fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4511 ]

[ SECRET POST #4511 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4511 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 34 secrets from Secret Submission Post #646.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What's the acceptable period of time before we can say two characters dated? For straight people it seems to be one movie.

This.

I don't know if you're being disingenuous are or you're just obtuse but the two characters didn't get a chance to interact yet and one of them was in the film for maybe ten minutes.

Did their past relationship come up?

Dumbledore said "We were closer than brothers" to someone interrogating him about it. As it was he was effectively under a form of house arrest because of his past involvement with Grindelwald, saying that they used to play hide the sausage isn't something that would help him.

Because "I loved him" is the same as saying "we dicked down hard every night, yo"

The people complaining would not be satisfied unless we had the latter. After all there are different types of love, some platonic.

Well, yeah. Portraying the relationship as one that could be construed as platonic is exactly what people are talking about here. That doesn't mean he has to say "we fucked" necessarily but

I'm one of the people complaining and I couldn't care less who dicked down who. I'm literally just asking for "I loved him". Bare minimum of incontrovertible proof.

“After all there are different types of love, some platonic.”

What the fuck?

Did I stutter? You can love someone without it being romantic.

Of course it’s possible to love someone unromantically, genius. Still has fuck all to do with the topic people are talking about which is gay representation in media.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-05-14 20:57 (UTC) - Expand

Well that's definitely not unambiguous

Dumbledore said "We were closer than brothers"

Since Dumbledore isn't a goat, it's not very hard for someone to be closer to him than he is to Aberforth.

I'm sorry, but given that we know that Dumbledore's brother liked to fuck goats -and that was put IN the books-, I think we could have had something better than "We were like brothers". At the very least a "I was put in house arrest for my feelings for him", or "despite all he's done, I can't hate him" Or SOMETHING that can't be ambiguously handwaved by the straight audience (And yes, I've heard people who claim Dumbledore is not gay and that it's all "fanfiction stuff")

Shit I forgot about Abelforth oh my god you're right.

There was nothing about Aberforth fucking goats.

That you assumed 'inappropriate jinxes' involving goats automatically meant animal fucking says more about you than anything else.

JKR heavily implied when questioned that the true story about Aberforth and the goats was not for kids. I'm not saying she definitely meant that but it does at least seem like she doesn't care if people think she did.

Says the person talking about a series where it took seven books for the reveal that Snape was friends with and in love with Harry's mom?

Snape's creepy crush is for another thread.

But... that's because it was meant to be a big dramatic reveal for plot reasons. We, as readers, already do know that there was a relationship in this case. There's no dramatic value to not displaying it. It's a totally different situation.

There is plenty of dramatic value to having it revealed when the two have an actual confrontation with one another where it has the most meaning.

But it's already been revealed to significant parts of the audience through extra-textual means.

Are you saying that it’s ok that straight romance are everywhere but gay romance isn’t as prevalent and is only implied to the subset of people who’re already looking for non straight romance in media?

Not at all!

I was initially responding to a comment about Snape's love of Lily not being revealed until the final book. I interpreted that to be saying that we should be patient and give JKR time, and that this is just how the HP series works. But I don't think that's a good comparison at all.

The point of the Snape revelation is that it was a revelation. We didn't know that Snape was in love with Lily, and finding out gave us a really important new angle on what we thought we knew about the characters and the series. And saving it for a climactic moment heightened the impact of that revelation, and was ultimately dramatically satisfying. So that makes sense.

On the other hand, with Dumbledore and Grindewald, a significant part of the audience knows that Dumbledore is gay already. So there's no point in saving it up to be a dramatic and revelatory twist, because it can't be. So it doesn't make sense to use that as an explanation for not having them be more explicit and less implied.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only