity uses this formulation, stating that all sex is by definition consensual. the line of thinking is that, if it was not consensual, it can’t be called sex. this forms the basis of the argument that sex is nice. semantically centering consent is all well and good, but there’s just one problem: it’s bullshit.
of course rape is sex! it’s literally sexual contact. my ex boyfriend hurt me repeatedly, violently, during and by means of the sex acts he performed on my body. the western feminist case for rape as not sex stems from the trivialization and normalization of rape under the patriarchy: calling rape “sex” implies that no harm was done to the victim. the point is that we should not lie about violence against women — don’t sugarcoat it, call a spade a goddamn spade for fuck’s sake. it’s like calling squares rectangles: technically accurate, but not common parlance and therefore misleading. however, sex-positive rhetoric does not acknowledge this nuance. the sex-positive formulation of sex looks like this:
when sex actually looks more like this, in my experience:
when my ex-boyfriend raped me, he was having sex with me. we both understood it as such, and so did any other participants as far as i know. the sex-positive definition of sex is harmful because it assumes that there is a clear and obvious divide between sex and rape. as the vast majority of rape survivors will be able to tell you, that is absolutely not the case.
my rapes were very sexual, and because i frequently initiated the contact or requested the acts that he hurt me with, i did not understand them as rape. if rape was not sex, then how could i have been sexually assaulted when i understood what had happened to me as sex, not rape? if sex was nice, then why couldn’t i stop crying? if rape is not clearly and immediately identifiable to the victim, how can the assumption that sex is nice possibly help her?
i don’t think it can.
- the case for bodily autonomy
as you’ve probably gathered by now, i am not sex-positive. i might call myself sex-negative, although i’d want to read radtransfem’s article again before taking up that banner. i am certainly kink-critical. i think that sex positivity is a harmful concept when treated as a complete analysis of sex under the patriarchy in western culture. i think it excludes and shames asexuals, demisexuals, rape survivors, abuse survivors, and people who are otherwise uninterested in or have a difficult relationship with sex. i think it supports the concept of 'gray rape' and places the onus on rape victims to make sure their assailants understand that they do not consent. in short, i think it’s misogynistic.
in lieu of sex positivity, i propose a sexual ethos of bodily autonomy. i believe that all people have the right to dictate how others interact with them sexually. i believe that all people should be free to structure their sex lives and pursue their sexual interests in whatever way makes them most comfortable, happy, and fulfilled, as long as they are not violating the bodily autonomy of another. the central concept of bodily autonomy is not that sex is nice, but that your body is yours, and no one else’s.
bodily autonomy attaches no value judgments to sex — it treats sexual contact as an activity that comes with potential risks and rewards like any other. sex is just a thing you can do with your body, if you choose to. there is room for the a person to like or dislike sex, have sex frequently or rarely, to hate sex, to fear sex, to love sex, to want sex, and on and on. the statement “sex is good!” makes no sense in terms of bodily autonomy — one would instead say, “sex is good for me."
bodily autonomy centers consent explicitly, not implicitly. it leaves room for a vast multiplicity of experiences with and feelings toward sex without erasure or judgment. sex positivity is moralistic, but bodily autonomy is flexible. it’s a big umbrella with room under it for all of us, not just those who enjoy or desire regular sexual contact with others. what’s more, it’s an ethos that makes me feel safe as a sexual assault survivor, rather than alienated and threatened. for that reason alone, i think it’s a concept well worth exploring.
* or, you know, whatever
naw you got it. :)
i reckon in going for “body autonomy” the next step is to go, ok, what is the pressure that makes it hard for me to have autonomy? and when i look at it, “people think bad things about me when i have sex” (sex moralism) isn’t that pressure. sure it sucks, but the one that’s killing me is, “people think bad things about me when I don’t have sex” (compulsory sexuality). so for me to get autonomy, i need to push back against that one.
and since i wrote that article, i’ve been prodded into realising by several Black woman writers that there’s something more general going on, and that you can rephrase it like this: the problem with majority sex-positive discourse is that it takes the subject - the kind of person - that it’s trying to liberate, as a particular kind of white woman. one for whom the biggest problem is, “people think bad things about me when i have sex”. and it goes, ok, that liberates me & mine, that must be what Women™ need to liberate them!
i wanna reiterate (or iterate, not sure if i’ve said it before) that there is tonnes of sex+ theory which says, “hey, sex is bad sometimes, we gotta look at that”. but in The Ethical Prude I focused on sex+ practice and on the atmospheres that billow around the communities i’m in. what does that theory do when it hits the ground? where does it become praxis? how does it intermix with other attitudes, how is it coopted, what are its limits? what are the actual effects of it on, say, trans women? and that’s where i’m coming from when i wrote The Ethical Prude.
