fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5633 ]

[ SECRET POST #5633 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5633 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Pirates of the Caribbean]

__________________________________________________

04.

[The Music Man]

__________________________________________________

05.

[9-1-1]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Top Gun: Maverick]

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #806.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Butch/femme dynamics are still not heteronormative

This ^

Ah ah, it's not so cut-and-dry when it's a fictional couple. It's all in the messaging. Not necessarily saying that's the case here, but if a butch/femme dynamic is enforced - particularly if it becomes a trend - because it's seen as more palatable to straight viewers, then yeah, something's up.

Uh, no, still not hetero (and lmao point me in the direction of butches in media being more palatable to straight people). Also very much not the case here.

+100

“and lmao point me in the direction of butches in media being more palatable to straight people”

This. There’s no variation of LGBTQ couples that are palatable to straight people if those straight people are homophobic. And the most palatable portrayal of lesbians in media for straight people is two feminine woman together, so the straight male audience can be titillated. Butches don’t usually appeal to them, at least that’s what producers think, so they aren’t considered as palatable. Of course, there’s varieties of straight people outside of cishet men who think this way, but try telling that to Hollywood. There’s a certain view of palatable lesbians in media, and it revolves around them a majority of the time. That’s why lesbians have been fetishized in media, but only if it’s two feminine women. And bonus points for them usually being secretly bisexual, so they’re hot lesbians who aren’t “too gay”, so they don’t feel too unattainable to these dudes. This is even prevalent in lesbian porn, where you have to know where to look to find any made by women for women that don’t have one of them conspicuously throw out a mention of a boyfriend. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with bisexuals, but the decision to make these women bisexual isn’t to promote bisexual rights, it’s to not alienate male viewers completely. As someone who used to identify as a lesbian before I realized I was trans, this is a story I know well, how lesbians are portrayed in mainstream media, and how the closest version of “palatable” lesbians are just fetish bait for cishet men.

Butch/butch pairings are not considered palatable to straight people. That's why we never see it on TV.

Lipstick Lesbians are seen as bait for cishet men, but butch/femme pairings are considered more palatable to straight women... the intended audience of shoujo series like Sailor Moon?

"There’s no variation of LGBTQ couples that are palatable to straight people if those straight people are homophobic."

You literally contradicted yourself with your entire comment. Dudes who watch lesbian porn can still be extremely homophobic.

No I didn’t. I never said these straight men weren’t homophobic. I went on length about the fact that the version of lesbians they find palatable aren’t realistic lesbians, they’re paper-thin wank bait. They’re not even realistic representations of bisexual women. There’s no actual real representation of LGBTQ people that are palatable to straight people if those straight people are homophobic, like I said. You didn’t bother to read anything else after you honed in on that one sentence and misunderstood what I was talking about, when I said a lot more after that sentence that would have clear up my meaning. I don’t know why you thought you had something there, but being disingenuous like you are isn’t a great approach. And actual butch/femme lesbians weren’t more palatable to shoujo audiences at the time, and still aren’t quite, Takarazuka dynamics are. It’s a similar concept of romanticism of “non-traditional” relationships as straight men and Hollywood bait and switch lesbians, but with a different tone. This one based a type of theater in with only women actors. Takeuchi has gone on record to say that Haruka and Michiru were inspired by Takarazuka, with Haruka especially being based on the women who play men in the plays. They’re not indicative of real butch/femme lesbian dynamics, which were still treated with homophobia at worst, and a “taboo curiosity” that bordered on dehumanizing at best in Japanese society at the time. So no, butch/femme was not considered “palatable” at the time, the real life inspiration was. It’s the same with other Japanese manga, even some considered shoujo-ai, like Oniisama e...

NAYRT

That’s not even remotely a contradiction. Do you even know what a contradiction is if you get the meaning so wrong?

They mentioned palatability which doesn’t equal actual acceptance of the minority group being featured. That’s like saying someone contradicted themselves when they say that shows from the 70s and 80s had black characters act in a way that was more palatable to white audiences. “You contradicted yourself with your entire comment. White people who watched Webster can still be extremely racist”.

