[ SECRET POST #4743 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4743 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 20 secrets from Secret Submission Post #679.
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://i.imgur.com/XOYWpb7.png

[(Anonymous)]

If you have a preference, you have a preference.

The way this secret is written, and the tone that it's couched in, makes it sound almost like you think that reveling in a delightful secret between the creators and the audience is a superior way of appreciating or carrying out gay storylines. And I don't agree with that at all.

But obviously, your preference for what kind of stories you personally prefer is your own preference.

[(Anonymous)]

Why would you be pleased that homophobes are enjoying something you enjoy?

[(Anonymous)]

Fuck that shit, I don't want homophobes to enjoy shit.

[(Anonymous)]

you know that the 'delightful secret' was just your own wishful thinking right? it wasn't 'coded' in, it wasn't a 'hidden gem' for you to find with your oh so clever brain, it literally didn't exist bc the creator didn't think about gay-ppl existing.

so yeah, fuck that, we can have our love stories explicitly on-screen just like the straights get.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with your take, but a lot of subtext has historically been intentional

(and also, whether it's intentional doesn't matter imo, an interpretation is correct to the precise extent that it's textually supported)

[(Anonymous)]

nowhere near as often as fandom thinks though, and certainly not in any of those 'subtexty' shows/movies, it's just delusional fan-thinking and that's it.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that subtext-y fandom-y things usually aren't intentionally subtextual. I'll say that.

[(Anonymous)]

lol "subtext" is so lazy and people need to stop pretending like it's something worthy of praise. It's literally just bait but when pressed for serious commentary they always back down because the fear of the backlash of homophobes.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

subtext is something that is entirely dependent on the time-period for me, if it's say a 20 year old+ piece of media, yeah i'll probably forgive any gay-content being subtext bc the likelihood they had to mess around with restrictions of the time is high, so i can forgive that. or if it's media from counties that still HAS censorship issues wrt gay-content.

but now? in 2020? in the north-west especially? no, 'subtext' gets nothing from me bc all you're doing it toeing the line so that homophobes won't get mad, or you want to string a subset of fans along with the promise of something you'll never deliver on, bc you don't actually want to. and that can fuck off.

(or what is also likely: that 'subtext' doesn't actually exist and it's just 2 dudes standing next to one another that fandom has declared 'gay' despite them having canon FEMALE love-interests, like snooooooooore to that tbh)

lgbt stories get to be in your face and every bit as explicit as hets have had for decades, and if you're not going to do that then you can piss off and i'll go look elsewhere for media that actually TRIES.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[(Anonymous)]

Ah yes I just love being the canon's dirty little fucking secret so homophobes can pretend I don't exist. :'D

[(Anonymous)]

I completely agree! I like subtext over explicit interactions for any paring, be it het or slash. I like being able to see the inner workings of their relationship rather than having it explicitly stated, or having the dialog chosen for me, y'know?

[(Anonymous)]

Same same. I enjoy slow-burns and nuance.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, there's hundreds of years of media like that. Fuck the homophobes and give everyone representation.

[(Anonymous)]

Whut? I mean, I get you enjoy slashing things, but why tf should we worry about people who can't deal with gay relationships in media? Let 'em get used to it or die off.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I'm gonna say I have to agree to disagree on this one. You're welcome to your opinion, but my main fandom is old shows with lots of subtext (intentional and not) and while the wink-wink is cute, it's also frustrating and exhausting. Older shows (like twenty years old or more) can sort of get away with it because it was so hard to get any representation where the queer characters didn't end up dead, a stereotype, or both, and that was with the characters we *knew* were queer. Subtext was basically the way to go. And for shows that are 20 years old or more, I can roll with it, because I grew up in the 80s/90s in a conservative-ish house and town, so I get it.

But now? Nope. No excuse. Now subtext like that--if it's intentional--is rightly called queerbaiting. Somebody doing intentional gay subtext in the 90s because otherwise their show won't pass the censors--sucks, but okay, other shit was going on. Shows now? It's basically to get brownie points without having to take any risks, and it's not really something I'm okay with.

And I get the appeal of wanting some characters to be ambiguous, to have that room to question. But there's also a real-world need going on, here, and hey, if you like your gay subtextual, as someone else said there's hundreds of years worth of media where the gay was subtextual.

TL;DR: You go with what you like, but I'm not surprised a lot of people don't agree with you. And yeah, I do think you're being a little blind re: the creators winking at you. Sometimes it really wasn't intended, and when the creators realized it, they backpedaled like crazy.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree with your reasoning, but that's what I want out of out of focus remancises. I don't want to see every lazy, supid, and gross serotipe played out to prove true love.

[litalex]

Next you'll be telling me it's better to be closeted than out and proud.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, why should we make homophobes comfortable with their hatred? They need to learn that gay people exist for real and to stop getting offended by it or thinking they have any place to tell others how to live their life.

[(Anonymous)]

How come we can have thousands of hetero pairings up front but we have to keep gay/bi characters as a dirty little secret? If people actually start to talk about said ship the homophobes would still be able to say "THEY'RE NOT GAY" and I guess that side would also be right in your ideal world?

Do you not see how messed up that is? And why should we cater to homophobes anyways?

[(Anonymous)]

I just like it because this is where all the good fanfic comes from. I don't really care for canon couples for the most part.