- This topic has 296 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yes. Yes it is. That’s heteronormativity and it’s wrong. You shouldn’t need “proof” a character is gay. If a character’s sexuality is not declared, it could go either way.
While I understand what you are saying Crystal, I have to agree with POM.
To create a (hopefully) parallel situation, when i meet new characters i assume they are good until I see evidence that my assumption may be wrong *looks at Blue Fairy* It’s the same concept for me with sexuality though I rarely ever have questioned that with characters. If the character is supposed to be intended as gay then usually a show will make that clear eventually or else when it does come out (heh heh I think I made a pun) it’ll seem like it came out of nowhere. Example: Tara in True Blood. I never had any inkling Tara was a lesbian (or even bi?) until poof, here she is in bed with another woman after about 3 or 4 seasons where they could have atleast had some build up to it or suggested it.
What I’m saying is that in real life, sure, just assuming a person’s sexuality could be wrong *shrug* But there are plenty of people I know that I have never seen in relationships of any kind and I’m still pretty sure they are straight until they tell me otherwise. In TV Land though? If the writers want us to know a character is gay then they would probably make that clear.
queer characters are often relegated to subtext in the first place so that evens it out a lot
Ehh, I slightly disagree. Look at SleepingWarrior, it was hinted and in subtext that there was in attraction before it became full on obvious, I get that. But on the other hand….(and this might get some backlash)… Look at SwanQueen.. A lot of people ship SwanQueen saying there has been plenty of subtext within the writing and acting when in reality there was never any intended subtext at all. So saying LGBT are just given in subtext could just be one’s opinion and interpretation of a character.
[adrotate group="5"]"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 MAGICCrystal, I’m sorry you’re hurt I have already dealt with the issue, as is my duty on this site. I understand being upset, but since the issue was resolved, can we please get back to the topic at hand?
Geez Luiz…we had this argument what last week, or the week before?? I thought we were passed this. @RumplesGirl, if you can, delete any posts I made on this thread if it was that offensive. I apologized, what the hell else am I supposed to do? And FYI @CrystalPrincess…@Felie helped me understand some of your point of view on these sensitive matters. So know that on some lines now, I can see your perspective on a few things. And I think the best way to handle my so called “hurtful” posts is to delete them, keep calm, and let it go.
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
@Crystal Princess – You’re right, the issue was not really resolved, and I had not the nerv to pursue it, because any further response by me would have been some very angry response, which I found though unproductive for me. So I gave up on expecting anything and choose ignoring for the time being.
I think I get what you’re aiming at @PriceOfMagic, @TheWatcher. It is not in itself wrong to assume a character is one or the other. What is wrong though, is to automatically assume and then even worse to insist, that a character is hetero, to make it the norm. As long as it is not stated by the character, and that is the only “proof” it takes and the only that is reliable, sexual orientation and even gender orientation are open to any side.
The issue is, that queer people have to proof that even their personal headcanon has any right to be, to proof that a character could eventually be queer, while assuming a character is hetero is not in the same way questioned. A character might have never been with anyone in the story so far, shown no romantic interest in anyone at all, and still people insist regularly, that unless the character is shown in a relationship with a character of the same gender, unless there is proof of queerness, the character can’t be queer. As in real life it is though not even taken as proof at times, if the character says, she/he is interested in someone of the same gender, let alone has shown unmistakably signs of interest.
That is what is wrong: Queer ships have to be explained and defended just because, while hetero ships at best are questioned regarding a certain person but rarely just because. It is heteronormativitity which takes away richness of imagination.
I know, claiming that any character is queer until proven otherwise puts anyone used to take it as pretty much given, that a character has hetero relationships, into the inconvenient position to all of a sudden eventually have to justify, why the character could have a relationship with someone of different (“opposite”) gender and not with her best girlfriend / or his best boyfriend. Well, welcome to the club, can give you some tips, because we had to do justify queer ships as long as we can remember, regardless if there were tons of chemistry and closeness and flirting, we had to explain. Each and every time. We even have to justify way too often when a same gender relationship has become canon. So we friendly invite you to walk for a while in our shoes.
