[ SECRET POST #2764 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2764 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon Crystal]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Teen Wolf]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Game Grumps]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Spring Awakening]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Free! Eternal Summer]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Penny Dreadful/Sherlock Holmes]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Mobile Fighter G Gundam]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Tucker & Dale vs. Evil]


__________________________________________________



10.
[he Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug - Benedict Cumberbatch/Andy Serkis]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but don't you think that people experienced attraction to those of their own gender during those times? That would be a big Yes, so why COULDN'T closeness be an aspect of same-sex (sexual) relationships of the time? What I'm saying is, same-sex friendships of different times may have enjoyed higher levels of socially acceptable physical affection but if you are attracted to somebody else, you want to get close to them, so these characters' closeness doesn't PROHIBIT the idea that there's a romantic or sexual vibe. That and, in the case of Penny Dreadful, it's only set in that time period, as opposed to being a genuine product of the time period so it's questionable how true it is to the culture and norms of the time.

[(Anonymous)]

It's entirely possible, but I think the secret was saying that it's not an automatic assumption you can make every single time because of the social customs of that time period weren't the same as our modern customs.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with that, I'm just saying don't take it too far the other way.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that's OP's problem though. They do want historical LBGT, just not at the expense of historical accuracy.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay?

[(Anonymous)]

There may be few canon gay pairings in historical works, but that doesn't mean there isn't deliberate homoerotic subtext in historical works. close relationship doesn't have to mean gay, but it also can, and OP is trying to argue that that's impossible or something because no Victorian author would write deliberate gay subtext

[(Anonymous)]

No amount of closeness should be automatically assumed to be romantic when people are looking for subtext, but the era has nothing to do with it. Close friends exist now just as they did back then.

[(Anonymous)]

No, the secret was saying she didn't like when people interpret same-sex character relationships as gay because vague "historical context" and there's no way anything might be deliberate.

[(Anonymous)]

... except that's not what the secret says, but nice try?

[(Anonymous)]

"It bugs me when people interpret close relationships between two people of the same gender as deliberate subtext" --- OP is bothered when people choose to interpret dynamics as gay because apparently it's impossible for it to be deliberate on the author's part.