- This topic has 68 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So yeah, Ruby could be bi (I could see it happening) but how will I know if I never see any indication of it
Well, I would say there are some indications. Ruby is neither human nor wolf, she is both. She straddles lines. She is able to move from one thing to the next seemlessley because of her confidence in herself and self-acceptance. They likened here one time to Liza Minelli (sp?) who is a gay icon (even though she’s not gay herself).
I don’t hold my breath for it. I have already given up on these writers ever doing more than paying lip service in many regards.
Preaching to the choir
I should note that in the D23 interview last month, Adam and Eddy actually said they would love to bring Mulan back later this Season, so we may get our wish in regards to expanding her ambiguous sexuality.
Filed under “things we would love to do.” In other words, would if we could but we won’t becuase OH LOOK SHINY
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I agree with Watcher. At the moment there is evidence from the past seasons to show that Ruby is heterosexual inclined, the writers could change that, but in doing so, they would need to show that. With Archie, there is no evidence to show whether he is homosexual or heterosexual, so the writers don’t need to show any set up since writing him one way will not conflict with something shown previous.
As for assuming a character is straight unless shown otherwise, why can’t we think of a character however we want until shown evidence to the contrary? There is nothing wrong with that. People have their own views and opinions that are just as valid as someone else’s. Neither opinion is wrong until evidence is presented otherwise. It’s Schrodinger’s Cat theory. So Archie is both straight and LGBT same as Ruby. They are both!
The point Watcher was trying to make with the Zoophilia stuff is how do you know Regina isn’t into some weird kinky stuff. There isn’t any evidence to prove she isn’t likewise there isn’t any evidence to prove that she is. It’s Schrodinger’s cat theory.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixBut comparing any queer person or relationship with being attracted to animals is highly dismissive and offensive and a token of homophobia.
I wasn’t comparing being gay with being a zoophile, I was comparing the fact that Regina could be into other things too. She could be straight, gay, bi, there’s an entire list of possibilities, being a zoophile included. My point was simply what you said yourself: “it could have already happened in the past but not shown (it’s not like we have seen every minute and thought of their lives), could happen now without being already obvious, or might happen some time in the future”. If we dont see it, we can’t know for sure unless they make it explicit for everyone to see. But I’ll drop the point. If (and hopefully when) A&E decide to include a queer character, it won’t be a matter of if, maybe, and possibly, they will show us hands down 100% in a completely unambiguous way, regardless of who it is. I hope >>
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICI agree with Watcher. At the moment there is evidence from the past seasons to show that Ruby is heterosexual inclined, the writers could change that, but in doing so, they would need to show that.
What are we talking about here? If they bring Red and Mulan together, or Red with someone else, I expect them to do it on screen and not like they like to do other stuff off screen and just make a remark about it on screen. As well I would be miffed if the pull anything along pixie dust doomed soulmate nonsense. They have to show it, of course, what do you think I am meaning?
But different from you I don’t assume that it is any unlikely for Red to be something else than heterosexual, to me that is open, maybe, maybe not, everything is possible.
You still don’t get what heteronormativity is and means. It means, that the common image, the thing most people including most on here think first of is a heterosexual person, unless the person is shown from the start as not heterosexual, is shown being with a person of the same sex. There is everything wrong with that. It leads for example to that people like me, a bisexual person, are to most people invisible, because they demand prove in form of a relationship that I am attracted to people of the same gender (and the other one). Many don’t take my word for that, because no prove, no evidence, no lover to show, then it is not possible, not true. Yes, people deny me my identity, to be who I am, demanding prove. If you demand prove that a character is interested in someone of the same gender before ever assuming it could be possible, you do the same to a fictional character, deny the possbility of a different idenity than the one you think is most likely.
It’s your opinion, right, but it’s still heteronormative.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
Hmn…. So hows about we just move on? Like RG said, this exact conversation is what got the other queery tale thread shut down >> lets learn from our mistakes, dearies. Moving on. WHO ELSE DO YOU GUYS THINK WOULD MAKE A NICE QUEER PAIRING IN SB? 😀
A sudden thought…. Edna Mode and Cruella De Ville. Think about it.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICI am out of here.
