[ SECRET POST #5218 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5218 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #747.
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)]

how on earth can a real person be gay-coded? that's a fictional concept to be applied to fictional constructs, not living people.

[(Anonymous)]

Her songs

People who say that are saying it about her songs, primarily

[(Anonymous)]

right. that makes more sense, and i can get lgbt fans finding her lyrics relatable even if it's not the given intent of her music.

[(Anonymous)]

LGB subtext was kind of a thing in the 80s and early 90s when being too explicitly gay could get an act dropped from mainstream radio play. Melissa Etheridge had two albums full of playing the pronoun game and dropping code that we used to describe living in the closet before she came out publicly. (Apparently it was a badly kept secret to start with.)

In these days of streaming services, you no longer have conservative gatekeepers curating playlists that triangulate for the purpose of selling minivans. Apparently some record execs warn newcomers not to come out still. But arguments that the chart-topping 1% of artists have to live in the closet to protect their reputations no longer make sense these days.

(My big beef here is with Larries and babygate, but I also think it applies to Swift.)