Do you even hear yourself when you say that’s a “contradiction”? Of course people who consumed this type of entertainment can still be bigoted. That’s the point of making characters and pairings more PALATABLE. Which is another word you apparently don’t know the meaning of.

I get what you’re saying, but while the behind the scenes intent and trends may be heteronormative in some way, ayrt is correct that the couple themselves can not be heteronormative if they’re not a heterosexual couple. Even if the couple is fictional, because it is that cut and dry in this case. In the same way a society that tries to force rigid gender roles even on queer couples doesn’t make said queer couples heteronormative if they seem like they follow these gender roles to outsiders who don’t actually know this couple. The same is true that a fictional queer couple is not heteronormative just because the creators might have had heteronormative ideals. To use another(probably flawed, so forgive me) example: if an author originally wanted the protagonist of his novel to be a man because he’s a misogynist who thinks female leads are bad and “forced”, but gets talked into making the lead a woman anyways, she’s still a woman despite the behind the scenes scumminess of the author when it comes to woman protagonists. Even if the author keeps the exact same characterization and traits he had written for his male lead even after rewriting the lead to be female, she’s still a woman if that’s what she is. I’m not trying to imply with my example that Haruka was originally written to be a man in a straight relationship with Michiru, that’s not the case at all. I’m using that example to attempt to illustrate that you can’t have something be what it’s not if the intent is clear. Just like in real life how something or someone can’t be what it’s/they’re not, because it is what it is. No matter if Naoko Takeuchi has heteronormative ideals, which is already a debatable topic, she wrote HaruMichi to be a lesbian couple. So they are. And thus, they can’t be heteronormative. Usagi and Mamoru? That has a strong argument that they can be considered a heteronormative pairing. Haruka and Michir? They can not be heteronormative. That’s not how heteronormativity works.

How sad is it that I agree with you and yet my bad wording makes us disagree?

If we agree, then we agree. Bad wording or not. I wrote that comment in response to another anon, so unless that was actually you, the wording of your secret is a different matter that I’m not referring to. I can accept this was all a big misunderstanding and that you didn’t mean to imply anything bad. I personally think you’ve made your actual intentions clear by now, and you seem like a genuine person, so it’s all good.

No, that wasn't me. I would like to just have been able to explain or agree with all of this from the beginning in order to avoid this long discussion (pretty sure many people had fun but I am exhausted and maybe a few were offended). Thanks.

I understand.

In a conversation about a fictional couple, saying that you don't like X ship because you think it's heteronormative is the same thing as saying that you don't like the presentation of X ship because you think said presentation is fueled by heteronormative intentions. We're not talking about real people, there is a difference. I really can't agree with this take that as creator, if I just make a pairing gay I can escape all my inherent biases and not have to care about the framing of my story.

Nobody said that making the characters gay escapes anyone’s inherent biases? That’s actually the opposite of what was said, with the example and everything. The characters themselves are not heteronormative if they’re not written as heterosexual, that’s not how that works. But the behind the scenes intent can still be heteronormative, and that’s a different story. That’s the entire point of the post, which you seem to be ignoring. You’re acting in bad faith pretending anyone said the way a couple is written can’t be heteronormative in the mind and intent of the creators, just because the couple themselves can’t be heteronormative if they’re not heterosexual. There’s a difference between intent and practice in fiction that you aren’t considering just so you can stick to your misunderstanding of the point behind what people are saying, or why you’re wrong about a gay couple being able to heteronormative even if they’re not real.

In a conversation about a fictional couple, saying that you don't like X ship because you think it's heteronormative is the same thing as saying that you don't like the presentation of X ship because you think said presentation is fueled by heteronormative intentions

That’s absolutely untrue, and a bad away of looking at things. It’s overly simplistic, disingenuous, and not based on fact.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5633 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

OP

Re: OP

OP

Re: OP

no subject

no subject

no subject