It makes no sense to discuss possibilities if you need prove before considering possibilities. If you say, only if there is prove that someone could be interested eventually in someone of the same gender, or at least hinted at, or has to be a person to be shown so far without any kind of attraction at all, then the choice is very limited to characters not yet on the show or someone as ignored for romance so far as Archie. That is convenient but unimaginative.
edit: What makes a character not yet shown to be attracted to anyone on the show, probably because hadn’t been on the show so far, that different from a character on the show? I assure you, people will argue the same way against every character from fairy tales and whatever myth, if there haven’t been at least hints or more likely already queer relationship stories for that character. It has to be then better a completely new, just for OUaT invented character to play nice and not be inconvenient.
And I am still waiting for an apology.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I agree with Watcher. At the moment there is evidence from the past seasons to show that Ruby is heterosexual inclined, the writers could change that, but in doing so, they would need to show that.
What are we talking about here? If they bring Red and Mulan together, or Red with someone else, I expect them to do it on screen and not like they like to do other stuff off screen and just make a remark about it on screen. As well I would be miffed if the pull anything along pixie dust doomed soulmate nonsense. They have to show it, of course, what do you think I am meaning?
Okay now we’re getting somewhere. We’re making the same point.
You still don’t get what heteronormativity is and means. It means, that the common image, the thing most people including most on here think first of is a heterosexual person unless the person is shown from the start is not heterosexual, is shown being with a person of the same sex. There is everything wrong with that. It means that people like me, a bisexual person is to most people invisible as bisexual, because they demand prove in form of a relationship that I am attracted to people of the same gender and the other one. Many don’t take my word for that, because no prove, no evidence, no lover to show, then it is not possible, not true. Yes, people deny me my identity, to be who I am, demanding prove. If you demand prove that a character is interested in someone of the same gender before ever assuming it could be possible, you do the same to a fictional character.
It’s your opinion, right, but it’s still heteronormative.
Can we just stop using the heteronormative label. You don’t like the crack label, I don’t like the heteronormative label. Every point we make seems to get the “your view is just being heteronormative” just because it doesn’t conform to YOUR view and opinion.
Your saying it’s wrong to assume a character is straight unless shown otherwise, but isn’t it equally wrong to assume a character is gay unless shown otherwise? For example:
Archie hasn’t been seen dating a woman, obviously he must be gay.
Maleficent hasn’t been seen dating a man, obviously she’s a lesbian.We’ve seen Ruby showing an interest in men so it’s reasonable to say she probably likes men. That’s not to say she can’t like women.
As I said, it’s Schrodinger’s Cat theory. The characters are both until there is evidence to show either way.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixRe heternormativity: what I meant by circling back around was not that we can’t discuss it, but rather that it’s something we spent pages and pages on in the last thread to no end. We can talk about it, of course. It was not the reason the other thread was closed. Fear not.
Re: kinky. Let’s try to stay away from labeling. Just in general.
Re: other pairs. Well, I want them to get the heck out of Disney already. I adore Disney but there are so many other myths and stories we could be doing. I’d love to see them adapt something from Norse mythology or Native American mythology and put their spin on it. What if we had two Valkyries who were together?
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Your saying it’s wrong to assume a character is straight unless shown otherwise, but isn’t it equally wrong to assume a character is gay unless shown otherwise? For example:
I think the overall point is don’t assume anything about a character–straight, gay, bi, pan…
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Can we just stop using the heteronormative label. You don’t like the crack label, I don’t like the heteronormative label.
No. It describes a valid social phenomenon that oppresses a marginalised group. Crack is not a technical, sociological term and is not useful in critical analysis of media. And please do not tell queer people what language they can use to describe their issues. It’s not to do with my personal disagreement with you and you’re making light of the oppression faced by LGBTQ people to make this about you or pull a false equivalence where potentially homophobic ones are held on the same level as inclusive ones. If you’re reading this, pick out the term “Homophobic” and immediately get reactionary and say “I’m not homophobic! How dare you!” – stop, listen, and rethink. That’s not what’s being said and even if it was, some people ARE homophobic or say homophobic things, and need to be called out on them. Just because you have an image of yourself as perfectly tolerant does not make it so. It was incredibly homophobic of you for example to wish there was no queer ship in OUAT just to spite Swanqueen, i.e. Queer shippers. It was hateful towards a subset of queer people. It was plainly homophobic.
