fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3109 ]

[ SECRET POST #3109 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3109 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Sense8]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Gatchaman Crowds]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Twin Peaks]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Blue Beetle]

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

[Metroid]

__________________________________________________

09.

[God, the Devil and Bob]

__________________________________________________

10.

[The Cell (2000)]

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 015 secrets from Secret Submission Post #444.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Okay, so in fanfic (though it's not seen as MUCH nowadays) and in certain pieces of media, there's a trope. It's when a character is only gay for ONE person. They love this person so much it doesn't matter what their gender is. Most people seem okay with this.

But why is the opposite (a gay character who loves someone of the opposite gender so much they want to be with them) considered inappropriate? I've never seen it and I'm sure that anyone who wrote it would be shouted down.

Disclaimer: I am A Gay™. I just don't know why one is appropriate and the other isn't.

I think it has to due with the assumption that heterosexuality is the default.

And I think people are more reticent of doing the opposite because it can come across as erasure if not done correctly.

Just for clarity, this is the trope you're talking about right?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfItsYouItsOkay

Oh yes, that's it.

I suppose that's true. I guess that that makes the assumption that monosexuality is the default though.

Hesitant. Reticent only seen involves a hesitancy to speak, I whereas hesitance applies to many actions. #notthepointsorry.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<the [...] a.>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Really?

I mean, I know that can be one of the definitions, but when I look it up it only says:

"not revealing one's thoughts or feelings readily"

Or this:

restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance <the room has an aspect of reticent dignity — A. N. Whitehead>

I mean, it can't only refer to speaking in that context? If it's talking about a room being reticent.

Re: Sort of weird question...

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-09 23:39 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Sort of weird question...

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-09 23:52 (UTC) - Expand

Ahem.

"BECAUSE IT ERASES GAY PEOPLE! THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY GAY PEOPLE IN FICTION AND YOU'RE TAKING ONE AWAY/NOT FACILITATING MORE! AND IT PERPETUATES THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE CAN TURN STRAIGHT, WHICH IS DANGEROUS IRL! !!"

