[ 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)]

Except... not?

You can be straight without flat-out proving there is not the least tiniest possibility of ever being attracted to a single member of the same sex for the rest of your life ever.

Like, until such a point as he DOES show he's attracted to guys, the default read is going to be straight. Maybe that's not the way it should be in complex deep-reading media... but in a kid's show? Come on.

[(Anonymous)]

You can be straight without flat-out proving there is not the least tiniest possibility of ever being attracted to a single member of the same sex for the rest of your life ever.

There are two things here that are separate. First of all, what is the character's sexuality. Second of all, what can we as viewers conclude about the character's sexuality from the information presented on the show. You can easily be straight without proving it either way. But what we're talking about here is, what kind of evidence exists to prove that this fictional character as presented on the show is straight? Obviously, of course, being unable to prove a character is straight does not mean they're gay. It means we're in a realm of uncertainty.

You can be straight without flat-out proving there is not the least tiniest possibility of ever being attracted to a single member of the same sex for the rest of your life ever.

I just flat-out disagree with this. I think it's wrong and I think it's pernicious and I don't see any reason or argument for thinking it's the case. I don't see what complexity of a story has to do with sexuality and I don't see any good reason to presume a character's sexuality being straight or gay or whatever.

If you want to talk about, you know, what the writers had in mind when they were writing the character, sure. But I think that's a different thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Assuming you were referring to the second part above, not the first again...

I don't see what complexity of a story has to do with sexuality and I don't see any good reason to presume a character's sexuality being straight or gay or whatever.

It's not about the complexity of the story, it's about the complexity of the storytelling. Children's media, and especially animated media does not, as a rule, present "subtext" the way live-action or otherwise more mature media does. What you see is what you get. Ergo, if a character presents as straight, that is the default read in this sort of media.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Oh woops sorry, yeah, I fucked up my copy-paste. Yeah, I was referring to the second part.

And what I would say is that it doesn't have to be a question of subtext. One, I don't think it's necessarily that easy to conclude a character presents as straight, and I think it's too easy to fall into the habit of just assuming characters are presenting as straight because that has been the social default. Two, I think you're assigning way too much weight to the things that the creators intended - or that we assume them to have intended - as against what is actually presented on screen. I don't see any particular reason to equate "The creators did not make a conscious decision to portray this character as queer" with "This character should be read as striaght".

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see any particular reason to equate "The creators did not make a conscious decision to portray this character as queer" with "This character should be read as striaght".

nyart but I agree with this, not just in the case of sexuality but generally speaking in terms of narrative. Conscious intention on the part of a creator does not necessitate how a narrative must be read.

[(Anonymous)]

Uh, you CAN be straight. You CAN also be, you know, bisexual. The fact that you want to insist that we default straight is a you-problem.

The only one who could say is the character themselves (and even then, not everyone has a clear understanding of their own sexuality, especially in adolescence).