[ SECRET POST #2099 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2099 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 085 secrets from Secret Submission Post #300.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - pretty much unreadable ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Am I the only person that doesn't get offended by this so-called 'queer-baiting'? Yes, they make jokes about John and Sherlock being together. But I know plenty of male/female leads where this is also done.

If the writers/directors didn't give these little hints/jokes uberfans would STILL find things to point out that show how much leads love each other (Did you see! In these two frames X character totally checked out Y character! Of course, it was purposeful and not at all just an accidental glance. I for one have never accidentally stared at someone for no reason).

[(Anonymous)]

Nope. Gay 22 year old male here who doesn't find it offensive in the least.

[(Anonymous)]

I get offended by the term queer-baiting.

Hi, 30-somthing queer here, can you guys please not use a reclaimed slur to whine about how your ship isn't canon?

[cherrycoloured.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I hate when the term queer-bating is used to mean that. Bromance does not equal queerbating. Actually making jokes like Sherlock does falls under queerbating (though I agree with you that maybe we should use a different term without the reclaimed slur), but Sterek or whatever is not queerbating.

[(Anonymous)]

Queerbating somehow looks like the homosexual version of masturbating, and I'm not even sure what that means. HELP.

[(Anonymous)]

I should probably restate the thing about shipping...

In pretty much everywhere but fandom, queerbait means acting in a manner deemed unacceptable by whatever douchebag is setting the standards of gendered behavior, and implying that you're luring in the queers to have sex with you.

That it's somehow become a term meaning that producers of media are only making joking reference to the gay and will never put out makes me rage.

In the real world, it's an extremely derogatory thing to say.

[cherrycoloured.livejournal.com]

I didn't know about that! I just looked it up on Urban Dictionary, and yeah, a new term for this phenomenon needs to be made definitely. It's a pretty gross word.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for being cool about it. Every time I see someone use it, I'm like where the fuck are the SJW flipping out about this word. People will argue for pages about whether or not stupid is ablest, but toss out a homophobic slur and no one notices.

You unfortunately got my "Enough! I'm finally mad enough to engage with people on the internet!" moment. XD

[cherrycoloured.livejournal.com]

No problem :) It seems to be a word mostly used with guys, and most people online who engage in social justice are female, so maybe they just don't know that original meaning? I usually just roll my eyes when I see people using "queerbating", but next time I see an argument about it on my Tumblr dash, I'll point out the problematic origin of the term.

Ugh, don't get me started about the "stupid=ableist" thing. I seriously can't believe people argue that with a straight face...

[maverickz3r0]

Yeah, please and thank you. I don't consider ship teasing queer baiting even slightly.

[gobbledigook]

Offended might be way too strong a word. I'm not trowing chairs across the room over it, but since I understand the reason they do it, yeah I do find it obnoxious and unfair.

[(Anonymous)]

I could see them getting accused of being homophobic if they didn't have any intentional undertones at all, for not being progressive or something.

Like how people say they're homophobic for not making them a couple to begin with.

[jain]

Am I the only person that doesn't get offended by this so-called 'queer-baiting'? Yes, they make jokes about John and Sherlock being together. But I know plenty of male/female leads where this is also done.

It's one of those things that I wouldn't mind on a case-by-case basis but that really bothers me in the aggregate. When shows make these types of jokes about male/female leads, it doesn't matter because there are thousands of counterexamples in which the male and female leads do become involved in a romantic relationship. But there's a severe paucity of male/male and female/female couples in mainstream media, and in the context of that environment, the jokes and hints that two male or two female leads are just like a real couple makes me feel that the scriptwriters are just reinforcing the notion that of course actual queer people can't be the heroes or engage in a romantic relationship that mainstream viewers could relate to; that's absurd!

[wauwy]

iawtc

[(Anonymous)]

Yup, I'm gay, and it does piss me off when I see yet another instance of a canon joking about two same sex characters being gay (bonus points for a big NO HOMO reaction afterwards). Like another commenter pointed out, a big part of why it's annoying is because there is usually no gay content anywhere else in the show, or it's minimal. The m/f pair that was hinted at being a thing didn't turn out to be a thing? Wait two minutes and bango, you will see a straight couple.

[wauwy]

It's not so much that it's offensive per se (though as a trend over the last 5-7 years, it begins to grate on the nerves), it's that some fans argue that it's PROGRESSIVE, and/or actual gay representation. When uh clearly it is neither.

[(Anonymous)]

As a lesbian, I'm not so much offended as annoyed. It's not that I dislike ship-tease, and I enjoy genuinely heartfelt moments between two characters.

What annoys me are those flirty one-liners that basically end in a silent "NO HOMO". (That's not really applicable to Sherlock but other shows.) I'm annoyed when the ship is thrown in my face.

I used to love Dean/Castiel. But from season 5 on-wards, it became too much "in your face". It felt as if almost every conversation contained one of those flirty one-liners. It's as if once writers realise there's chemistry between two characters, they substitute actual moments of bonding with those fake moments of flirting.