I haven’t written
And, I haven’t chosen to be written;
though I am written in leaves and blood
and the mud — snapping with teeth
like the branches of the woods

Oh, youth, you made me feel fresh

And immortal

Not a serving of flesh cased behind a bone
and all the bone is chewing to break out
to now what it cannot know, now

I wanted so much to know what it was like to write
to have known if I had written anything of any value

I am writing as I will always write
clutch my blood next to the quilled ink
sparrow along the ridges and dominant the
lull of the breath; stay passive at the apex of the muscle

I will knead into me a belonging in poetry
as the bread knows the yeast and the sky knows the sun.—


The fact that Brother;’s Conflict made a queer section in which Ema Asahina is a guy and has a fling with Yusuke makes me just go 😀 It was actually pretty nice and made sense.

Love-colored Sky

It’s been a while since the first season of Brothers Conflict ended. They have released three more books since then, and I’m going to start with the official doujinshi—BRCN DOUBT. Official because this came from the staff themselves.

BRCN DOUBT is an official doujinshi made by the creators of Brothers Conflict. This book contains things you’d never see in the main story, including trailing over the “dangerous” line and genderbending. It was only sold at Dengeki’s 20th Anniversary Festival and Dengekiya, which makes it hard to obtain outside of auction sites. BRCN DOUBT contains three chapters. One is for Ema, one for Azusa and one for Fuuto.

View original post 4,210 more words

a female’s tale

I suppose I will be understood — when I die?
that death be my proof seems such a simple thing
a cliche, a blinding light which has no priority: no proprioception.
I am not going to die, soon, if I am going to die at all
it is a stupid thing to make immortal the person who has no mortality
denying them their temporality is denying them the identity to live

so, I will not die today or tomorrow, or the day after, if I am able to hope so
— I will torture you with life, with my life, the life that you wish to deny me
I will live with, with my sins, blessings, regrets and asking my God for forgiveness
I will live it when I exhale and inhale, when I wear a burqa or a miniskirt to chide you
for trying to shame me for my veil and legs — for in each I brought the beauty of living
which you wanted to deny me — by a choker of silence, no fetish I gave consent to
no sexualisation I gave consent you. I am sexual in my billowy robes; modest as I bare my legs: my lips and eyes will insinuate life which you tried to martyr me for with the helm of the shirt, with the housework I will do and you will never give me credit for and the children I will raise but will respect you more and the precipice of my tongue wanting release — a smarting, shattering, constructing orgasm which you feel you will deny me and I am a slut to want for more.

You are the slut for being scared of me — scared of all that I can achieve and all that I am more — when I wore the apron to shine the bannisters or cook the food I am still a soldier battling as an architect, close to godliness, close to the apex of a trinity: soldier, sage and stable revolutionary with all the vices and virtues you needed and more. I am the same when I wear my shoes; those minimum pumps required by corporate to stand in toe in height with men; or, many a times look taller and deadlier than them anyway.  What they think is the erection of the tower of their own bones, so amazing right, just is an ivory tower of height not the tusk of the mammoth, or elephant, not the planetary audience — when I wear the proper shoes to school but fail because I am nice — because you wanted me to be but wanted a coquette too which I could not be and shamed me the once in a blue moon grades I got because you were afraid to admit you underestimated me. That I was out of your league.

My lips be nude or doused with rogue — or doused with the flames of gasoline fuel I will not die today, by immolation, by spears, stones, guillotine or bullets, or you choose to efface me day in and day out like acid rain on the face of what you think are statues. I will not die today of ennui, of boredom, of lack of recognition — I have my cognition, my gears, my sword, my stones, my glass shoe that I sharpened to my spear and I have the hijab, the nude hair, the scarf, the nun’s habit, the shaved head, the colour blue and the habit to be relentless in my bones and marrow. My flesh may have been born from a rib that means I can be you and more. That was the lesson you should have learned when you swallowed the fruit with me. I am poison. I am potion. I am elixir. I can be edenic in the core. I am a rampaging beast but I also show the compassion of brotherhood and sisterhood. I am XX. I am what some call woman. I am mostly female. I write the laws of the feminine. Not you. Queer or straight. Religious or secular. I am irreplaceable. I am the rib you need and the fruit you will want to swallow. I can kill the serpent, the trickstar. Both the sinner and the saint. I will not die today. I live in everything in the ether.

Mary Oliver on How Differences Bring Couples Closer Together | Brain Pickings

“All of it, the differences and the maverick uprisings, are part of the richness of life. If you are too much like myself, what shall I learn of you, or you of me?”

