[ SECRET POST #4609 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4609 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 51 secrets from Secret Submission Post #660.
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)]

Majority of the world is heterosexual. And if studios try to push homosexuality in big block buster movies, a lot of countries including big ones like China and Russia will ban them. I only dislike romance when it's really shoehorned, but if it happens naturally, and characters have good chemistry I'm cool with it.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the point here is that it didn't happen naturally.

Heterosexual relationships in movies never get called "shoehorned" no matter how awkwardly they're done. Also fuck Russia and fuck China.

[(Anonymous)]

+1000

I'm sick of studios placating China in particular to get their money. Considering their homophobic stance and being assholes towards Tibet and Hong Kong, I agree, Fuck them.
And also I'm sick of studios acting all 'we're very liberal minded because we have added in a minute long scene in the biggest film of the year, of films that have been going for ten years, of a gay, no named character played by the film's director'. Yep fuck you Marvel! Don't pretend you give a shit about representation when you did that and then screwed over your own character (ie Captain America) by sending him back in time to assert his heterosexuality, leaving his best friend behind because some fans interpret it as 'gay'.

[(Anonymous)]

Statistically, at least 2 or 3 of the dozens of MCU heroes could be gay. The Infinity War/Endgame story spans the ENTIRE UNIVERSE--but yeah, showing ONE unnamed gay man with a dead partner is fair representation. It's so stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

Having gay characters in movies is not "pushing" homosexuality

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't you know that straight white cis men are the default state of being, and everything else is the 'other' which are only allowed to be utilized when the main stereotypes of their existence have some relevance to the film?

[(Anonymous)]

DA
I think what they were trying to say is that certain countries just don't want to see it no matter what. Just having it represented is enough to ban them, so most movies wont risk losing market by having main characters be homosexual.

[(Anonymous)]

Then the companies making that choice can fuck off.

[(Anonymous)]

It's almost as if movie companies are focused on making money!

[(Anonymous)]

It's not surprising that media companies would act like that, but it is frustrating, especially when those companies also pass themselves off as paragons of representation.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I completely agree! Unfortunately the way the world is right now, I doubt we're going to see it so soon.

[(Anonymous)]

wah wah wah

[(Anonymous)]

IKR, I've seen far less chemistry in ships and far less development - the characters genuinely come to like and respect each other and there's no kissing by the end just the acknowledgement that there's a forbidden longing there.
Also OP can't even recall Agents H&M despite the hilarity of the clothes store so they weren't paying much attention. They even gave their real names, Molly mentioned a few times, Henry a reveal near the end, and somehow they're the only M and H at the time same as all the agents.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem isn't heterosexuality so much as the trope of having to pair up any attractive woman in the movie with a man. A woman is not allowed to reach the end of the film single as her arc is never about her personal interests or development outside of what the male protagonist wants. She must be given as a prize to the man who is framed to deserve her most. This trope is sometimes called compulsory heterosexuality.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought compulsory heterosexuality meant people believing themselves to be heterosexual because they lack sufficient examples of other sexual orientations to see themselves in, but most of it comes from real life straight people being open about it and non-straight people being covert or closeted, not from fictional het couples.

The trope you described... is a trope, but it's not what "compulsory heterosexuality" means.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT—I always thought compulsory heterosexuality was referring to the cultural background noise that just assumes/pushes the assumption that heterosexuality is the only option.

So irl, in news stories, in fictional media... everything from parents making jokes about how their two year old is such a heartbreaker with his little “girlfriends” in preschool to movies having flimsy lackluster het romances shoehorned in no matter how badly they fit, like canned escargot on a birthday cake is compulsory heterosexuality.

[(Anonymous)]

This comment flows very logically from one sentence to the next if you’re a homophobe.