[ 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)]

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.