fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3267 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3267 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 050 secrets from Secret Submission Post #467.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - random advertisement for porcelain doves ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So if Character A has been involved with a woman in the past in canon, but there's been several instances of other characters thinking he's gay, and the actor says that he plays him as bisexual, and Character B has had absolutely no mention whatsoever of his romantic life, it's not that unreasonable to ship them, right? A can totally be bi (or even gay because hey, plenty of gay guys have dated women before coming out) and B can be anything because they've never said anything either way.

But no. According to my friend there's an "unwritten rule" that unless a character has been explicitly stated to be gay they're straight. And because A has been romantically interested in women in canon, there's no way that he could ALSO like guys because "the writers wouldn't do that".

I don't want to say the fandom because it's really small and I don't want to start drama, but does anyone agree with what she says? I feel like that was definitely the case at one point, but I'd hope we're moving beyond that now...

Man, who even cares about canon sexualities? Shippers gonna ship no matter what.

You can cry all you want about how John is not a homosexual and Dumbledoo only likes bumming, that does not change the irrefutable fact that shippers gonna ship.

I think if something's not explicitly stated in canon, then you can't assume it. And I think that, while it's still more likely for characters to be straight and for writers to not make a character bi, that's not something that's foregone, and it doesn't have an impact on headcanons, anyway.

But more importantly, anon above is right: shippers gonna ship, and that makes it not unreasonable to ship them.

I had a friend who said the exact same thing. If a character wasn't straight, it had to be stated in canon somewhere, she said, and that was why you couldn't say they might be. That's a shitty way to think, even if you accept that the writer probably would assume all their characters straight by default, unless the writer is gay or bi. A writer is one person whose intentions are confined by their own biases. If we go with what they intend, there's going to be unrealistically little room to make any characters anything other than straight. It means in most fictional universes, non-straight people just don't exist. It's not worth respecting author intent if it means you have to go with that.

I definitely do not agree. That's an ugly "straight is the default/norm" line of thinking that I can't get behind.

I REALLY don't agree with the "Straight is Default" mindset. Sadly though, it pretty much is the "unwritten rule" in most forms of media.

I also dislike when people say "He likes women! He's STRAIGHT!" Um, ever hear about Bisexuality? Or Pansexuality? Both of those orientations like women as well as men. Why can't he be one of those?

That's why I personally like to think all characters are Bi unless explicitly stated by the actor/creator to be otherwise. It makes Fandom a slightly happier place for me.

Definitely disagree. A character could be anything. Even if a character is a man and only shows interest in women, I don't think that proves he couldn't be bisexual, at least to some extent, just because it's not shown on screen. A character is only "straight" if they say they are straight and demonstrate being straight... but then again, there are people who believe they are straight that are either in denial or later realize that they might actually be bi or gay. You could count Word of God as evidence for certainty of sexual orientation, but I don't, because I don't personally count Word of God for anything - to me, canon is only the narrative itself.

That being said, yeah, honestly, probably most characters are written as straight. Or without any thought of their possible same-sex attraction. So if that's what you think of as being canon, rather than the narrative existing independently, then I suppose "straight by default" is still pretty fair.

I think your friend's "unwritten rule" is a reflection on what a lot of society thinks. Are the majority of people straight? I believe so. Do writers for media write with the presumption of their characters being straight? I think so.

The thing is, we don't know for sure if the writers wrote with the idea of their character being straight, and if there is no onscreen declaration of straightness, I think it is not unreasonable to think "They might be gay/bi!".

Even if such a declaration of straightness happens in canon, or Word of God (if you accept such) has stated so, Fandom will merrily ignore it and keep on slashing, sometimes even saying the character is in denial or closeted, depending on how fiercely they hold onto their slashy headcanon.

So... I kinda agree with your friend, but I am well aware it is not a favoured opinion in Fandom. For my part, canon may be straight, but I don't care, because I will keep slashing.

[ SECRET POST #3267 ]

"Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread

Re: "Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread

Re: "Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread

Re: "Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread

Re: "Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread

Re: "Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread

Re: "Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread

Re: "Unwritten rule" about characters' sexualities, kind of related to above thread