[ SECRET POST #3834 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3834 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #549.
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 guess my problem with that line of reasoning is that... being in the closet is a thing? It's a phenomenon that happens that we can talk about intelligibly. And obviously, if you're dealing with a real person, you respect their ability to define their identity on their own terms and timeline. I don't see why the same is necessarily true of a fictional character.

Like, in all sincerity and honesty: what's the argument for why it's important to take Dean's statements at face value there?

[(Anonymous)]

Sure it's a thing. But repeated negative declarations and disinterest when being propositioned, are also things.

Your head canon might be Dean is so far in the closet he may as well be in Narnia, but that doesn't make it anything other than wishful thinking.

[(Anonymous)]

OK, so... you're just angry at people who say that Dean is textually clear?

I'm not sure "wishful thinking" is a useful framework here, I think it probably makes more sense to talk about whether or not it's a plausible interpretation than whether or not it's canon

SA

[(Anonymous)]

That should be "textually gay" in the first paragraph there

Re: SA

[(Anonymous)]

Dean the secret Scientologist

[(Anonymous)]

+1

It's baffling that someone would choose to base their argument about his straightness on that. If you want to argue about the writers' intentions, it makes more sense to look at statements the writers have made about their intentions. Rather than, you know, things a character says in-universe which are, like every other aspect of the canon, up to interpretation.

[(Anonymous)]

The writers have said he is straight. The actor has said Dean is straight. The text has shown Dean as stright. Does that stop anyone from writing him as pay for gay or pining for Castiel? Nope. I've done it myself. But canonically, Dean Winchester isn't gay or bisexual.

[(Anonymous)]

gay for pay. Gah.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I never stated whether I thought he was straight or gay/bi. I just agree with the OP of the secret that it's stupid as hell to claim he's canonically straight based on things he says in the series when they could be backing their claims up with things the creators have said.

Everyone has their own opinion on the correct interpretation of any canon. To say "this is canon because this is how I interpret canon!" is ridiculous, because, as is evidenced by the very existence of the argument over Dean's sexuality, others more likely than not have their own interpretation, and theirs isn't more or less valid than your own. If you want to play more canon than thou, you have to do better than that.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't expect anyone to recognize your crazy delusions as anything other than delusions, though. I'm sorry anon but Dean is gay or Dean is a trans girl or Dean is an otherkin aren't interpretations, those are delusions.

[(Anonymous)]

What is your evidence that Dean is anything other than what he says he is?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

This has nothing to do with my comment. Read my response to the anon above you.

[(Anonymous)]

Writers show their intentions through their writing. The way they write their characters, the things they have them say and do. It's much more likely that a real person could be gay and unaware of it or very good at hiding it, than that a fictional character is actually gay when he says he's straight time and again with no deliberate text that implies he's hiding it or not aware yet. Characters are fictional and can't keep secrets about themselves from their own writers.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

If writers always perfectly got their intentions across through their writing alone, there would never be any arguments over canon.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree with this, and I want to be clear that I disagree with it in the most general possible sense for reasons in no way specific to this discussion. The text is the text is the text is the text. What we're doing is interpreting the text. Statements of the creators external to the text can, at best, be a guide to our understanding of the text, but the text itself is the paramount thing, not the statements or intentions of the creators. And if it's open to interpretation in the text, then it is open to interpretation in the text, whether or not the creators wanted it to be. If it's unspecified, then it's unspecified and nothing more.

I mean, I'm not even advancing an argument about whether Dean is gay or straight here. My point is just that the answer to that question has to be located mostly in what shows up in the text itself. Not in lines of argumentation about how if the creators had wanted him to be gay, they would have implied it or stated it definitely. I agree, for what it's worth, that the creators probably don't and haven't intended him to be gay at any point, but that's really secondary.

[(Anonymous)]

This is exactly what I was thinking as well. I mean, having a character assert himself as straight is one of the most overt possible ways for the writers to establish him as such (providing, as you say, they aren't deliberately doing things within the text to imply otherwise).

Having the character sleep with women and only women? Having other people who know the character well assert that they've never known him to show interest in another guy? Having the character not show on-screen interest in any male characters? All of those things are evidence based on absence, and so are more easily discounted. Whereas having him outright state that he's straight is not evidence based on absence, it's evidence that's present and quantifiable.

Could that character still be gay or bi, and just be unaware of it/in denial/in the closet? Sure. But the writers had him state his heterosexuality, and they obviously did so for a reason. They wanted to establish something with that line. So in the absence of anything that deliberately implies the character isn't straight after all, the burden of proof is pretty clearly on the people who want to read him as being canonically other-than-straight.

[(Anonymous)]

You've never read or watched a story where you thought it was perfectly obvious that things were one way, then seen an interview or something where the creator says something completely different?

Writers have blind spots and biases too. Sometimes, what they write and what they intend are in complete opposition to each other.

(I would name names but that would just start another tangent.

[(Anonymous)]

That would make more sense if Dean acted like he was in way homophobic or adverse to gay people. But he isn't. He seems pretty accepting and cool with anyone who is gay.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm genuinely not sure whether that's a useful predictor of whether or not someone's in the closet. I'm kind of skeptical that it's very meaningful either way.

[(Anonymous)]

?? Straight doesn't automatically equal homophobic.

[(Anonymous)]

No, but if he (or his brother) has no problem with homosexuality, why would he be so firmly in the closet?

[(Anonymous)]

lotta reasons

[(Anonymous)]

There's a pretty strong correlation.

[(Anonymous)]

Somebody asked why Dean would be in the closet if he was "only gay" and it wasn't like he was TRANS or something and I had no idea how to explain to them that yes, even in the US of A, there are people who think gays are horrible evil sinners who should be tolerated only if they are trying to fight their "reprobate minds."

[(Anonymous)]

For the general public? Sure. Reason to be hay and closeted. But you're ignoring the point, which was why would he be closeted in private - which we see a lot of - when he and his brother ate both fine with it.