When you get upset over accusations like this, you are basically saying my personal discomfort at being called out on being oppressive is vastly more important than actual oppression. The needs and difficulties of queer people should take a backseat to my having of a clean image. When someone accuses you of being homophobic, racist or otherwise oppressive – you listen, acknowledge, and apologise. It doesn’t mean you’re suddenly a bad person. We all live in a society that propagates a certain degree of inequality and often say things in ignorance, we’re all a little bit racist, homophobic, sexist etc. because we’re all prone to institutionalised biases. But you can’t demand an oppressed group view you as a good person when you refuse to act like one.
You wish for the label to be dropped because you do not wish for a negative label to assigned for you. I would suggest instead you look at it this way – I am not queer, I do not have much experience talking about these issues. What if, due to a lack of first hand experience of information, I could be mistaken, and there is a bias in my thinking that needs correcting?
These labels exist to describe real issues. Asking for us not to use it because it vaguely bothers you, when the lack of the word would mean we can’t describe a form of oppression experienced by homo/bisexual people is extremely privileged. The term heteronormativity is not an attack on you personally anymore than “patriarchy” is an attack on all men. It describes a system where straight is the assumed default and an unreasonable burden of effort is placed on homosexual depictions to even get a foot in.
One thing I’d ask is that non-LGBTQ people respect the terminology being used by LGBTQ people. This is a big part of ending oppression. I am not attacking anyone with this. I’m just calling out things that are being said, which are hurtful and oppressive towards a group that is still far from full equality. Please respect that.
As for assuming a character is straight unless shown otherwise, why can’t we think of a character however we want until shown evidence to the contrary? There is nothing wrong with that. People have their own views and opinions that are just as valid as someone else’s. Neither opinion is wrong until evidence is presented otherwise.
But you do not require evidence to assume for example, Regina and Emma are straight. Yet someone this is used to rule out Swanqueen constantly.
It is heteronormativity and the reason you are sick of hearing that is that you don’t want to rethink your argument and how it affects others. It’s wrong, and I’d ask you to please consider changing your perspective. And please stop pushing the false equality of “just as valid”. Queer shippers do not get the same voice in the fandom(or society) that you guys do. You’re making the assumption there’s a level playing field. There’s not. Pretending everyone’s equal doesn’t fix that. You need to acknowledge that some form of oppression of oppression/exclusion/erasure is taking place and give queer people the space to talk about it. Many people have this idea that not seeing sexuality, not seeing race etc. and not bringing it up is the only way to be equal. This is completely incorrect and extremely historically ignorant. It’s what people say when they don’t want to think about being part of an oppressive institution. It’s rarely someone like me that says it.
We’ve seen Ruby showing an interest in men so it’s reasonable to say she probably likes men. That’s not to say she can’t like women.
Then stop demanding evidence that she is. There is something wrong with “assuming” characters are straight because the practice of straight until proven otherwise is a big part of why queer people have been utterly erased or silenced in certain sections of the media.
Demanding that queer people prove their case to you is gross and oppressive and taking offence to being called out on it is wrong. I’m just telling you, nicely, as a queer person who has a lot of knowledge on this subject, the way you’re going about this is hurtful, and reminding you that you speak as a position of privilege. If you get upset about this argument, you can walk away from it. If people decide to get tone policey, we can’t have this discussion at all while you can go back to your CaptainSwan or OutlawQueen thread. We cannot walk away from a lack of representation in the media and how OUAT has failed minorities pretty badly. We cannot enjoy the show in the same way you do. Please respect that and you will be shown respect in kind.
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
The topic ‘So, chances of queer romance in S4, and with who?’ is closed to new replies.