[ SECRET POST #5636 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5636 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Met Gala]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mr Ballen on Youtube]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Satoru Gojo from Jujutsu Kaisen]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twisted Kaiju Theater]


__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 50 secrets from Secret Submission Post #807.
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)]

I think the pushback against a sexless gay couple has a lot to do with the long-running history of general portrayals of queers in media, rather than any kind of asexual discrimination or phobia. In particular the homophobic belief from the general public that ANY expression of any kind of sexual desire, or even a statement of being gay at all, was seen as too sexual, deviant, and inappropriate or harmful for children. As a result, a gay couple expressing any kind of physical affection or sexual interest in each other is still transgressive to this day, and in many cases the general public will just not see a gay couple as a gay couple without it ("just gals bein pals" "just guys joking around!"). And the choices about how much queer sexual desire to put in something isn't made in a void... it can run into homophobic distributors, corporate policy, advertisers, managers, foreign markets, you name it, all of which want to remove queer sexual desire because it personally disgusts them or makes them uncomfortable. Thus there's a push for open affection or desire in opposition to this trend.

This does run at odds with people who want asexual representation in couples as well though. When is an asexual couple just an asexual couple, and when is a couple asexual because it's a result of the Powers That Be thinking queer sexual desire is gross and unmarketable? It's a complicated intersection of things.

[(Anonymous)]

In particular the homophobic belief from the general public that ANY expression of any kind of sexual desire, or even a statement of being gay at all, was seen as too sexual, deviant, and inappropriate or harmful for children.

This isn't past tense - in fact it's gotten especially virulent in the past few years at least in the US.

[(Anonymous)]

When is an asexual couple just an asexual couple, and when is a couple asexual because it's a result of the Powers That Be thinking queer sexual desire is gross and unmarketable?

I've literally never seen executives/whoever claim that a couple is asexual because they think same-sex sexual relationships are gross, because there are no intentionally asexual relationships in anything. I'm not talking about things where there's no sex because TPTB think it's gross so they just avoid it, and then fans come along after the fact and choose to interpret it as asexual. I'm sure that happens all the time, and yeah, it does seem like the result of homophobia and it's not cool.

What I'm talking about is characters who are deliberately written as asexual, and are clearly stated to be asexual (regardless of what words are used because like the secret mentions, there probably aren't many fandoms where it would make sense to actually use the label). That's incredibly rare. And the existence of a romantic relationship that's intentionally non-sexual because that's how the characters want it to be is literally non-existent in media. It's a different thing than "oh, this show doesn't have any sex scenes, I guess I'll interpret it as asexual", and the difference matters, IMO.

All that said, I do understand that there will be people who will think it's the result of homophobia or censorship or whatever no matter what's said about the relationship or how it's written. Given that, I think the ideal situation would probably be something where there are multiple canon queer relationships, and the intentionally asexual couple can stand in contrast to the others whose relationships ARE sexual. (I'm thinking maybe the new version of Queer As Folk could do this, because I can't imagine anything else that would have more than one canon queer ship.)

[(Anonymous)]

(I'm thinking maybe the new version of Queer As Folk could do this, because I can't imagine anything else that would have more than one canon queer ship.)


Just as an aside, Our Flag Means Death has more than one canon queer ship and I can easily see more developing, there could easily be an intentionally ace one in the future.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Ah, yeah, I forgot about that show. I haven't seen it yet (but will eventually because I've heard great things) but I have a friend who loves it and I know is rooting for a canonically asexual couple. I think in that case it could definitely work since there are already other queer couples so it's not as big a deal if one is asexual.

[(Anonymous)]

When is an asexual couple just an asexual couple, and when is a couple asexual because it's a result of the Powers That Be thinking queer sexual desire is gross and unmarketable?

It really doesn't matter. Ruby/Sapphire was a win for queer rep on kids TV even if they only got away with it because they're technically sexless alien rock-people. An asexual couple being canon would be a win even if the guy behind the CEO's desk only wanted to get around having icky gays. Besides, the gross intent baggage with a lot of what's canon right now comes from executive decisions, while the creators are genuine and accepting of all forms of queerness, and creators' intent should always be given more weight.