[ SECRET POST #2068 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2068 ⌋

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

01.
[Tiger & Bunny]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Queer as Folk USA]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Devil May Cry]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Key of Awesome! Maroon 5 Payphone Parody: Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[Lorraine Star]


__________________________________________________



07. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d194/throwme2thedogs/fablesecret.jpg
[linked for illustrated nudity/porn; Fable]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________













[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]












11. [SPOILERS for Kamen Rider Fourze]



__________________________________________________


















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]




















12. [WARNING for sexual assault]



__________________________________________________



13. [titc #2]


__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for rape, violence]



__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for eating disorders]



__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #295.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 (warning for abuse) - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 (warning for child abuse) - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[gobbledigook]

No... but when two men are being very close friends to the point where the show trows scenes like this at the audience, they are going for a specific reaction:

http://i.imgur.com/mFyyN.png

I mean, it's fine if you don't ship them or don't see them that way, but people are tired of this because it happens so often they can see when a "male friendship" is just queer baiting from a mile away.

For good comparison think about this, if a show wants to portray two girls in a deep friendship, what would you think if at one point they got into a fight that ended in mud wrestling?

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly never saw the princess carry scenes as ship teasing in any way. I just saw it as Kotetsu ending up in a humiliating position that makes him look goofy and incompetent.

What would I think if two women in a deep friendship ended up mud wrestling? Something along the lines of "Damn male gaze fanservice is everywhere!" I wouldn't think "They're totally doing it! If only the big meany writers would stop teasing me!"

[(Anonymous)]

Same anon should probably also add that she is a slash fan but still doesn't see the princess carry scenes as shippy in any way.

[gobbledigook]

What would I think if two women in a deep friendship ended up mud wrestling? Something along the lines of "Damn male gaze fanservice is everywhere!" I wouldn't think "They're totally doing it! If only the big meany writers would stop teasing me!"

Yes. And just like that mud wrestling scene would be made for titillating male audiences, those bromances are specifically made to make people that want to see them in a relationship interested in them while also not alienating the homophobic viewers. The only difference between the two is that male heterosexual interests are mainstream and so there's no need to be subtle.

That you personally doesn't ship them or see those scenes like that doesn't matter, this kind friendship, and a great deal of the others like it follow this mold, for this specific reason.

And really, people are tired of writers willing to compromise with the homophobic side of the audience, and that they feel the only dignified way for homoerotic relationships to be in the media is by being nonsexual between heterosexual men. That you would reduce that to a childish tantrum is really ignorant and unimpressive.

[(Anonymous)]

Then you'd prefer if bromances were removed completely?

[gobbledigook]

No... I'd rather they didn't take deep friendships between heterosexual people as a good enough substitute between homosexual relationships. I wouldn't mind bromances at all if there were more queer relationships to balance it out, but lately it feels like writers "figured" out that they don't need to have gay characters so long as they add two friends that act just like a couple.

It's pretty insulting, and I feel that even heterosexual friendships would also come off as more genuine if the whole fad settled down.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd like to add here that heterosexual male bromances are, for the viewers, the "civil unions" of television. "They're just like a couple in every way, except they're not a couple! But it's exactly the same! Except for the part where they're not a couple. Why can't you people just be happy with that? It's good enough because we say it's good enough."

[gobbledigook]

Yes. That's a perfect way of putting it, anon. (:

[kittybeard]

re: princess carry.

Part of the issue with the princess carry, or at least the first one, is that the creators came out and stated that if Kotetsu and Barnaby had been a man and a woman they would have fallen in love right then.

[(Anonymous)]

Meaning it's canon by word of god that Kotetsu and Barnaby do not have the hots for each other?

[kittybeard]

Eh? No, that's not what I said.

[(Anonymous)]

Then what does that mean? If Kotetsu and Barnaby had been a man and a woman, they would have fallen in love right there. But they didn't, because they're a man and a man. So they don't have the hots for each other because they're not a man and a woman.

[(Anonymous)]

That's logical fallacy. A resulting in B doesn't mean that not-A results in not-B.

If Tiger and Bunny had gone to a restaurant, they would have gotten something to eat for lunch.
Instead, they went to a restaurant. Therefore, they didn't get lunch.

See how that doesn't work, even though it uses the same logic?

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I meant to write this:

That's logical fallacy. A resulting in B doesn't mean that not-A results in not-B.

If Tiger and Bunny had gone to a grocery store, they would have gotten something to eat for lunch.
Instead, they went to a restaurant. Therefore, they didn't get anything to eat for lunch.

See how that doesn't work, even though it uses the same logic?

[(Anonymous)]

You're just grasping for Kotetsu/Barnaby-is-totes-canon!!! straws now.

[(Anonymous)]

Hardly. I've seen two episodes of the show.

You're just grasping for argument!!! straws now.

[kittybeard]

Wut? It literally is a logical fallacy O_O

[kittybeard]

Yes, exactly! You put that better than I probably could have.