To create a (hopefully) parallel situation, when i meet new characters i assume they are good until I see evidence that my assumption may be wrong *looks at Blue Fairy* It’s the same concept for me with sexuality though I rarely ever have questioned that with characters. If the character is supposed to be intended as gay then usually a show will make that clear eventually or else when it does come out (heh heh I think I made a pun) it’ll seem like it came out of nowhere. Example: Tara in True Blood. I never had any inkling Tara was a lesbian (or even bi?) until poof, here she is in bed with another woman after about 3 or 4 seasons where they could have atleast had some build up to it or suggested it.
What I’m saying is that in real life, sure, just assuming a person’s sexuality could be wrong *shrug* But there are plenty of people I know that I have never seen in relationships of any kind and I’m still pretty sure they are straight until they tell me otherwise. In TV Land though? If the writers want us to know a character is gay then they would probably make that clear.
The problem is, people do assume a person’s sexuality, as you admit it even, we do it without thinking, we assume someone as hetero, unless we’re told otherwise. We don’t talk about it, we don’t need to, because it is the “normal” thing. So unless you have doubts or are told otherwise you don’t see a reason to talk about it at all. Heteros never have to come out to anyone, they just are. Queer people have to come out to people their whole live, they never just are, they have to tell, to explain and often enough to justify. Every time I meet new people, they assume I am hetero, and when I tell them I am not, I am bisexual, they always react like, ah , okay, hey, wouldn’t have guessed (as if that were a compliment), but no problem. The problem is, they assumed otherwise before even asking.
And I guess you meant Willow not Tara. because it took not even an episode to make clear Tara is lesbian. Willow called herself a lesbian, so that is what she is, regardless that she has been with a guy (Oz) before (as much as I as bisexual would have loved to claim Willow as one of “my” group, but she isn’t). There were hints from the beginning, besides the big clue of alternative universe bisexual acting vampire Willow, it was a possibility. And when the chemistry was there, between Willow and Tara, the writers went for it. I found it rather amusing how clueless people were, people not used reading subtext that is, the very first time Tara met Willow it was obvious, what a chemistry, some were even still in denial though after the beautiful and ambiguous scene when the two did some very intense and sweat producing magic together.
Do hetero ships need much build up? Do there have to be at least suggestions, the character is hetero before there could be any kind of romantic interest? And love on first sight, true love as destiny is such a common concept, why can’t it as well happen in a queer ship?
Ehh, I slightly disagree. Look at Philora, it was hinted and in subtext that there was in attraction before it became full on obvious, I get that. But on the other hand….(and this might get some backlash)… Look at SwanQueen.. A lot of people ship SwanQueen saying there has been plenty of subtext within the writing and acting when in reality there was never any intended subtext at all. So saying LGBT are just given in subtext could just be one’s opinion and interpretation of a character.
Think you mean Mulora, maybe better known as Sleeping Warrior? Philora is Disney canon, aka, Phillip and Aurora. And beg to differ, there have been enough scenes between Regina and Emma that very well can be read in queer subtext as flirting and attraction, though in plain text they were merely read as tension. Besides some, what we like to call at times “eyesex” there were things like, Regina giving Emma red apples (that was so subtext on many levels not just queer, but as well queer), them doing magic together. I very much agree in this point with Swanqueen shippers, if one of the two were a guy less people would question a possible romance, because it would be not the first time an antagonist and protagonist ending up us couple, even more so when sharing some interest, in this case they share love for Henry. People shipped Angel and Buffy, Spike and Buffy, so what is the difference?
Is, was the subtext between Regina and Emma intentional? No, in interviews writers and actors said it was not. But there are two sorts of subtext: the one intended by the writers, and one read by the audience. As one more reason to be taken serious than the other? Why should that be? We interpret every piece of fiction, actually everything even non-fiction, from our points of view, including our wishes, hopes, fears. We do that constantly here in the forums, it’s part of the fun. We read things into it, we discuss it, we sometimes agree and sometimes disagree, and it’s always interpretation. Just look at all the discussions in character threads and some shipping about a number of hetero ships, what is true love, what means soulmate, is there only one true love – there is a lot of reading and interpretation going on, and that is fine. But when it comes to queer subtext (or sometimes other more unwanted political reading of fiction) then it becomes more of an issue. It is then not just discussed as a matter of different interpretation but the queer view is frequently belittled as “over-interpretation” – and that is highly annoying.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
@Myril I was talking about Tara from the tv show True Blood, not Tara from Buffy (sorry, I’ll have a response later, I just wanted to check in before i went back to bed 😛 that’s how much I love this place)
"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 MAGICEven if Emma was Emmett or Regina was Reginald…I’d still be against SwanQueen, for the same reason! It’s borderline Incest…..Regina is technically Emma’s grandmother through marriage, and that fact alone is what solely stands out to most Oncers. Had that not been a problem, then hey, SwanQueen may have happened, because in the pilot…I originally thought Emma was a lesbian, and was convinced up till the part where she explained to Henry about how his father was a hero.
