[ SECRET POST #2870 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2870 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[X-Files]


__________________________________________________



03.
(Doctor Who/Torchwood)


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
(Benedict Cumberbatch)


__________________________________________________



06.
[Star Trek]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Star Trek Voyager, "Macrocosm"]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Great British Bake Off series 4, Ruby Tandoh]


__________________________________________________



11.
[How to Get Away with Murder]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Far Cry 3]


__________________________________________________



13.
[Krazy Kat & Ignatz Mouse]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 047 secrets from Secret Submission Post #410.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dazzledfirestar]

I think you've nailed the issue here. The problem isn't Jack as a character who embodies a lot of bi/pan stereotypes. The probably is that he's one of a handful of characters in that category and they almost ALL embody those stereotypes.

If there were more bi/pan characters with more variety of personalty/dating style/whatever, we wouldn't have to have this conversation.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really get that there's a Bi representation issue. I'm Bi, but that's not my identity. It'S just that I happen to like guys sometimes, too. When I identified as a lesbian, I did want some representation of something besides het couples, simply because minority and stuff, but why would I need a character to expressly state that they're in a relationship with a person of gender a, but would also totally bang s.o. of gender b? The only way to really do that (except in a long-running series wth extendeed character development) is to make them overly sexual, or at least enough so that they change romantic partners at least once during the series. Which is already too much focus on romantic/sexual sides of characters for any genre but drama. Of course, you could just go and decide for characters to be bi, and not ever "show" it. That's also the only way I see trans representation not be cliche, but then, by the laws of the tv/movie media they might aswell not be.

[dazzledfirestar]

Have you ever noticed that even when a character is shown to be attracted to multiple genders, there's very rarely a label actually stated in canon about their orientation? They're "flexible" or suddenly gay or accused to be using their SO as a beard (i'm looking at HTGAWM right now but OITNB does it too). Relationship status has fuck all to do with orientation. Having a character say "I'm bi." should be enough.

But we can't even get that 99% of the time so... whatever.

If you don't feel it's needed, that's fine for you. Others disagree.