[ SECRET POST #2325 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2325 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 037 secrets from Secret Submission Post #332.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

10. http://i.imgur.com/6qrWWyh.jpg?1?9396

[(Anonymous)]

And queerbaiting is what they count on to keep the fangirls coming back for more (without ever going there, of course).

[(Anonymous)]

I think that's overestimating the importance of slash fans relative to the overall public.

[(Anonymous)]

Srsly. And we'd be there without the queerbaiting too. Being a fan of something doesn't mean your whole entertainment life is going to revolve around it.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know. If subtext is as far as the network will let a writer/showrunner go, and they refuse to let them do actual explicit gayness, is it better to have that subtext, or to totally eschew subtext as queerbaiting?

[maverickz3r0]

That is...a difficult question to answer. It also depends on your definition of queerbaiting.

On the one hand? It's better to have something there, to keep poking things as far as the network's willing to go. I would love if a showrunner just sort of subtly worked gay subtext into something between two characters until it was all but blatant and then that pretty much forced the network's hand. (Not that I think that will happen any time soon because denial is a powerful thing.)

On the other hand...queerbaiting is really, really fucking annoying. The definition of queerbaiting I use is when two characters of the same sex have a relationship that, if two characters of the opposite sex had it, would instantly be declared romantic but the show goes out of its way to stress they're totally straight and not into each other. Frequently played for comedy. It's really frustrating. Is it so damn much to ask that they actually step across that line and offend the bigots who would be offended by it? Are they against it themselves?

On the third alien hand, subtext is not necessarily queerbaiting. If they're not playing it off as a joke, going 'no homo,' making sure we know the characters are totally into the opposite sex (which is all sorts of other skeevy things because it also leans heavily on bisexual erasure), then it's not actually...baiting. It's just subtext. Subtext is subjective. Two people can view the same work of media and get entirely different things out of it.

So: I don't want queerbaiting. That's fucking teasing. But I will take subtext. I'd prefer explicit text, of course, but that's probably not going to happen for a while because the people who make and greenlight media need to catch up to the rest of society first. Who knows when that'll happen.

Of course, when the current younger generation starts running things...

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

It's really frustrating. Is it so damn much to ask that they actually step across that line and offend the bigots who would be offended by it? Are they against it themselves?

I agree with your definition, and this is really what bothers me on a fundamental level. Because baiting basically does go through the motions of setting up and establishing this sense of a relationship, and then it tears down. It wants you to believe that something is there, but it tells you there's nothing and feeds that you're just seeing what you want to see because you're weird--hdu taint pure male relationships like that?

This is especially frustrating in anime and manga fandoms, though, because it's also a marketing practice and yet establishes a hard line for people to point at and shame fans who "see things" between the male characters.

Yet, when the choice is either "nothing" or "more of the same", I know I kept chomping at that carrot the industry loved to hold over my nose.

On the third alien hand, subtext is not necessarily queerbaiting

I also agree with your views on this. Although, more relevant to the OP, I often don't find myself feeling like the homoerotic foeyay subtext is necessarily negative just because I'm queer, and it doesn't feel threatening to me. Like that scene from Bond was witty and flirtatious and I loved it.

Yet whenever I think of this whole "homosexual stereotypes = villain" thing, the one classic example I always think of is... Scar. From the Lion King.

[seventh_seal]

On the other hand...queerbaiting is really, really fucking annoying. The definition of queerbaiting I use is when two characters of the same sex have a relationship that, if two characters of the opposite sex had it, would instantly be declared romantic but the show goes out of its way to stress they're totally straight and not into each other. Frequently played for comedy. It's really frustrating. Is it so damn much to ask that they actually step across that line and offend the bigots who would be offended by it? Are they against it themselves?

This basically sums up my feelings about this. Take a show like Sherlock. I haven't watched it past the third episodes, but I thought the amount of "slash subtext" combined with "don't worry, no actual homo" was bordering on awkward. It's something I associate with TOS Kirk and Spock, not with a series made in 2012.

[(Anonymous)]

It is possible to like something while recognizing its faults.