Source: Mary Oliver on How Differences Bring Couples Closer Together | Brain Pickings

Brain pickings is one of my favourite sites. Maybe I will not always agree with everything being sad but I appreciate the amount of reading, organising and work being done. I also now like that the site has seemingly gotten a redesign. Looks great 😉

In this topic I both agree and disagree. Yet, my position is not aggressive rather it is something I can say that you need both similarities and differences, a sort of equanimity, a equity, a balance that work for you guys. Too much similarity becomes coercive and codependent or insecure at times. Too much difference becomes othering and all the consequences related to that but this line that is capitalised in the beginning:

“All of it, the differences and the maverick uprisings, are part of the richness of life. If you are too much like myself, what shall I learn of you, or you of me?”

I totally agree with that. It is great to know that you are being challenged and learning from the other person and synchronizing your own talents too and they too benefit from doing that.

James Hosking photographs the drag queens of Aunt Charlie’s Lounge in San Francisco.


In my opinion this article is not really informative much; yet, there are some nice photos. I am curious about drag queens not as non-human attractions but as people. Are they people who just love transforming themselves in phases or some of them always love to embrace what they feel “the other sex/gender”  and go for it?

Also, for people who are attracted by drag is it defiance of social norms that is being defined or is it the trajectory of a gender not completely binary but uses a binary position to explicitly show off a sexual stance. Is drag also always counter culture in showing that the draq queen can be as beautiful or cultural effeminate as a woman?

There are many interesting questions about this.

James Hosking photographs the drag queens of Aunt Charlie’s Lounge in San Francisco..

Osho, I Love You No More. | Gaysi

Osho, I Love You No More. | Gaysi.

I did not read Osho before. I know very less of the guy. But yeah he is not really a guy who likes homosexuality. But I understand his reasons. The guy does not hate homosexuals but neither is he really a proponent of it which I understand totally. Yet, of course a lot of people hate this fact about him. I wondered why exactly. It’s not really homophobic if you are not really a proponent of gay culture. Maybe, there is a reason? If he is gay bashing severely I would obviously dislike that.

To me personally, there are many propagandist stuff related to gay culture and even straight culture that I do not really support. I am not a proponent of those cultures. I find them glittery and really misleading so that is why I do not like traditional romances, romance literature much as in Mills and Boons and all those and also not a LGBTQ supporter.

So my comment to this article was this:

I am not a proponent for LGBTQ nor am I a homophobe nor am I a great fan or fan or anything of Osho’s. I recently bought his books to see what he is about. I will say in some ways he is right. When I first read gay literature, and even now I like yaoi genre in Japanese anime a lot, I think my ideas had been a bit different. Now, they have evolved a bit more and I say most notions of homosexuality and even heterosexuality are propagandist. A bisexual person I once talked to and even Nivedita Menon had very different ideas of being “queer” which is not at all persistent with traditional, liberal ways of looking at queer people, Firstly, queerness is not only a phenomenon related to a person’s attraction towards same-sex people pr love of same-sex people. It is a multitude of different feelings, ideas and experiences. Menon and that person actually agreed with this (that is why the person being bisexual or more gay if I am correct did not support LGBTQ).

Heterosexuality is not only about child rearing and giving birth and all those things and so when Osho says that homosexual relationships are more understanding between men but women will never truly love another as they know each other too much I was like “ok, that sounds a bit weird as in a bit incomplete”. I know that relationships between different genders and sexes is necessary and that only polarizing it as sexual and nonsexual is both a problem of homosexuality and heterosexuality. I think that is why I agree with him to that extent that there are manufactured ways of looking at sexualities and that if there is a heteronormative there is also a homo-normative. I see it in the easy uses of the word “feminine” and “masculine” and what not. A free thinker will not easily use words like that. Remember we are always living a dichotomous world and that for some people being gay may be a stage of attraction that comes and goes and not really what they want. But our binary system has forced people in sets. I think Osho also mistaken when he says that man and women are always in turmoil and can never be friends and that creates mystery and misunderstanding to a good — he is right about that but not fully. Sometimes the best understanding and love you get from who you call the opposite sex and it may not entail sexual intercourse and childbirth. So, yes, we must look at these with an open mind. I think at times that a “monastery”, “army” or even “hostel” is more about an enivironment that is akin to that. Like a clinic can even be a school. Clubs can be akin to brothels if they systematically encourage you to do things in a similar way. Like in some clubs how date rape is so exercised because the conditions are so simulated that you are in a brothel and these men and women are your brothelites and you may do with them as you please and unfortunately they you as well. Yes, Osho should have been more articulate in his ideas. I can’t fully talk about sexualities here also. It’s brevity destroys his witty soul. 

Queerness of people

Before I begin I must make myself clear. I am no queer theory expert nor am I a blasting homophobe , sexist or racist. I am just making an observation which can be wrong. I am just trying to understand things.  I know this is a sensitive topic but believe me when I say I am not trying to hurt anyone just talking of things I have seen and trying to decipher them.