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
Even if Emma was Emmett or Regina was Reginald…I’d still be against SwanQueen, for the same reason! It’s borderline Incest…..Regina is technically Emma’s grandmother through marriage, and that fact alone is what solely stands out to most Oncers. Had that not been a problem, then hey, SwanQueen may have happened, because in the pilot…I originally thought Emma was a lesbian, and was convinced up till the part where she explained to Henry about how his father was a hero.
I know that some people argue that way, I have no problem with that, I am just saying, that some people argue against SwanQueen primarely based on their biase against a queer relationship, and even more so for the leading women of the show, but they do find and use other arguments against it. By the way, for the record so to speak, because I know we will not agree, IMO it wouldn’t be incest, not even borderline, but I have a very narrow definition of incest.
It is one argument brought up against SwanQueen the other I’ve seen in discussions was, Regina tried to kill Emma and her parents, there was too mach evil done, (I have no statistics, what is argued with more often, if anyone has those, please let me know, could need those for some research, and it is the same kind of argument brought up against OutlawQueen, aware of that). But as well can find the argument, that Emma was with Neal, so she can’t be into a woman ever, and Regina was with Daniel. That argument is heteronormative at best. It gets into homophobic territory the moment people are saying, that OUaT is a family show, primetime, Sunday and that is not the time and place for portraying “something like that” aka queer relationships as one of the main relationship.
I am not claiming that Oncers arguing against SwanQueen are all homophob, but saying that some are, and some are arguing homophob without noticing it. One can see people arguing against SwanQueen saying, Regina did too much hurtful things to Emma, and the same people having no problem though with OutlawQueen. That this is happening is evidence that for some the main problem, whatever else they are bringing up, is that they don’t want a queer relationship (of main characters), occasionally even without noticing, that their arguing is showing double standards.
Interesting, that you perceived Emma as lesbian first. I am honestly curious: Why? But of course I question, why would telling Henry, his father was a hero, stand in the way for Emma being open for a romantic relationship with women?
@TheWatcher My mistake, I’ve given up watching True Blood after the first 10 episodes because found it boring. I know that there has been open discussion, that the whole setup in True Blood is an allegory for the situation of queer people and queer rights, but that view has been meet with some reservation and criticism from some queers. Vampires often have an ambiguous sexuality, but are as much portrayed as dangerous, deadly, violent, enforcing themselves on others, as the enticing evil. Interestingly a book and movie series like Twilight pretty much has no ambiguity of the supernatural characters, and for sure not of the good guys among them, they are simply straight.What I said still stands, even for Tara from True Blood. Why do there have to be suggestions and build up? Tara is exploring queerness now, so what? Not even in real life there is always a (noticeable) process for some going on, they just start dating someone of the same gender. Would it have been more comprehensible for the audience if there had been signs? Probably. From what I read would guess Tara could be a character describing herself as fluid, but don’t know what the character claims or says (some use the term fluid as something close to or instead of pansexual or bisexual, I don’t quite like that term, because I find nothing fluid about my sexuality, I am simply into more than one gender). But looking forward to your response.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
SwanQueen would be borderline incest depending on whether or not you consider Regina to still be Snow’s step-mother after Leopold’s death or whether that title ceased to be upon Leopold’s death. If Regina is still Snow’s step-mother then she is Emma’s step-grandmother.
On a side note, Xavier is the oldest relation we have seen so far on Henry’s family tree being Henry’s adopted grandfather through Regina and Henry’s step-great-great-great grandfather through the Charming side of the family since Regina is also his step-great grandmother through her marriage to Leopold.
