[ SECRET POST #4511 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

This. If one of them were a woman, everyone would be talking about how obvious the ship was.

[(Anonymous)]

DA but one of them is not a woman, and there is no actual queer representation in this series.

[(Anonymous)]

But if people would be agreeing it were a canon relationship if it were straight, then wouldn't it be just as much queer representation if it's queer?

[(Anonymous)]

No, because gay relationships don't have the body of text that make subtext like that useful. Gay relationships have ALWAYS only been subtext, not actual canon. This is a canon relationship that has every reason to NOT be subtext and yet here it still is being kept on the DL. It's not the same at all.

[(Anonymous)]

I think what people want is gay relationships that are as shoehorned-in and sloppily portrayed as het relationships. Their bar is low indeed.

[(Anonymous)]

You know, I'll settle for a shitty gay romance if it means we actually get to see one in a major movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair.

I won't.

[(Anonymous)]

So you'll settle for no gay relationships on screen? Good for you, I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Grow up.
Escapism willfully mixed with realism is what was being aimed at in this movie.
If you can't stand two grown men in a painfully uncomfortable social situation pointedly NOT talking to each other, you're going to find numerous movies "problematic" and awful.
If you want genuine gay characters relating to each other on screen, you must understand that they are going to have multiple points of view, multiple ways of coping with their desires and actions, and multiple resolutions to their story arcs.
Your bizarre insistence that there are only a few ways of getting this done is limiting your ability to look at gay characters in fiction, period.

[(Anonymous)]

Gotta keep the gayness out of family friendly movies! Think of the children!

*Even though Crimes of Grindlewald had implied rape and baby murders

[(Anonymous)]

What I'm saying is, the characters themselves think their relationship is strange. It makes THEM uncomfortable. That's why they don't talk about it in explicit terms.
This isn't about censorship.
Besides, if you had a stupid ex that was trouble from the very start, would you confess about it in gory sensationalist detail to anyone?
I sincerely doubt it.
But I guess you don't think gay characters deserve any character development, do you?

[(Anonymous)]

How is something as simple as "I loved him" gory or sensationalist? It's a statement of fact.

None of this is about character development, especially not in THIS franchise, god

[(Anonymous)]

In context of what has actually been said in text and onscreen, JKR has been far less coy about Aberforth’s goat fetish than Albus’s entirely consensual relationship with another human being. But sure, it’s all about avoiding that nasty sensationalism.