[(Anonymous)]

this this this this this this thiiiiissssssssssssssss

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure how much Silva actually counts as gay subtext. That scene wasn't really implying that Silva himself is gay (possibly he's bi, but he's previously established as sleeping with women), more that Silva is accustomed to using the threat of rape as a coercive/interrogation technique. The Bond mythos regularly portrays that as a risk of the spy game regardless of the sexualities of those concerned, Skyfall just finally went that extra step and showed it as a threat towards Bond instead of the random Woman-of-the-Movie. It heavily implies that both Silva and Bond have experienced rape or threats of rape as part of their jobs before.

I don't know. I just think that scene had nothing to do with sexuality or desire, and everything to do with power and threat and the dangers of the game. If Silva had foe-yay with anyone, it was that weird, twisted, mother-betrayer-lover thing he had with M.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, this. I can definitely interpret the scene as foe yay, but if I sit down and analyze what I think was going on, your explanation is definitely what I end up with (at least as a major part of it). Silva's sexuality is irrelevant - the scene is about power dynamics and about who has the upper hand in that situation.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. I mean, Silva could be bi. He could even be flat gay, and sleeping with women was just a blind or a deception or just pure habit from the job. It's really, really difficult to tell what the original sexualities might have been when sex is as much part of the job as anything done for personal pleasure for these people.

I actually do like that about the Craig!Bond era, that they went some way to explore the effects that has on Bond and other characters.

[(Anonymous)]

Came here to post this. Good job anon!

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you!

[(Anonymous)]

DA: I agree with your interpretation (and that's one of the reasons the gay-seeming villain trope didn't bother me). I loved that they actually went with the sexual threat, common in spy movies, from a guy towards Bond. As I loved when in one of the previous movies sex for information was shown as strictly a job for Bond.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes this. In most cases I've seen where a book/movie/etc. actually goes there with male-on-male rape (or threat of), it's all about the power/humiliation at work, and not about the villain being ~an evil gay~

(haha I kind of really liked the twisted mother issues Silva had going on much more than his interactions with Bond...)

[cloud_riven]

I'm in both the "OH GOD this again? Is homoness an evil add-on? Come on already." and "OH YES now touch him on the mouth real predatory like. Just like that. ♥" groups.

The thing about being in the offended camp, for me at least, is that I just want more portrayals of queer all over the place. Good, bad, neutral, stereotypical, non-stereotypical, and whatever so long as it's not placing the being lgbtq* as a negative. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop enjoying tropes and such, though I might if it were actually the only thing available.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. I'm gay, so on one hand, I don't like to see only the bad guys portrayed as possibly "gay" and using that gayness as a weapon of evil. But on the other hand, I'm a kinky little fuck, and I totally get off on that shit. more evil, sexy touching, please!

[(Anonymous)]

Effing hell, I was seriously considering making the exact opposite secret today! About how fandom is all "omg so hawt sexy sassy fabulous", but all I see is the sissy villain trope.

For the longest time, I thought foe-yay was the POINT

[nyxelestia]

To this day I'm still never sure of the gay subtext is meant to make villains creepier or just to entice some of the audience subsets with foe-yay.

That said, as a somewhat queer person, I'm with you on this. I know I should be offended and I know why it is offensive in general, but I just find it more fun than anything else.

Re: For the longest time, I thought foe-yay was the POINT

[(Anonymous)]

It's to make them creepier, and it's no surprise that a "somewhat queer" person wouldn't be bothered by it.

[light_shade]

No fic recs from me, but here's a lovely little Bond/Silva vid I found a while back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og7DXMORyyE (Note, it is very effects-heavy, for those that don't like too many flashes and such.)

[(Anonymous)]

I still don't think Silva is gay. Feminine, yeah, just a bit. Why? Who knows? What matters to me is that he came on sexually to Bond, Bond seriously went along with it, and Silva got freaked out. They took that trope and twisted it right around and I loved it!

They've been doing a lot of stuff like that in Craig's films which is why I love Casino Royale and Skyfall (Quantum of Solace was a mess.) But I still love the old school Bond films, even with all of their social problems. Some of those problems are the best parts of the movies!

[seventh_seal]

I agree that it can be considered offensive, although I did like the villain in the latest Bond film (and enjoyed Bond's comeback to the threat).

It's not to say that gay people don't have the same potential as straight people to be evil, but it is a bit jarring when the only lesbian relationship that I've seen in a multiplex cinema in what's probably years turns out to be also fucked-up and the source of evil (Side Effects).

I thought a well-portrayed gay villain was Gus in Breaking Bad.