[ SECRET POST #4474 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4474 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Genie and Jafar from Aladdin]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Project Runway (Afa)]


__________________________________________________



04.
[life of pi]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Chris Evans]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Star Trek: Discovery]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Suicide Squad]


__________________________________________________



08.
[historian, author, and presenter Lucy Worsley]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #641.
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)]

Blehhhh.

I think there's a broader point to be made here about coding, intentionality, and textual interpretation but I'm not sure I have enough energy to go into the whole thing. But I'm definitely really, really deeply skeptical about the idea that there's "an unconscious prejudice about the impossibility of deep platonic male bonds without romance/sex being involved". Honestly seems like kind of a shitty thing to say. And I don't think - regardless of the intentions of the authors - people who interpret it as romantic/sexual are reading the book incorrectly. It's a valid interpretation.

[tabaqui]

I agree, Anon. We have platonic m/m relationships out the wazoo in tv, movies, and literature - maybe some of us are just tired of that.