In celebration of the MTV/LOGO special ‘Laverne Cox Presents: The T Word,’ trans activist Alok Vaid-Menon tells us what it’s like to live while identifying as neither male nor female.
omg i had a personal essay published on MTV! check it out! xx
I read that Autostraddle article about 22 QTPOC couples and there was literally not a single trans woman. And like, I know trans women write for autostraddle so i kinda expected better but its just so upsetting and disappointing that they did put in a single trans woman. But like, there were trans men/trans masculine folks in the article.
And I feel like this speaks to the lack of visibility for TWOC romance. Like, there is literally no visibility for us when we are loving on our sweeties, no visibility for healthy relationships. I only know… 1 trans woman who is married. Like… goddamn grappling with that reality is hard. Finding love and stability is hard when you are trans woman and seeing these articles that implicitly exclude us just fucking sucks.
All of this, coupled with my recent break up, as me feeling all kinds of ways. I remember how good it felt to be out in public, to be seen as a couple, to be affirmed as valuable and desirable because here was someone who wanted to hold my hand in public. Who wasn’t ashamed to be with me, who didn’t try to hide me. I used to joke that we were Austin’s premier power couple lol. Both of us artists, making work and doing things and building a life together.
But all that is gone now and I need to rework the vision that I had for my life. How do I do romance and love post our break up? How do I navigate building something new with someone else? And like fuck i’m still so disappointed that it didn’t work out. And how do I love out loud, love visibly so that other girls like me know its possible. How do I make space for TWOC love and romance so that others see that we are romantic beings? That we deserve to be cherished and celebrated. And is that even something that can be done? If you don’t already see me as deserving of romance and love, will you ever?
Maybe it all starts with visible love for myself.
this is so important. what morgan is speaking on is vital. think about the trans women you know who are partnered. i can think of 2 who are women of color and very public, neither of them were included on that article. the fact that janet mock is partnered and open of her relationship and also Andy Marra and Drew started iamloveworthy about their love, their experiences as korean adoptees, i mean there are trans women and trans women of color sharing and yet this seems like a deliberate exclusion of trans women, again.
peace to you morgan. know you are loved. know you are heard.
- Other people’s cultures do not exist for white people to seek their spiritual enlightenment
- No one owes you an education, and initiation, or a history lesson simply because ‘you want’
- No one has to include you in things because ‘you want’
- No one has to hold their tongue, sweeten their words, or chop up sentences to make white people feel better about history- colonization, slavery, genocide, ect.
- No one should be ‘grateful’ to you for your interest in said culture
I remember a while back there was this immensely popular post with a gif of Hitler flattering his wife, that had tons and tons of notes from all these people gushing about how they had no idea Hitler was human too. When I criticized it, this older blogger claimed all these tumblr teens were taught in school to “dehumanize” Hitler, and now they were learning more than the simplistic narrative they were taught in school. It was, according to them, mind-broadening and important. The dehumanization of Hitler they claimed is a huge problem, and a bigger problem was young people thinking too simplistically about this complex person.
But this is the thing:
It’s true you are taught a simplistic and misleading narrative about World War II and the Nazis in school. But the problem isn’t that you’re taught to think badly of Hitler and Nazis, who committed mass murder, torture, enslavement, and other human rights abuses. The problem is you are taught that the US was the good guy and the Nazis were the antithesis to everything the US represented and now represents. You’re taught that the US came in and saved everyone in the name of freedom and democracy and crushed those Nazi fascists! And everyone lived happily ever after.
When in reality, the US invented eugenics which inspired the Nazis’ Aryan racial ideals in the first place. The Nazis modeled their treatment of Jews, Romani and other minorities after how the US treated Black people. Not only that, but the US refused the entry of many European Jews fleeing the Holocaust into this country. The US refused to help the Jews and other minorities targeted by Nazis. The US ignored pleas begging them to destroy gas chambers when they were so close within striking distance in Europe that they hit one accidentally.
