[ SECRET POST #3678 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3678 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #526.
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)]

NAYRT

I have no horse in this race either, but

prove beyond a doubt that he is not and would never be attracted to guys

How would anyone, character or real life, do this?

[(Anonymous)]

pretty easy

just throw a line of dialogue in there, you know, something like "I've had sex with loads of guys and to be honest I've never enjoyed it"

[(Anonymous)]

ThefuckImreading.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

a joke

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Sadly, that still doesn't prove never would.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly.

Which is why it seems useless and self-serving (no matter who your horse is, so to speak) to make hard claims on a character's sexuality. In real life, we know there's a sizable portion of people who are more fluid than even they anticipated. I mean, hell, I knew a guy who used to say he was straight and "he could appreciate other guys being attractive but had zero sexual interest in them".. and turns out, he gets drunk and fucks guys.

Point being, virtually any character has room for sexual fluidity (especially when most characters don't have huge arcs exploring their sexuality combined with their innermost thoughts and personal developments), and what is fandom if it isn't coming up with theories and reading in between the lines and shipping whoever does it for you.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Nice anecdote but that doesn't actually prove anything other than that one guy is bi? I'm bi myself but insisting every character could in theory canonically be bisexual is kinda ridiculous.

Especially when you apply it to characters who are gay, because if it works one way, it's gotta work the other way too.

You might say character sexualities are up in the air and up for interpretation, sure. If someone interprets this guy as bi, more power to them, but saying "this character could be canonically bisexual, you cannot deny it" is just as hard a claim as saying they're straight.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

You might say character sexualities are up in the air and up for interpretation, sure. If someone interprets this guy as bi, more power to them, but saying "this character could be canonically bisexual, you cannot deny it" is just as hard a claim as saying they're straight.

But - it seems to me - the context of this argument is that OP is not justified in saying that the character is canonically definitely straight.

So.... yeah I think that the point you're making here is pretty much also the point that we're trying to make.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I don't know if that's the anon I'm replying to.

But they said

Point being, virtually any character has room for sexual fluidity

And no, I disagree with this. People can headcanon all they want but saying there's always room for canon fluidity is basically "everyone could be canonically bi unless proven without a doubt, somehow, magically, that they aren't" and that's too far a reach for me.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily push quite as hard on that as the other anon would, but I also think there is much greater latitude than OP is allowing for, especially in characters that are still quite young.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

I think you're misreading. Any character DOES have room for sexual fluidity because there are always going to be things we don't know about a character. That doesn't mean every character is actually sexually fluid.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

If a creator confirms straight or gay, is there still room?

[(Anonymous)]

It's absolutely not ridiculous. You don't know someone isn't bi until you know for certain they aren't attracted to a particular gender, and before you know that, saying a character is 100% straight (or gay) is making an assumption that isn't canonically supported.

Yes, it works for characters who only demonstrate same-sex attraction, too.

And no, your third paragraph doesn't make sense. There's a difference between saying a character IS bisexual, and a character COULD be bisexual. You could say, the character SEEMS to be heterosexual due to what I infer to be a lack of interest in the same sex. But you can't say they are definitely heterosexual until there's evidence that that is the case. Since we don't know, in the vast majority of characters, if it's impossible that they might have same-sex attraction, you can't preclude the possibility that they might be bisexual.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

But.

But you can't say they are definitely heterosexual until there's evidence that that is the case.

Could you give me an example of what this evidence might be? Especially as the anecdote given was a guy saying outright that he was straight then sleeping with men? Is evidence of this possible?

If it's not possible, doesn't this argument become an insistence that everyone could be bi?

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, the argument is indeed that everyone could be bi (whether circumstantially or habitually). The argument is not everyone is absolutely bisexual.

I'm not sure you're understanding the difference.

As for the anecdote - which is really not only an anecdote, as a statistically significant portion of humans have had same-sex experiences despite generally or previously considering themselves straight - the point is that even someone saying they are straight doesn't not absolutely prove they are straight.

The best evidence I could think of is an inner monologue of the character asserting that they have never had same-sex interest. Doesn't necessarily mean someone's sexuality can't change or evolve, but at least that would more or less deal with the issue of the reliable narrator.

[(Anonymous)]

I understand the difference, I just feel you've framed an impossible argument because there's no evidence you can give that a character is 100% straight. As you said, even your inner monologue could be unreliable.

It wasn't me below that said the wolfkin thing, but they are correct, you could make the same argument about that. "Any character could be wolfkin until proven otherwise, and even if they say they're not, they could be unreliable therefore anyone saying that this character is definitely not a wolfkin is wrong." It's kind of nonsensical. You can insert literally anything in there since there's no possible valid proof.

I don't really care who is straight or bi or whatever, but an argument demanding impossible evidence is flawed from the start.

[sarillia]

saying "this character could be canonically bisexual, you cannot deny it" is just as hard a claim as saying they're straight.

That's not true. One argument is "this character could be bi" and the other is "this character is definitely straight". The second one demands more evidence than the first.

I realize there are people here who are probably arguing against some post they saw on Tumblr claiming this character is definitely gay, but no one has said that here. All people here are arguing for is the possibility that he could maybe be attracted to guys and that there's no definitive evidence against that.

[(Anonymous)]

They are saying that, if they are demanding hard evidence that a character is straight and definitely in no way possibly ever gay, in order to believe a character is straight, though. Which is what the original anon I responded to said.

How would evidence of "would never be attracted to men" be possibly ever given, if we can't even take a character's word for it because they might be fucking men while drunk?

I'm not even arguing about sexuality here so much as the impossible setup this argument is creating.

[sarillia]

I think some of the people you're arguing against have different standards. If a character flat-out says they're straight, I consider them being straight canon (though personally I'll still entertain speculation from people who want to read them as bi or gay; the gay storyline of my own life came out of nowhere, after all).

I didn't see anyone saying that a definitive statement from the character about their sexuality isn't evidence, but maybe I missed something.

[(Anonymous)]

"In real life, we know there's a sizable portion of people who are more fluid than even they anticipated. I mean, hell, I knew a guy who used to say he was straight and "he could appreciate other guys being attractive but had zero sexual interest in them".. and turns out, he gets drunk and fucks guys."

"As for the anecdote - which is really not only an anecdote, as a statistically significant portion of humans have had same-sex experiences despite generally or previously considering themselves straight - the point is that even someone saying they are straight doesn't not absolutely prove they are straight."

[sarillia]

Oh okay, I saw that argument now. I disagree with that.

[(Anonymous)]

And this character could be a Christian wolf otherkin, but if it doesn't appeared in the original source material, he's not. The text is everything.

[sarillia]

I just don't know why people are so invested in saying he's definitely straight while at the same time rolling their eyes or laughing at people who are equally invested in saying he might not be.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

I'm the one arguing against the framing of the argument - I don't care whether the character is straight or not.

[(Anonymous)]

Because this doubting everything and everyone thing is ridiculous.