case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2015-06-05 06:30 pm

[ SECRET POST #3075 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3075 ⌋

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

01.
[Spy]


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Eurovision]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Captain America]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14. [SPOILERS for Steven Universe]



__________________________________________________



15. [SPOILERS for Age of Ultron]



__________________________________________________



16. [SPOILERS for Harry Potter, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and DragonFable]



__________________________________________________



17. [WARNING for sexual abuse]

(Duggar Family, 19 kids & Counting)


__________________________________________________



18. [WARNING for incest]

[A Redtail's Dream]


__________________________________________________



19. [WARNING for rape]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #439.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

[personal profile] fscom 2015-06-05 10:31 pm (UTC)(link)

Transcript by OP

[personal profile] fscom 2015-06-05 10:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Collapsed for length!

[personal profile] fscom 2015-06-05 10:32 pm (UTC)(link)
@sleepycake tweets @Hayley Atwell: Do you approve of Steve and Natasha?

Hayley Atwell replies: DEFINITELY NOT

@rogersromanov tweets @Hayley Atwell: do you approve of steve and sharon carter

Hayley Atwell replies: ABSOLUTELY NOT

@buckyseb tweets @HayleyAtwell: DO YOU APPROVE OF STEVE AND BUCKY TOGETHER PLEASE WRITE BACK

Hayley Atwell replies: YES I DO NOW STOP SHOUTING

I didn’t think it was possible for me to love Hayley Atwell more. And then she sent out these tweets. As a Steve/Peggy, Steve/Sam, and Steve/Bucky shipper, they made me SO VERY HAPPY.

Note: I don’t dislike Natasha/Steve or anything. But I see their relationship more as siblings with Natasha looking for Steve’s approval. And I prefer Nat/Bucky and Clintasha.

What’s great about these tweets too is that now, whenever someone tries to assert that OF COURSE Peggy would be COMPLETELY FINE with Sharon and Steve dating, those of us who don’t like it can say “not necessarily” considering Peggy’s actress herself doesn’t approve of it at all. (People can still ship Sharon/Steve of course but I’m SICK of them saying that it’s canon that Peggy would approve.)
Edited 2015-06-05 22:32 (UTC)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2015-06-05 10:38 pm (UTC)(link)
What does actor opinion have to do with shipping?

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 10:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Nothing unless you care about the opinion of the actor. Which this person does. Then it has a great deal to do with shipping.

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2015-06-05 10:43 pm (UTC)(link)
It's not every day that f!s delivers an idea even stupider than "canon." Maybe once a week. This likely qualifies.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 22:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos - 2015-06-05 22:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos - 2015-06-05 23:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos - 2015-06-05 23:32 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos - 2015-06-05 23:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 01:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos - 2015-06-06 00:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:38 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos - 2015-06-06 00:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:46 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 10:44 pm (UTC)(link)
About the same as people insisting they KNOW what a character would think about the man she loved boning a descendent?

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 10:46 pm (UTC)(link)
About the same as you insisting that she definitely would mind it...

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2015-06-05 10:47 pm (UTC)(link)
If someone wants to write Carter as cool with that, why not?
If someone wants to write Carter as pissed off by that, why not?

Neither interpretation is beyond the pale compared to what Marvel has done with the characters over the last 40 years.

(no subject)

[personal profile] kaijinscendre - 2015-06-05 22:48 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 11:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Gotta get that validation from SOMEWHERE, since canon won't fork it over to these kinds of people.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:27 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
I think she was joking around tbh

OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 11:01 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm not saying that Hayley Atwell = Peggy's opinion

not at all

Nor am I saying that this is in any way proof that Peggy would have an issue with Steve/Sharon.

I'm just HAPPY Hayley said it because I'm so TIRED of being told:

"Why do you have a problem with Steve/Sharon? Peggy OBVIOUSLY wouldn't!"

And the simple fact of the matter is that WE DON'T KNOW if Peggy would be okay with it. Maybe they'll address it in the next film but they probably won't.

Either way, I think it's really annoying when I'm told that Peggy OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have a problem with it when there's no evidence one way or the other.

I'm grateful that Hayley said it because it's a real simple way for me to say, "Look, not everyone is okay with Sharon/Steve -- even Peggy's actress isn't -- and so you can't claim that Peggy would be okay with it. She might be. But A LOT of people aren't and Peggy might very well have been one of them. You can't dismiss that."

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2015-06-05 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Of course we know whether Peggy is okay with it. It's called WRITING FICTION. You write her how you want to write her, and people will agree or disagree with your artistic decision. But Peggy Carter is a character, not a person, and she can't be misinterpreted, offended, or misrepresented.