Screwball Ninja has an mini-essay on sexuality in Once:
http://screwballninja.tumblr.com/post/60291349124/ouat-confuses-me-sexually-a-case-study
Screwball also has an interesting essay on Mulan and Aurora:
http://screwballninja.tumblr.com/post/60375809934/mulan-and-aurora-girls-worth-fighting-for-and
I think unless the characters are clearly shown to be heterosexual such as Snowing, RumBelle, CaptainSwan, Neal, Regina, Robin, Philora, etc their sexuality could go either way. Some examples being Red, Henry, Archie.
Mulan is the only character so far that, whilst her sexuality is not outright confirmed as in “This character is homosexual/bisexual”, there is enough evidence to suggest that her sexual preference leans towards women.
However, it could also be argued that Mulan (and any other character on the show really) falls in love with people rather than a gender. So Mulan loves Aurora but that doesn’t mean she is only attracted to women. Likewise, Emma has been show to have attraction for 3 men (Neal, Walsh, Hook) but that doesn’t necessarily mean she only likes men, however the evidence seems to suggest that is the case.
So how you choose to interpret a character’s sexuality when there is no evidence to back up either side is entirely up to you.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixI think I need to address the way Daniel has instructed me to moderate these forums. When I see an issue getting out of hand, the first job is to ask people to speak more politely to each other, offer apologies if necessary, and then redirect back to the topic at hand. If I have to take further action beyond that then I will. That’s how it goes. There was a heated moment, I stepped in, maybe the apologies weren’t the way people would have liked and clearly there were issues still at play that I could have continually addressed, but it’s unproductive to this thread and this topic. Felie did a great job explaining the position of the thread and that really helped. And if there are still issues, there are ways to address it without it resulting in angry posts. A gentler touch, guys.
Mulan is the only character so far that, whilst her sexuality is not outright confirmed as in “This character is homosexual/bisexual”, there is enough evidence to suggest that her sexual preference leans towards women.
Is there? She was in love with Philip and then in love with Aurora. I’d say that’s an even split because we don’t know about her past or future love interests.
So how you choose to interpret a character’s sexuality when there is no evidence to back up either side is entirely up to you.
Yes but i think the fact is that most people don’t interpret, they just assume. “This character must be heteroesxual because that’s just a given” sort of mentality. it’s that until proven otherwise, all characters are heterosexual. If you think they are heterosexual, and have evidence to back your interpretation, then that’s great. But if you just think they are heterosexual simply because that’s “normal” until proven otherwise, that is wrong.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Question: What does it take to see a character as straight then? It seems that even if a character, Regina, has had a string of hetero relationships, you all are saying she could STILL be queer, even with the whole her true love is Robin thing. Are we just to assume ALL characters could go either way? Just thinking.
What is wrong though, is to automatically assume and then even worse to insist, that a character is hetero, to make it the norm
I wouldn’t say it’s making it the norm, its just that if they want us to know the character is gay, they will usually make it clear. Or it seems to just pop out of nowhere, and while I’m not a lesbian, I’m sure that doesn’t just happen over night.
That is what is wrong: Queer ships have to be explained and defended just because, while hetero ships at best are questioned regarding a certain person but rarely just because
What do you mean by defended? If a queer ship, like SwanQueen, isn’t something that has actually happened, then those who ship it will have to defend like any other ship that hasn’t happened on the show like Ruby/Graham or Emma/August. For some, its not because its a LGBT ship, some people just don’t see romantic chemistry between certain people. For others, they just don’t see certain characters as being gay or lesbian until the show actually says they are. Has Regina been with a woman as far as we know? No. Is she attracted to women as far as we know? No. Can that change in the future if the writers choose to? Definetely. But for now, a lot of us dont see Regina as queer. I get what’s been said about just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t possible and I agree, she COULD be. But, thats not definitive. She’s had Daniel, Graham, and now Robin. If they want us to ship Regina with Emma, they are doing it wrong.
we had to do justify queer ships as long as we can remember, regardless if there were tons of chemistry and closeness and flirting, we had to explain. Each and every time. We even have to justify way too often when a same gender relationship has become canon
Closeness, flirting, all that can be a matter of intepretation. Its entirely different than if the ship actually becomes canon. There was a scene in S3A where Hook said something about winning David over, and a lot of DaveyJone shippers loved that and added that to their reasons why hook and David might get together bid, but for me it was just Hook being old playful Hook. It wasn’t flirty in my eyes,but if Dvid and Hook had actually got together, that scene would have looked different in retrospect. Thats how I feel with SQ. A lot of “evidence” for it is just how one inteprets the relationship between those two.
