[ SECRET POST #2804 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2804 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - unrelated .gifs ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

04. http://i.imgur.com/v7x72ZL.png

[(Anonymous)]

Do people make that accusation often? I've never heard it.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Not often, no, but I made that secret when I was pissed off after reading some idiot try to claim that T'hy'la was queer-baiting. And this person is CONSTANTLY crapping on Gene Roddenberry to defend Bob Orci. Which, okay, I fully agree that Roddenberry wasn't perfect. But he took far greater risks and actually pushed the envelope in his time. Something which Orci hasn't done. AT ALL. In fact, I'd say reboot Trek is less progressive than TOS (which is saying something!).

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I'm not clear on what you think the context indicates

[(Anonymous)]

Meaning that there's a difference between something done in 1979 and something done in 2014. There's a reason Uhura was a trailblazer in the 1960s. Her role had to be fought for. That's not the case for today (not saying that today's world is perfect in this regard). Putting a Russian on the Enterprise was likewise a bold move during the Cold War. It's not in today's world. The context of the action matters is all I'm saying.

[(Anonymous)]

keep the political climate in mind

Well that's nice and vague. Not all of us were around in 1979, you know.

[(Anonymous)]

Harvey Milk was assassinated the year before the movie was released -- an openly gay politician in San Francisco. His killer only spent a couple of years in jail because of the now-infamous "Twinkie Defense."

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it's not like there are any easily available resources to help someone figure this shit out without acting like a pissy brat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_in_LGBT_rights

[(Anonymous)]

what is google? what is education? :O

omg you guys

[(Anonymous)]

I was being sarcastic.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you seeing this on tumblr? Because I've never heard of Gene being accused of queerbaiting from back in the Livejournal days, and as far as I was aware he was still hailed as being super progressive for that and various things related to Uhura.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it's on tumblr. Ironically, it's some of the Spuhura fans who say things like this. Which, granted, Roddenberry wasn't perfect by any means, but the show and movies did a TON of great things for their time. Which isn't the case AT ALL for nuTrek and yet I see Bob Orci constantly defended by them when HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

[(Anonymous)]

Because Queer Baiting started mostly with Tumblr an basically what it boils down to is "Wahhh my Slash OTP is not ever going to be canon."

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think I ever heard people talk about queerbaiting at all back in the lj days. I've been pretty involved in fandom for about 11 or so years, but tumblr was the first time I saw people accuse show creators of queerbaiting. Not saying it didn't ever happen, but I'm not remotely surprised that you don't recall it happening on lj.

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who talks about ~queerbaiting~ is an idiot.

[arcadiaego]

Why? Current shows do it all the time.

T'hy'la

[(Anonymous)]

I never understood why the term "t'hy'la" would be queerbaiting in ANY context, though. It literally is translated as "friend/brother/lover." That means "friend" or "brother" are just as valid interpretations of the term as "lover." I.e., it's a term of endearment that is neutral when it comes to romantic/platonic divisions. Similar to how people can use "honey" or "dear" to either their spouse or to their children.

/coming from someone who actually ships them quite a lot, btw

Re: T'hy'la

[elaminator]

Same, tbh.

Re: T'hy'la

[(Anonymous)]

Of course "friend" and "brother" are valid interpretations. But Vulcan is a CONSTRUCTED language. Roddenberrry didn't have to include the definition of "lover" at all -- and that he did is pretty significant. I always saw it as his way of telling shippers that, yes, their interpretation of a romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock is a VALID interpretation. He has the other definitions and the ambiguous disclaimer to give himself an "out." So that people who don't want to see them as gay don't HAVE to. Because people can be nuts. I'm pretty sure DEATH THREATS were sent out about Spock being killed in Wrath of Khan. So I do think he would want to be cautious -- there's no way he could definitively say "Kirk and Spock are in love" in such a climate even if he wanted to.

But I get tired of people saying that Roddenberry was doing a "bait and switch" or just toying with fans or that it's not a valid interpretation. Because he didn't have to include the "Lover" definition in the first place and, given when the book was written, I think it was pretty great that he did.

Re: T'hy'la

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's the note explaining the word that people have issues about, not the word itself.
He said it could mean friend, brother and/or lover but then he explains that Spock used the word because Kirk is his brother but vulcans don't have a word only for friend and then he has Kirk himself making this silly monologue about how he never heard the lovers rumors but he prefers women anyway
that's just :/

[(Anonymous)]

I see the whole Roddenberry and the "t'hy'la" thing as unintentional on his part, or as a wink/shout-out to all the K/S shippers. It's ridiculous to say he was 'baiting' or 'taunting' them, or that he was legitimizing the canon interpretation that Kirk and Spock could be gay. Fans read into things way too much, my god.

[(Anonymous)]

Are people doing that? Are you at Markwatches, because notorious for seeing queerbaiting where any reasonable person wouldnt.

[(Anonymous)]

Depends entirely on how you're defining "queerbaiting" - I understand queerbaiting to mean teasing an audience, specifically slash fangirls, with homoeroticism without ever actually delivering.

However, intentional (if vague) homoerotic subtext? Very possible. 1979 or nothing, intentional homoerotic subtext has been a thing for, oh, thousands of years. Even in a more modern context, it was all the rage in the Renaissance, this is really not new information. I have no opinion about this show in general, but it certainly could have been intentional, at least, nothing in the year is going to demand otherwise.

[lunabee34]

Before reading the comments to the thread, I will say that I didn't realize Roddenberry coined the term; I came across it in Dwellers in the Crucible, a lovely kinky sex slave romp, in which the Vulcan/Human lesbian relationship is definitely supposed to be a mirror of Spock/Kirk. Oh how my little eleven year old self delighted in that book.

/nostalgia

[(Anonymous)]

creating a word used only in the novels (therefore not canon because he never used it in the movies) and then adding an explanation where you say that it could mean friend, brother and lover but that the character used it only with the bros one and then you add a note by the other character and make him reply to the lovers rumor saying that he prefers women...
IDK OP if that is queer baiting but that seems to be a pretty good imitation of it and I wouldn't call anyone an idiot for thinking the writers weren't innocent.
I seem to remember an interview by Roddenberry back in the 90s where he admitted that he had homophobic ways but that he had recently started to get over his issues and be more tolerant.