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:13 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:16 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:25 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 01:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:29 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 11:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:15 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:17 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:25 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:36 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP - NOTE OF CLARIFICATION

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 11:50 (UTC) - Expand
leisuretime: (Default)

[personal profile] leisuretime 2015-06-05 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)
This is really thin logic for "Peggy wouldn't approve." Because, you'll notice, none of those tweets ask whether Atwell thinks PEGGY would approve.

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)
I get where you're coming from. You take this as a sign that no one can know for sure whether Peggy would approve or not i.e. Peggy's canon feelings are indeterminate vs. all the people who ~know~ for sure one way or the other. It doesn't matter which way but the sureness is what you are arguing against

The weird part is people trying to argue against you in this thread are agreeing with you in that it's indeterminate in canon and could go either way but not getting you're saying the same thing

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 11:28 pm (UTC)(link)
it's kind of frustrating to watch people not getting it tbh

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:43 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2015-06-05 11:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I get what they're saying

I just don't believe them, because of things they've previously said in conversations on this topic

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:52 (UTC) - Expand

[personal profile] cbrachyrhynchos 2015-06-05 11:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Not really because I'm rejecting the idea that "word of angel" (actor's opinions) or "word of god" really have much relevance.

OP

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-05 23:54 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP

[personal profile] leisuretime - 2015-06-06 00:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:11 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 01:38 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 11:52 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP

[personal profile] miss_yuka - 2015-06-06 00:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: OP

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:13 (UTC) - Expand
elaminator: (Captain America: Peggy Carter)

[personal profile] elaminator 2015-06-05 11:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Totes missed these tweets, but that's an interesting thing to hear! I figured Hayley wouldn't answer these kind of questions 'just in case' the answers piss someone off, but it's cool she did.

If people want to ship Steve/Sharon that is their right and I'm alright with it (even if I don't personally like the idea of it), but yes, of course no one knows for sure if Peggy would be okay with it. Hayley's opinion isn't Peggy's, but I can see why you were glad to hear it. (Although I never see people saying, "Peggy would be fine with Steve and Sharon", I'm also not deep in MCU fandom; I believe you've experienced it, though.)

And honestly...if people want to say, "Peggy would be cool" (with Steve/Sharon), they can. I'm not going to argue with anyone...it isn't worth it. They can believe what they want and vice versa.

(Anonymous) 2015-06-06 12:03 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, this is EXACTLY how I feel.

I completely understand why Sharon/Steve shippers think Peggy would be cool with it.

I just wish some of them (a very small minority) didn't INSIST on it as though it were 100% canon.

If I'm discomforted by Sharon/Steve and think Peggy wouldn't approve...well...isn't that my right too? As long as I'm not being an asshole and browbeating you for liking it, I don't see why it should matter.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 10:30 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2015-06-06 12:23 am (UTC)(link)
An actor not approving of something =/= a character not approving of something. That's fucking stupid.

(Anonymous) 2015-06-06 12:30 am (UTC)(link)
I just want someone to introduce Hayley to the concept of Steve/Peggy/Bucky so she can then introduce it to the Agent Carter showrunners and maybe they can throw us some sort of an OT3 bone in S2.

(Anonymous) 2015-06-06 12:52 am (UTC)(link)
that doesn't make any sense canonically, and also, i disagree with you for shipping reasons (anything other than Peggy/Angie is heresy)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 00:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-06-06 01:00 (UTC) - Expand
otakugal15: (Default)

[personal profile] otakugal15 2015-06-06 10:35 am (UTC)(link)
*looks at thread*

I don't even fucking care at this point. *throws hands up and walks down to next secret*

(Anonymous) 2015-06-07 10:38 pm (UTC)(link)
I kind of think this is a bit wanky of you, OP, but I also understand your mentality, because this is exactly the kind of thing I would do in my fandoms with heated ship wars, where people would argue "I never got A/B because they act like brother/sister together. They have no chemistry!" or "But the age difference with A/C is creepy. Them having a relationship would be statutory rape" or "I can understand X/Y in a dark, dysfunctional sense, but making it romantic would just be whitewashing Y's character. That's why Z is so much better, because they actually treat X with respect" (and so forth and so on).

Like, trying to feel validated for or justify never digging a pairing often comes off as guilt-tripping other people for being capable of liking that pairing. Trying to justify why a pairing you like is okay often ends up alienating people who don't like it.

Even when people state that they want to ship and let ship, by saying certain pairings are "creepy (to you)" or "make/don't make sense (to you)" or are "more progressive/morally good/etc. (IMO)", it still implies the people who ship/don't ship the pairing are creepy, illogical, or immoral for doing/not doing so. I wish I knew how to balance this need for validation vs. the desire not to be rude to others, but I don't.