Do hetero ships need much build up?
Yes. If on the next OUAT ep we found out that Granny is dating Archie, wouldn’t we all be a tad surprised? You can’t just throw everyone together. You have to ease into it, regardless of sexuality.
there have been enough scenes between Regina and Emma that very well can be read in queer subtext as flirting and attraction, though in plain text they were merely read as tension. Besides some, what we like to call at times “eyesex” there were things like, Regina giving Emma red apples (that was so subtext on many levels not just queer, but as well queer), them doing magic together. I very much agree in this point with Swanqueen shippers, if one of the two were a guy less people would question a possible romance, because it would be not the first time an antagonist and protagonist ending up us couple, even more so when sharing some interest, in this case they share love for Henry. People shipped Angel and Buffy, Spike and Buffy, so what is the difference?
A&E made it clear that they never wrote chemistry between Emma and Regina. That they were just two strong women who loved there son. That, for me, kills the SwanQueen ship. Even if Emma were a male, I honestly haven’t seen that much….romanticism? between Regina and Emma, and wouldn’t ship them. I didn’t even ship August and Emma and thought he was Henry’s father at one point so its not just because one person is male and the other is female. And I have no prob with the hero and villain being together. None at all that rocks 😀
As one more reason to be taken serious than the other? Why should that be? We interpret every piece of fiction, actually everything even non-fiction, from our points of view, including our wishes, hopes, fears.
Yes. What A&E write trumps what we feel because they control the show. They’ve written alot I dont like but I can’t change it. You are right, we interpret everything from our own experiences (if only you knew my life, you’d understand why I LOVE regina) but that doesn’t make them what A&E are trying to do. And no matter how we feel, A&E are writing their story so if they say Elsa isn’t a lesbian (for example) in OUAT, who are we to argue? We’d have to deal with it. Our interpretations have no effect on the reality of the show.
It is then not just discussed as a matter of different interpretation but the queer view is frequently belittled as “over-interpretation” – and that is highly annoying.
This is a bit tricky. But I stand by what I said. If the character is intended to be queer, usually they will show us and “subtext” is SOMETIMES just a matter if how one is looking at the show.
Why do there have to be suggestions and build up? Tara is exploring queerness now, so what? Not even in real life there is always a (noticeable) process for some going on, they just start dating someone of the same gender
I wouldn’t say she is exploring, it just poofed and happened literally at the start of a new season, no build up, no hints, Tara just became a lesbian like she just changed clothes. Again, I don’t know much about that but I seriously doubt it is something that you just decide on at the drop of a dime. I think there is a process to it, maybe you question it, talk about it, etc, you don’t just start dating someone of ur gender just instantly if it isn’t something you were used to and True Blood could have given a few hints in that direction but they didn’t which is why a lot of people didn’t like it (well that, and the fact that almost every black main character on True Blood has been gay and/or but thats another issue). And yes it would have been more comprehensible for the audience if there had been hints. Steve Newlin cane out as gay (probably in that same season?) and there had been mild hints about it early on so I was able to hop on that more so than Tara as a lesbian.
"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 MAGICSwanQueen would be borderline incest depending on whether or not you consider Regina to still be Snow’s step-mother after Leopold’s death or whether that title ceased to be upon Leopold’s death. If Regina is still Snow’s step-mother then she is Emma’s step-grandmother.
And based on that moment between Snow and Charming when they were figuring out their family tree, Snow White clearly stated that Regina was Henry’s great grandmother….which means Snow White still thinks of Regina as her step mother, making the step mother role is still in effect. Thus making Regina, Emma’s step grandmother.
"If you go as far as you can see...you will then see enough to go even further." - Finn Balor
The topic ‘Out in Storybrooke: Who should have a Queery Tale romance?’ is closed to new replies.