[ 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)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not flawed, the real question is why OP is so invested in a character being 100% straight. It's okay to leave it at "he seems straight because he only seems to flirt with female characters". There is no advantage to demanding he be straight besides, in this case, anti-shipping.

I would say that sure, a character could be secretly anything. But the wolfkin thing is blatant reductio ad absurdum. There's a perfectly reasonable chance that in any population, a large number of people will have at some point had same-sex attraction, thoughts, or experiences. There's not really that assurance with wolfkin. But really the ultimate point is, if some fan really wants to interpret a character as a wolfkin or anything else, if it doesn't contradict canon, it doesn't contradict canon.

[(Anonymous)]

"he seems straight because he only seems to flirt with female characters".

Why "he", thoughy? She could be a trans girl. Should we use they for every character? Just in case.

[(Anonymous)]

Why, if the character refers to their own gender and the other characters refer to the character's gender? I'm certain plenty of characters have room for trans headcanons that also do not blatantly contradict canon, not to mention characters that are specifically written as ambiguous. There's hardly anything wrong with complying with the pronouns a character uses or is referred to in canon, though, for the obvious sake of grammatical convention. That's not a good argument against non-straight sexuality interpretations, if that's what you're trying to do.

[(Anonymous)]

They could be in the closet regarding their gender and other characters could be misgendering them. Can you prove it's not the case here? I don't think Lance ever stated they are a cis boy.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

Gender presentation feels like a much more specific thing in terms of fictional characters and identity than sexual orientation, but I'm not sure exactly why it seems that way.

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I think maybe it's because gender and gender presentation is presentational in a sense that sexual identity isn't?

But that's just a quick thought I haven't thought it through and wouldn't swear to it

[(Anonymous)]

DA

You could say that, but social pressures exist to make people present a certain way too even if they'd rather not...