[ SECRET POST #3216 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3216 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
(The Blacklist)


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Sum Of Us/Russell Crowe]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Dan and Phil]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Tokyo Ghoul:re]


__________________________________________________



06.
[dick grayson]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Scandinavia and the World]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



09.
[One Piece]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Lost Dimension]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Sleepy Hollow]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I agree, but since she said "ostensibly straight" I'm not sure how one would possibly get more ostensible than that. In my mind, a character could even claim to be straight in canon and still not necessarily be straight, since lots of bi or somewhat bi people consider themselves straight. I guess Word of God, but Word of God rarely has to comment on characters' sexuality in the first place and at any rate, I don't personally count Word of God into a narrative's canon.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd say ostensibly straight would mean canonic heterosexual attraction is shown, but homosexual attraction is not shown. Or Word of God says straight.

[(Anonymous)]

But that was my first category. Heterosexual interactions, no interactions that can be interpreted as homosexual.

[(Anonymous)]

"a character that has opposite sex relations but there's nothing "canon" to suggest that it's impossible they might be bi"

This also fits the same description though.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe I didn't word myself right. As opposed to the first category which is stricter, a character that could reasonably be bisexual, with more examples of interactions with same-sex people that could be interpreted as romantic/sexual, but there's no canon clarification about sexual orientation either way. A character that someone could go "s/he's bi/gay" and it wouldn't be surprising or disjointed at all. As opposed to a character who never seems to have any interactions that could remotely be interpreted that way, and if who they were confirmed as being bi, there'd be no real canon evidence of the character expressing that orientation even mildly.

[(Anonymous)]

Still no distinction for me. But it may be that my threshold for being surprised is much higher than yours. If there's nothing in the canon that explicitly says they are not queer, I assume queer is a possibility because nothing says a queer character ever has to explicitly express their queerness.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I mean, it wouldn't surprise me if they turned out not to be later, but both types would be ostensibly straight to me.