[ SECRET POST #2523 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2523 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Carnivale]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[Madame LaLaurie from American Horror Story: Coven]


__________________________________________________



05.
[David Duchovny/The X-Files]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Lorax]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________
















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





















09. [SPOILERS for Blacklist]



__________________________________________________


















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





















10. [WARNING for rape?]



__________________________________________________



11. [SPOILERS for Once Upon a Time]
[WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for incest]

[The Raven Cycle]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I don't think it's the same: the power dynamics are very different, specially with M/M slash, where both characters are straight most of the time and "turned gay" for fandom.

So unless you are going specifically for sub/dom atchetypes, the power dynamics are far more equal. Men are equal to other men in most contexts, sadly, women are not, take most historical ones as example.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a really out of date version of M/M. All the slash I've seen over the last ten years posits the characters as gay or bi, including all the Holmes/Watson.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse and offensive and doing that "slash is OOC because unless a man is canonically stated to be outright gay he must must must be 100% straight, there are no closets, bis or other alternatives" thing. In which case you're ignorant or a bigot.

[hiyami]

Unless your reading comprehension fails, or mine, I think OP above you meant that characters are straight by canon, and fandom considers them as gay. Which is exactly what you seem to do in the second part of your comment.

[(Anonymous)]

What? No. Unless characters go around saying "I'm straight, 100%, never looked at one of my own gender that way" - which you will allow they rarely do - we can't say they are "straight by canon".

They could, if they are shown as liking/sleeping with the opposite sex, be bi and also like their own gender. Case in point being John Watson. They could, if they show no interest in the opposite sex, be gay or asexual. Case in the latter point being Sherlock Holmes.

We don't know, of course, because they are fictional. But to say "you made someone OOC merely because you wrote them as not-100% straight: big old nope.

Oscar Wilde was married with children. So was John Symonds. They also slept with men, quite a lot of them.

[(Anonymous)]

I meant it in the sense that the character is given in fanfic a sexuality they don't have in canon; be either complementary or exclusive of it. I meant "turned" in the same way you'd say "Starbuck got turned into a woman in the adaptation". No connotations whatsoever.

But yeah, you shouldn't make assumptions: that second part of your post was completely unnecessary, and it's disheartening how you went to worst case scenario mode instead of making sure what you understood was what I meant.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't go to worst case scenario and made no assumptions - I said "unless" and it was based on a great deal of prior experience of people saying "you changed the character's sexuality" (a bit difficult unless we are explicitly told a person never looked at someone of their own (or the opposite, in the case of those shown in same-sex pairings) gender. And that's pretty rare.

Frankly your example *really* doesn't help your case. Suggesting someone might have had, or have in future, different sexual preferences than they are shown to have in those slices of their fictional existence we have so far, is not at all like changing their gender, and to suggest it does actually makes my caveat more likely, not less.

Real life example. A Victorian man, married with four daughters. 100% straight, right?

Wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Addington_Symonds)