[ SECRET POST #4585 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4585 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________












07. [SPOILERS for Good Omens]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #655.
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

[fscom]

01. https://imgur.com/RcQ0BZ5.jpg

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

"I'm not saying it's queer coding but it's queer coding."

It's getting hard to find good discussion about LGBT rep among the conspiracy theories that every franchise is going to have a big gay reveal next season or movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this. I've never studied film history, but from what I've picked up from the internet, queer coding was in fact a CODE that's largely obsolete by now. Whatever people mean when they use it today, it probably isn't it.

[(Anonymous)]

these days it means: i have my ship-goggles on too tight and am reading normal human interaction as romantic. and then they use this to get mad that their show/movie didn't give them the gay-romance that was clearly 100% there.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but +1. I'm not sure if "shipping goggles" is a common term anymore but it ought to be. People used to be more savvy and self aware that just because they really, really want something, that doesn't mean it's there or that it's going to happen.

[(Anonymous)]

'People used to be more savvy and self-aware'

This is pretty much a lot of new societal problems in a nutshell.

[(Anonymous)]

Does anyone else cringe a little at [x]-coding? It always seems to me that it's used to 'ah hah!' identify subsets of people using ridiculously stereotypical things.

[(Anonymous)]

Yup, it's like nothing can just be as it is, there always has to be 'something' going on.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, but I would lol really hard if the stereotype were 'white, middle aged, straight-acting, married, religiously anti-gay conservative politician' - definitely queer coded!! Plot scandal just waiting to happen!

That's never what they mean, though

[(Anonymous)]

Don't forget how the actors are secretly banging/advocate it either.
+1

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's generally really good and cool and interesting to interpret and analyze and read things, and talk about those readings and various interpretations, and that includes looking and interpreting the sexuality of characters.

[(Anonymous)]

IA, if those interpretations aren't almost completely based on wishful thinking.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Other people can come to the conclusion that your "interpretation" of hidden messages in costume colors, beer bottles, and mundane conversations among guys who are written and performed as straight is on the same level as ancient astronauts and trained crisis actors. And a piss poor rationale for your shipwars and nagging creative staff.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that the best approach is judging the interpretations on their merits using our best sense. I don't really like the "hidden messages" framework in the first place, and I think that being reasonable and proportional is good and getting into dumb shipwars or being a dick to creators is bad no matter how you interpret the thing.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

+ 10000

[(Anonymous)]

To me, the conspiracy tends to be more the RL lives of celebrities, which to me is really gross and creepy ie; this person is secretly gay and going to such trouble to cover it up, it would in reality take more effort than just either being out publicly or ignoring the idiots who are obsessed with their sexuality. Examples- the Supernatural guys, the Lord of the Rings guys when the film first came out, Harry Styles, Jeremy Renner, Taylor Swift (that one really throws me, the woman who is famous for her flings with men? Now that is some conspiracy!).
Putting aside the complete bi-erasure that's happening (if there is, infact anything going on) I find it ironically homophobic to assume a person's sexuality.

A+ secret design, OP!

[(Anonymous)]

And sadly, I know what you mean.

[(Anonymous)]

I know what queer coding means but the first thing that pops into my head is, like, lesbians doing javascript