[ SECRET POST #4758 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4758 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[The Witcher]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Mass Effect Trilogy]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Emma (2020)]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Saiyuki]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #681.
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)]

If you think what Dracula does can accurately be called "flirting", I'm not sure you've actually read the book, either.

[philstar22]

Well, what word would you use? I'm not sure there really is a word to accurately describe it. Whatever it is, it is all an act. He's certainly not actually sexually attracted to anyone. He just wants their blood. For him it really is all about the homicide.

[(Anonymous)]

If I were Moffat I would simply not feel the need to establish that Dracula isn't bisexual in the first place

[philstar22]

I don't think that's what he's doing. I think he's saying that his adaption won't be making Dracula sexual. He's saying the focus is on the homicide, which is the point of the term bi-homicide. He's not removing the queer aspect because the bi is still there. I think it might just be a faithful adaption where Dracula uses his the methods he uses in the books to get what he wants from people of all genders. Moffat is just making the point that Dracula's purpose isn't sex, it's murder. He's a serial killer, not a lover.

[(Anonymous)]

Saying that Dracula is bi-homicidal absolutely does not read as keeping the queer element to me, regardless of if the word 'bi' is still present, because it reads as completely sesexualizing the character.

[(Anonymous)]

SA this should say desexualizing obviously

[philstar22]

Dracula can't be desexualized, IMHO, because he wasn't sexualized in the book in the first place. That's where we are disagreeing. He's bi in the sense of going after all sorts of victims. But he's not in any way sexual. He's homicidal. He's murderous and demonic. He gets off on the pain and suffering of others. He's not a sexual being. He uses eroticism to get what he wants. But he himself isn't sexual. It is other adaptions that have sexualized him in a way he simply wasn't originally, and it is Moffatt that is going back to the original version.

[(Anonymous)]

I just disagree with you that reading Moffat's statement as very specifically limited to talking about the internal motivations and thought process of Dracula is the most natural or reasonable thing to do. I don't thinm were going to convince each other on this.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Somehow I think the point is, Moffat intends to capitalize on the eroticism of Dracula biting both woman and men (queer-baiting with all those gasp, oh! ahhhhhhh! sexy death scenes) but then has to blatantly no-homo Dracula himself because Reasons. No gays will be depicted here! No no no! Okay, whatever. We weren't worried about it, you ass. Your homophobia is showing.

Just fucking let someone else who isn't afraid of what the text is make the show if you're so afraid of Dracula being branded as bi, you turd.

Sorry. He really ticks me off.

[(Anonymous)]

At its extreme, it's seduction. Dracula isn't batting his eyes at potential victims or asking if it hurt much when they fell from heaven, ffs.

"Eroticism" describes very accurately and well. And if you think the story of Dracula just about blood or "all about the homicide"... I'm sorry, but you don't get it. It's impossible to separate the blood drinking from the eroticism and to a lesser extent, the sexuality behind it.

[philstar22]

And I never said I wanted to separate it. You clearly aren't understanding what I'm saying. Yes, the eroticism is part and parcel of Dracula's methods. That doesn't make him sexual, though. He himself doesn't experience sexual attraction. He uses the sexual attraction of others. He uses eroticism to get what he wants. But he's not sexual. Other adaptions have made him so. But in the original book he is not.

Flirting and seduction are synonyms to me as I think flirting can mean more than just "batting eyes." But okay, seduction then. Eroticism. I think my point still stands. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see Dracula as being himself sexual in the book.