It’s hard to understand Queerness. It’s hard to understand people. It’s hard to understand even “common” gestures as a thumbs up which is considered great in the West but in some parts of the East it means the opposite. Now,  Queerness is a lot of things into one. It can be transgendered queerness or homoerotic and homosexual queerness but the real issue here is that queerness at times is used only as one thing; at times this thing limits the person involved or the person involved uses this as something to only rationalize themselves.

I. Involved only in their own Queerness:

I have met people who have  not been nice because of their queerness. They have acted high and mighty because of it. I remember once having a big misunderstanding with a man who was queer but obviously I did not know that; he used terms I didn’t know so I asked what is was he snapped at me though it was a particular aspect of his site. Sure, I could use Google but asking someone personally  is not a big deal. Then that person decided to make fun of me and my query  as a post. When I confronted him about it he was like I did it anonymously. My main concern was even it is anonymous it is kinda rude to make fun of people via random posts especially after you have answered their queries. It feels really odd. Then I called him a “girl” which at that time I didn’t know he was a transgendered man. Soon I saw a picture and could identify he was a “he” but when I mentioned this he mistook me for stereotyping him as a woman.

One of the things that really got to me was that I apologized several times but he kept on being severely mean to me and awfully rude; instead of having an understanding nature he got vehemently rough with me. And also this was after I stated the Queer culture in my country is different.

Instead of asking me the differences he came off that my ignorance is bad. This is a very orientalist tactic of speculation. There was a cultural ethnocentric feel to how he never asked me what my Queer culture is like. But, he expects me naturally to know his.

Even at the end when I said it was a big misunderstanding and no one is at fault he was rude enough to say that I was revoking my sorry which I wasn’t. What I noticed is that this person is involved in himself too much and only in his Queerness as a valid way of expressing Queerness.

The man also stated that he is not to be an expert or consultant to be asked to explain things. Well, if not you then who?

Sometimes we ask through interactions because the dryness or the seriousness of academic papers may take out the reality of a particularly phenomenon or rather subject (as we think less on phenomenon but even subject is like a  abstract concrete slab kind of a word).

My problem is that some people also use Queerness as others use Heteronormative parameters. They get isolated and resistant like an Amish society only able to communicate with itself.

This is Luddite interaction. One can be a Luddite with or without technology in fact technology has made us more apish. We want people to figure it out things by themselves and only have this limited checklist for who is what. It does not only involve Queerness but other things too.

Queerness is not a new thing. It has been there for a long time but now after the Ice Age of World Wars, Liberation Policies, New World Democracies and Individual Collective selves it has, like other categories, been reprised.

We must communicate on it freely and non-self involved attitudes.

II. The range of Queerness:

Queerness does have a range. Unfortunately, Queerness has become in some places a Heteronormative practice.  Like Heteronormativity with its limited spectrum the most I see of Queerness is sex.  And  rough sex. This rough sex is labeled passionate but many a times it is just really violent sex. disguising itself as amour.

Also the people who usually post Queer sex does male Queerness in action. And female Queerness in appearance. Thus the gendered parameters persist.

Males get to easily express their sexual wants on Queer posts. Women cannot. Men also seem to feminize the body of the “recipient” lover in both fictional and real media. The recipient receives the cock and is happy doing that. The action person is usually the guy and that is why females are not that discussed much in mainstream Queerness.

We still have the patriarchal heteronormative stance that penis is the source of sex and “holes” attract the penis.

Queerness as appearance itself is also conflicted because it romanticizes looks of men and women on what a biased society wants Queerness to be — which is another version of heteronormativity only gender non opposite.

Most Queer men who are the “girls” are cute or “non masculine” they are supposed to have high pitched voices and act feminine. The men become more masculine; aggressive even in dress and manners as if to impress their lovers and society in general. You see this in also “butch” females. People need to be gendered in a very constricting manner so sexual expressive freedom is only gained via the heteronormative frame.

Aside appearance and action Queerness for males is more accepted than it is for females. When celebrity men come out, beautiful men, the men in “normal” non-celluloid society rejoice. They tell and tease on their female friends see he’s gay and they feel competition has been deteriorated. Men at times even want a male sex symbol to be gay as their crush or their female friends wanting him drives him up a wall of jealousy and discontent. Thus they joke and try to make the person appear Queer so a competitor is gotten off. With Queer women the reaction is drastically opposite.

We may or may not tease the boys but they get infuriated almost with the popular female icon or sex symbol who outs herself. They get angry that she is lesbian and try to devalue her character though at a time they might have really loved her qualities and beauty. Now, they show signs of culling her. Yes, the extrication is violent. Almost like she was dirty. In fact there are porn which caters to lesbians being “punished” or let’s say experiencing punitive rape from males who tell them they needed “dick therapy” and such lewd suggestions.

