[ SECRET POST #368 ]

[shahni.livejournal.com]

⌈ Secret Post #368 ⌋

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

1.


__________________________________________________



2.
__________________________________________________



3.
__________________________________________________



4.
__________________________________________________



5.
__________________________________________________



6.
__________________________________________________



7.
__________________________________________________



8.
__________________________________________________



9.
__________________________________________________



10.
__________________________________________________



11.
__________________________________________________



12.
__________________________________________________



13.
__________________________________________________



14.
__________________________________________________



15.
__________________________________________________



16.
__________________________________________________



17.
__________________________________________________



18.
__________________________________________________



19.
__________________________________________________



20.
__________________________________________________



21.
__________________________________________________



22.
__________________________________________________



23.
__________________________________________________



24.
__________________________________________________



25.
__________________________________________________



26.
__________________________________________________



27.
__________________________________________________



28.
__________________________________________________



29.
__________________________________________________



30.
__________________________________________________



31.
__________________________________________________



32.
__________________________________________________



33.
__________________________________________________



34.
__________________________________________________



35.
__________________________________________________



36.
__________________________________________________



37.
__________________________________________________



38.
__________________________________________________



39.
__________________________________________________



40.
__________________________________________________



41.
__________________________________________________



42.
__________________________________________________



43.
__________________________________________________



44.
__________________________________________________



45.
__________________________________________________



46.
__________________________________________________



47.
__________________________________________________



48.
__________________________________________________



49.
__________________________________________________



50.
__________________________________________________





Notes:

- First comment is: Name That Fandom!!

Secrets Left to Post: 08 pages, 150 secrets from Secret Submission Post #053.
Secrets Not Posted: [1] [2] broken links, 0 not!secrets, [1] not!fandom, [1] personal attack.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Wednesday, January 9th, 2008.
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

44

[mekkio.livejournal.com]

Actually, I believe that both ways cheapen friendship because it shows the only reason any characters are together is because of sex. Not because they have a person to person bond. No, the ONLY reason they are friends is because they are secretly hot for each other.

And the main reason I feel miffed about that is because it's lazy writing. Sexual relationships are easier to write than deep platonic relationships.

For example, Buffy and Spike had an interesting love/really, really hate relationship up until season six. The writers couldn't figure out what to do with them any more, so *tada* sexual relationship. Ooo, edgy. It didn't make any sense but again, the writers were looking something new and took the lazy way out.

The reason why X-Files worked for so long was because of the complex platonic relationship between Mulder and Scully. It forced the writers to build a whole storyline around why the two actually gave a damn when if they wanted to take the easy route, the writers could have simply said the two characters were romantically hot for each other. There. End of story. Now onto catching aliens.

And the same can be said for many of the mXm pairings. I scratch my head and go, "Why? They are so much better when they were complex friends."

Re: 44

[tealizard.livejournal.com]

Romances can be as complex as friendships, and they don't have to be exclusively sexual, ie spike/buffy. I would LOVE to see someone come up with a nice, male male relationship, that contains sex without being completely ABOUT the sex, and instead dealing with the complexities of a homosexual relationship (which there are often more than a straight relationship).

Re: 44

[mekkio.livejournal.com]

Yes, romances can be just as complex but 9 times out of 10, they aren't written that way.

That's my main problem with fandom or the complete world of fiction in general. No one is writing complex Shakespearean relationships that explore the character of the writer's creation any more. They are just doing slash or romantic straight pairings because it's easy to do so.

As far as looking for a male male relationship, try Queer as Folk. Or at least the American version. It's a good show.

Re: 44

[tealizard.livejournal.com]

I did watch Queer as folk for awhile, but... ehhhh couldn't get into it.

but you're right about that... people are so damned lazy D:

Re: 44

[agawa-jean.livejournal.com]

Yes, romances can be just as complex but 9 times out of 10, they aren't written that way.
I do agree with you there. Wholeheartedly. I do agree with the OP though, simply because in popular media heterosexual relations are default, and gay relationships often suffer from other problems that stand out first to me, such as tokenisn.

However in general? That's exactly why I can't stand most romance portayed in media; both the characters and their prior relationship is steamrolled over with stereotypical "romance"

Re: 44

[odditypist.livejournal.com]

Characters who are IC who are having sex are not going to be any less complex than they were beforehand, when they were friends/enemies/wtfever. In fact, adding another level to that can make it more complex, if done well, or just shift it to a different level of complexity.

I agree that some people go OOC. But you can't say the whole of fandom does. It may be hard to find, but there are good stories out there. And getting into a romantic/sexual relationship doesn't magically get rid of any complexity or depth that had been their in their friendship/partnership/hate, unless of course it's badfic. And "badfic sucks" is a complaint all its own without having to tie in "lol shipping people who are just friends gaiz is stupid!"

Because when you get right down to it, what irks ME about the argument and what I think the OP might be addressing, the main problem with that argument is the assumption that two people who are lovers are somehow less... worthy? "Pure" or purely close? Than two people who are just friends, and especially when used against gay guys, it's usually a "but gay is bad so male friendship means so much more than buttsecks!"

44 OP

[(Anonymous)]

Because when you get right down to it, what irks ME about the argument and what I think the OP might be addressing, the main problem with that argument is the assumption that two people who are lovers are somehow less... worthy? "Pure" or purely close? Than two people who are just friends, and especially when used against gay guys, it's usually a "but gay is bad so male friendship means so much more than buttsecks!"

Yes, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

Re: 44 OP

[agawa-jean.livejournal.com]

And a very good point it is.

Re: 44

[mekkio.livejournal.com]

Characters who are IC who are having sex are not going to be any less complex than they were beforehand, when they were friends/enemies/wtfever. In fact, adding another level to that can make it more complex, if done well, or just shift it to a different level of complexity.

I have to strongly disagree about this because again, for Buffy, it became all about the sex with her and Spike. The complexity that was there before was shoved out of the window.

Same thing when Tara died and Willow went with Kennedy. The writers didn't have a clue what to do with that relationship either. So, it because a mainly sexual based one. The characters had nothing in common. Why were they together?

Or in Angel. Cordelia had a great platonic relationship with Angel. The writers decided to make the two of them romantically involved and ended up killing Cordelia's character in the process. Literally. They killed her character off because afterwards the writers stated there was no where else to take the character. Seriously, whiskey tango foxtrot is that?

Now I don't think two people who are lovers are somehow less...worthy. I just think it's a cop-out. I mean, it's an easily turned to writing device when people are trying explain why such and such likes such and such. Gay, straight, bi, doesn't matter. And my main problem isn't the use of it, it's the VAST amount of use of it. If this was a seldomly use plot device, you would get no debate from me. It's the fact that 9 times out of 10, it's what writers go to.

And, yes, I mean all of fandom and fiction. Look at it out there. TV, movies, books, it's used too, too much. It has practically become an adlib game of just fill the following blank spaces. "__name__ is with __name__ because he/she/it is in love with him/her/it."

It's the story of every other indie movie out there.

And I am bored with it. Enough already.

Re: 44

[glamourcorpse.livejournal.com]

I think and am hoping the secret was aimed at people who argue against anti-slashers who do the same thing to het characters. In that case I agree, but I have an eerie feeling they weren't. I'm usually wrong.

That being said, I agree with your comment.

I'm going to try and keep my mouth shut on this further, before I get myself in trouble.

Love your icon btw!