[ SECRET POST #3175 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3175 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #454.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think I see what you're saying more clearly now, but I'm still curious about what a better way to do it might look like in your mind

I want to be clear that this question is entirely sincere and I'm not trying to prove some stupid dumbass point

[kitelovesyou]

Sure. I guess queer / same-gender pairings would be seen by a non-heterosexist audience, even if majority heterosexual, as probable, possible and as unremarkable (within appropriate historical/geographical context) as heterosexual pairings. This is starting to be the case more than it used to be, and the need to queerbait diminishes.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT
Except same sex pairings aren't as "able, possible and as unremarkable (within appropriate historical/geographical context) as heterosexual pairings."? I'm bisexual, but I have had more relationships with men than with other women. Not because I necessarily want them more, but because it is easier to find single guys willing to have a relationship with a girl than it is to find single girls willing to have a relationship with a girl. The majority of the world has heterosexual relationships. I would love for queer relationships to be as unremarkable as hetero relationships, and we are getting closer to that, but I don't think they ever will be as able and possible as hetero relationships, and I don't think they need to be. More representation would be awesome (seriously, please give me bisexual characters that don't play into the overly sexual stereotype, PLEASE), but I don't think equal representation is accurate or to be expected either.

I don't know if I am making sense or not, as it has been a long day, but I had a desire to get that out there. I'm not sure why, really.

[kitelovesyou]

There are so many diverse things about people on and off screen that are considered unremarkable and not shocking and not value-laden, even if some are more common than others. Unfortunately, what gender you choose to be with is currently not one of them.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT (but different queer anon who also has no problem with "queerbaiting" because when this anon was little, "heterosexist" depictions of lesbians was how she learned that she liked women.)

I've had it with people wanting "unremarkable" romance in media. heterosexual romance in media has a history of being depicted as somehow remarkable (puzzle parts that fit (lol), fate, love despite social bias), so I fucking want my queer romances just as remarkable, thank you very much. I generally wold rather have remarkable things in the media instead of "look at how realistic and everyday this is".

[kitelovesyou]

I don't mean "unremarkable" as in boring, I meant not causing a million people to jump up and down and scream about "pandering".

[(Anonymous)]

Idk... I've not seen many people scream about pandering. Sometimes I feel like it'S for brownie ponts, like when any one series chooses to have representation of every single sexual and racial minority. I'd call that pandering. Not to "the gays" but to a certain demographic.
But take Hannibal for example. I love it. It IS a little more shocking and tragic than how Hannibal ended up with Clarice, and Will's "healthy" alternative would have been the heterosexual one, PLUS they never cross the last line to "canon" (kinda like Korra did), but I like all of it.
Or take Rammstein's depiction of (male) Homosexuality as dark and destructive, yet powerful, the culmination of a certain image of masculinity, because it's "Mann gegen Mann", the ultimate collision of two phalli. These are aesthetic choices that elevate homoeroticism through symbolism that has always been there in heterosexual depictions as well. Ying/Yang, Sun/Moon, Internal/External. I don't think that these symbolic culminations should govern our society, but they are compelling aesthetic concepts. Art is often about simplification, culmination and symbolism. (like how the Margot/Alana scene in Hannibal started out all abstract mirrors and triangles, basically symbolizing "homosexual" and "vagina") GOOD art of course subverts itself at the same time.
Now following your argument, I'd guess that you would label these examples "shock value", and I simply cannot agree with that.
Yes I do get what you mean about the heterosexist gaze, I was an adolescent lesbian learning about that stuff back in the day, and being annoyed by a lot of it, but at the same time these very images were still making me feel more visible, while also turning me on.
That and... idk, I already know that there are totally normal lesbians and gays, living all sorts of totally normal lives. But whenever one of these "normal" lesbians pops up on TV I feel reminded of myself and I'd really rather see a mysterious, erotically charged lesbian instead of my ol' normal self and neighbors. I like it though if a character is later casually revealed to be a lesbian, like with some off-handed remark about their wife or girlfriend, and, with the Hannibal once more, I liked how casually and normally Hannibal delivered the line "Your Wife and Child belong to me" to Alana. That's a sort of "normal" I don't mind. But if a show goes out of their way to point to a character's normalcy and homosexuality at the same time it always feels forced and/or meh to me.

[kitelovesyou]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at so forgive me if I don't respond to all of it... but there is a patently huge amount of pushback whenever there's a same-gender kiss/scene/pairing on television. "Pandering" is the nicest of the accusations, really.

Just recently, the wank over a crappy Star Wars book having a homo couple, good lord, the screaming and clutching of pearls on the net, it's no big fucking deal that someone is queer, seriously.