What happened was after Pearl Harbor put the US at risk, they got involved and then they made up a story about why they were the good guys and why the Germans were the bad guys, about how they were now all about saving the world and the poor Jews. And the truth about antisemitism in the US (there were literal signs saying NO JEWS and shit, which you never learn about in school), about eugenics in the US, about the US’s deadly passivity for much of WWII, is actively erased, glossed over or explained away. And meanwhile, irony of ironies, the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to internment camps—which of course were not the same as Nazi Germany’s extermination and concentration camps, but weren’t exactly the kind of thing someone who was ideologically opposed to Nazis would do. (You’re taught about the internment of Japanese Americans in school, but you aren’t encouraged to think about it as compromising the US’s alleged position as ideologically opposing Nazi Germany).
The US has used WWII to its advantage to create a particular narrative. It’s arguably a big reason antisemitism in the US changed and Jews started to achieve much greater access to whiteness. Associating Jews with whiteness dissociates Nazis from American racism and eugenics, despite how much mental gymnastics you have to do to ignore the fact white supremacy was at the core of Nazi ideology (people continually allege Jews were white in Nazi Germany despite the fact Nazis killed them, literally, to purify the white race). It takes the conversation away from the end result of white supremacy: genocide and brutality. Think about how important that would have been in the 1930s and 40s when the US was even more overtly racist than it is now. How would the US look: a nation where PoC, and Black people especially, were constantly exposed to violence and oppression? When what allowed the concentration camps in Nazi Germany to exist was a change to their constitution that allowed the deprivation of human rights in particular spaces, and all Roosevelt had to do was write an executive order depriving Japanese Americans of rights just as easily. Criticisms of white supremacy and human rights violations in Nazi Germany open up the same criticisms toward the US. I’m not the first to have that idea. Harper Lee tackles it in To Kill a Mockingbird.
Tumblr SJ who complain the Holocaust gets “too much attention” compared to other social injustices also seem to miss this point—they suggest it’s ~Jewish privilege~ or white privilege that explains why everyone cares more about the Holocaust, ignoring the fact that the mainstream narrative in the US about the Holocaust and WWII also often erases the long history of antisemitism in Europe and the history of it in the US. The narrative suggests Nazis arbitrarily decided on Jews as a scapegoat and ignores the racialization of Jews in Europe. There’s also an implication that with the end of the Holocaust came the end of antisemitism. Many aspects of the mainstream narrative around the Holocaust is hurtful to Jews. Ignoring the role of white supremacy in the Holocaust does no marginalized people any favors: as well as making it too easy to let the US off the hook for creating eugenics in the first place, it also erases Romani, who were targeted in the genocide, and are still definitely not racialized as white to this day.
The US is a racist empire (and I say empire because we currently live on colonized land and also exert worldwide control) and while I don’t like comparing Nazi Germany to anything, we’re not the opposite of Nazi Germany by any means—we certainly were not in the 1940s when we fought them. I don’t think the US is the same or even similar to Nazi Germany (as I said, I don’t like making lazy comparisons like that), but I think both the US and Nazi Germany have two terrible things in common: white supremacy and a government that has the power to deprive citizens of their basic rights at a moment’s notice.
That’s the story you’re not taught in school. That’s the mind blowing epiphany that actually matters.
Hitler being human is a fact of course. But he was a horrible, horrible human being, probably one of the worst in history. And making excuses for him being primarily responsible for wiping out one third of population of a people (Jews; edit: see here), 90% of the population of another (Romani), as well as countless other atrocities doesn’t make you interesting, edgy or counter-culture. It makes you downright despicable.
Sadly, it seems tumblr’s teens find the idea of Hitler flirting with his wife more interesting and mind-blowing than the idea that everything they were taught about the US’s role in WWII is slanted to mislead them.
here it is
imo the thing about certain diseases or disorders predominantely affecting one gender or the other is the criteria here isn’t someone’s essential “male” or “female” body. did you get exposed to a lot of testosterone in the womb? grats yr at risk for certain things. do you have working ovaries? do you have hypertrophic Skene’s glands (aka a prostate)? do you have a substantial amount of breast tissue? what’s the ratio of testosterone:estrogen in yr body? what’s the absolute amount of estrogen in yr body?
all of these things are risk factors for all sorts of different things, and if you want to break people down into risk categories, there are actual factual predictors for that kind of thing. and they’re not “is male” or “is female”, b/c those are incoherent categories
like make no mistake: “male” and “female” are easy categories, but they’re not really “medically accurate” wrt risk, they just happen to correlate roughly well for most people. and when i say “most people” i don’t even mean “non-intersex cis people”, i mean “people with a statistically average hormone load & sexual differentiation profile”.
kind of like how estimating yr height and weight from a statistical profile of people in yr country only works if you are, in fact, roughly close to being of average height and weight.