Ironically,  the opposite porn may be less common with women “raping” the gay boy into heterosexuality.

For a lesbian does not completely fit into patriarchal heteronormativity. Even a matriarchal heteronormativity may do this to men. Many lesbians do not even like socializing with men. And misandry is not always a product of misogyny. Misandry is ironically more prevalent intersex in my opinion because men hate men of different types even non-female ones. Males who are nurturing and caring are obviously hated but so are men who are the comic book geeks and computer nerds because they are not “female” nor societal”male” and so it becomes difficult to accept them as males.

We live within ranges of limited policies.

III.  Queerness and Queerness:

Many people face problems understanding that Queerness is not a thing at times. Sexually one can be fully heterosexual and have queer swings. Why? Because at times I think people are curious and/or lonely or at the same time just investigating.

The Lesbian phase is more prevalent than the Gay Phase because we encourage patriarchal, heteronormative lesbianism — the menage a trois is one of the most practiced form of restraint for female Queerness and also a downer for many girls who only do it to please males.

The menage of trois of two males and one female is always considered beforehand like sex with protection but being lesbian-like is also considered by some patriarchal promoters to be natural in a woman as in to please her man. This is worse than selfish bigamy or concubinage because in both you are acknowledged for more than your sexual function and in the latter your presence cannot be ignored. But a menage a trois between two females and a male usually only serves the male as he feels happy that he can, without doing much, have two women. In fact, in a menage a trois like that the scene constructed in porn has the man act more at times like a voyeur whilst women perform. It is exploited lesbinism. The man only does intercourse when he is ready and when he feels like it and only then with the girls doing “fillers” to his “star” performance.

A two male, one female menage a trois is many a times only heterosexual. The two men don’t enagage in sex if one watches the other two they are still having sex. There is no “fillers” much in that kind of sex because all three are treated ironically as equal partners. But in the threesome of two women and one man in a patriarchal heteronormative structure man prevails as a victor and it’s quite a difficult thing. The regular two women, one male menage a trois is sometimes a staple in the modern day relationship. It seems to authenticate the virility of man. If a woman requests this she is a loving girlfriend but the opposite thing of two male, one female menage a trois makes her a  selfish, unloving whore. Men are constantly trying to prove their virility.

For females this is not a question as females are non-virile creatures in heteronormative queerness as well. Most women can only adopt whore status — meaning that is she is sterile she can only be fucked. A lesbian is fucked by the patriarchal image of her. She is supposed to be mean and fiery and love “snatch” and “breasts”. Even derriere takes on a patriarchal parameter rounded ass in style. But are lesbians these sterile creatures? Obviously, not. Their “sterility” comes in sperm exclusive sex which is supposed to help with birth. Males who are Queer are not counted on this. Though they cannot give birth they can ejaculate and penetrate meaning they can amount to something in heteronormative scales. Ejaculation is usually showed in porn as celebration — loud and ,messy and can be scattered about. Female orgasm and ejaculation are only halves of this it appears. Female orgasm, is only stated in words and sighs. It can be loud and messy but then it will overshadow a male’s orgasm so it is excluded from mainstream media.

Such as other erogenous centers of a male, the female sex is annexed by only unfair mythologies. Queerness can ask questions into both bodies; Queerness itself can be a heterosexual thing too. Anything Queer is out of place in the main spectrum. A male received orgasm by nipple stimulation is non-patriarchal male, heteronormative ejaculation. It can be omitted. Skin smooth all about is also something ignored. Porn is unfair as it only focuses on genitals meaning it only can understand sex through reproduction. Sex as an aesthetic or love or even exploration is not Porn’s ideal type. Porn categories themselves are limited. The stories are all in a way reproductive; even the Queer ones. The sperm is received internally or externally to reproduce “happiness”.

There is no middle ground. The Porn stars themselves have limited emotions even to the scene involved. People think this is simplicity but it is actually ignorance and trying to pin the tail on the donkey with eyes open but missing.

Queer heterosexuality would show men and women embrace and talk while having sex not just random spurts or sadomasochistic words and disgusting patriarchal/matriarchal trash but say things appropriate to the scene.  Queer sex which focuses on men being roughed up for gay sex or women being roughed up for lesbian sex  can be replaced as a nice reciprocated gesture with both intensity and passion.

Our global culture salutes intensity as violence. Extremities of quite perversely out there subjects are catered as normality. Consequences is cut off for it is the moment we are stupidly encouraged to live for. We cannot even speak our sadnesses afraid we are not fitting in.

We must speak of our individual experiences and not get brainwashed by sadomasochism, limited jargons and misunderstandings.

We must understand and accept the challenges we know are relevant.