AAAAH I'M SORRY TUMBLR

~~~systemic prejudice~~~

I agree that it probably isn't actually wrong if it's not done in a stupid way, but I also have no interest in getting into arguments about how writing that kind of story implicitly means you support conversion therapy, or whatever other stupid fucking shit.

I think it's because of the way it's seen by society.

If a straight person has one exception, they're seen as openminded and other people praise it... and most continue treating them like a typical straight person, "heteroflexible" is seen as a valid sexuality by most and "still hetero"

If a gay person has one exception, it's a huge deal and "proof" that gay people "just need to find the right oppositesexperson" and if they can do it, so can you!! And they aren't seen as "gay" any more

*"other people praise it" meaning other people in the lgbt group not society in general.

If a gay person has one exception, it's a huge deal and "proof" that gay people "just need to find the right oppositesexperson" and if they can do it, so can you!! And they aren't seen as "gay" any more

Yeah but I guess my question there is, how far do we have to go to work around the idiot fucking opinions of huge douchebags that no one should take seriously

I don't think this is even slightly the case? If a guy is 'open minded' even once he's considered a faggot, no ifs or buts. The number of people who woud continue to treat him as straight is minimal.

We're talking about amongst liberals, not amongst conservatives

Re: Sort of weird question...

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-09 23:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Sort of weird question...

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-12 20:34 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Sort of weird question...

(Anonymous) - 2015-07-10 00:06 (UTC) - Expand

Was't there an American TV show about this a few years back? The SJ crowd actually seemed to like it.

Like the others have said, it perpetuates the harmful concept that people are only homosexual because they haven't found the right person of the opposite sex, and that once they do they'll be "fine". Which I agree with to a point, but only if it's done badly; if it's done well, and this is acting on the assumption that it never is, I don't see the problem with the concept as long as it's made very clear the opposite sex person is very much an exception rather than the rule.

Though this is coming from someone who considers themselves homoflexible, which as it turns out is a much shorter way of saying "If It's You It's Okay", so YMMV on how someone who identifies as purely homosexual feels on the subject.

I think because it can lead to some...creepy...implications.

Like "Oh, you're only gay because you haven't met the right man/woman!"

Like there are guys who think that they convince lesbians that they ACTUALLY want their dick. 'Cause their dick is so ~special~. And the reverse.

But stuff like that can lead to harassment of gay people.

Whereas the reverse isn't true. If a gay person insistently hits on a straight person, even after being told it's not welcome, they'll DEFINITELY be shunned as creepy.

I don't think it's inherently wrong or anything (hell, it's not even unrealistic. I'm gay and I've actually had a couple of friends who identified as gay for years and years and then had a crisis when they fell in love with someone of the opposite sex. Shit happens; sexuality is weird, yo) but I don't think society is far enough removed from the whole "lesbians just need a good dicking (and the opposite for gay men)" trope for it not to come across as, and I hate to say it, problematic when portrayed in media. I actually think it can be done well, but I can understand why it would rub people the wrong way considering that, while lesbian and gay representation has improved a lot over even just the past five years, there still aren't a whole lot of gay and lesbian characters on tv, so it seems kind of...dickish to have an established gay character suddenly fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. Some people also might be angry and wonder why the character couldn't just be bisexual instead of "gay with one exception" which I think would be understandable since bisexual characters are even rarer than gay ones.

I pretty much agree, and well said. I would have a hard time putting it into words, but the whole "maybe you just haven't found the right guy or girl" thing still happens, which is probably why people are cautious about it. If done right, I have no issue with someone who has identified as gay or lesbian falling for someone of the opposite gender (because I do feel like sexuality can be very fluid, and sometimes things happen that you don't expect).

Because biphobia. We're traitors to the gays and we're only going to run off with/cheat on our loving same sex partners with opposite sex hussies.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, it's because of the whole 'you just haven't met the right man/woman yet' thing.

Also, societally we're still not acknowledging bisexuality or flexible orientation. For women, having a partner of the opposite sex means they're no longer lesbians, and for men having a partner of the same sex means they're automatically totally 100% gay. (This is a combination of sexism and homophobia, in that showing attraction to men overrides any other attractions you might have shown.)

Lots of queer people have had to deal with this shit irl and really REALLY don't want to deal with it in their media. Many of us have been in a straight relationship at one point or another, and had to deal with years of shit for it.

Pretty sure you know the answer already.

I'm gay too and I don't see anything wrong with the second scenario as long as the fic or whatever doesn't erase the character's homosexuality. By that I mean, make it an evil thing that Heterosexual Partner must save him/her from, pretend it away, etc.

Why it's a hotter controversy than the previous scenario... should be obvious.

It depends entirely on how the relationships and people are presented for me. But there certainly is an old trope of the person so irresistible that gay people turn straight. James Bond in Goldfinger is a notorious example.

I can only think of one example of the latter, in the comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For (and that's if I'm remembering the arc correctly, it's been a while and I can't find the relevant strips online). If it's not too obvious, the cast is mainly lesbian, and the character, Sparrow, IDed strongly as lesbian. When she falls in love with a man, Stuart, it's a big identity crisis for her, though she eventually IDs as bi. They end up living and having a child together. It's interesting to think that if the cast were mostly heterosexual, I'd feel more uncomfortable about the plot
on paper, though having it be a big deal and her then IDing as bi would still be refreshing.

I've got one thing to say to ya:

Bob & Rose

It was pretty radical for its time (early 2000s) and it even got loosely referenced on Sex and the City. There was a fictional series called Jules & Mimi, and one of Carrie's old gay friends (played by Nathan Lane) falls in love with a woman and marries her.

It worked because it was done tastefully. It still received a lot of criticism, which is good imo. These things should be discussed - baring all pros and cons.

To sorta answer your question...

Many have tried hard to forget this, but there's also a terribly offensive movie by the name of Gigli. Jennifer Lopez plays a lesbian who falls for a guy. "It's Turkey time!!" *shudder*
If you want a reason why this trope hasn't become popular in popular culture, this movie will tell you why.
This movie is so infamous and so bad, that in order to ignore this movie's existence, people WILL deny that a homosexual could ever fall in love with someone of the opposite gender even if it's only in fiction.

it's just plain rude

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only