When subtext =/= buttsex.

[mothwing]

Lots of sensible things about LGBTQ representation are being said over at sparkindarkness' journal on how problematic subtextual and Word of Gay type of "representation" in canon are.

«Ok a rant about LGBTQ representation – and why hints don’t cut it»

[...]

No, it’s not enough. Your hot men who have what may be a lingering look or touched each other a little longer than you thought was strictly necessary or y’know are just “so gay together” do NOT count as GBLTQ representation. I don’t care if you’re sat there with your slash goggles and you’re going to run on home and dash off a ream of steamy steamy mansexing (but hey, if you’re going to, maybe you can avoid tropes like making one of the men shorter than he is on screen so he can ‘bottom properly’ and other such badness? Ugh, yes really) your slash fantasy is not a GBLTQ representation.

[...]

sparkindarkness .

There are also smart things in the comments on how problematic platonic and asexual relationships are being made if every platonic on-screen relationship is automatically seen as sexual by kazaera  here.

Comments

[lordhellebore]

I agree completely that this is not an accurate GLBTQ representation. Anyone with brains should know this.

There is nothing wrong with slash goggles and turning everything into porn, imho....but one has to keep in mind that it's just that, porn & something the fanauthor invented in their mind, and NOT what's actually happening in the movie/book/insert medium of choice.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

More importantly, the over-active hivemind of fandom doesn't let canon artists off the hook in terms of including real, non-subtextual LGBT people, in the story, not posthumous token characters (OH HAI JKR).

[lordhellebore]

1) What do you mean by "doesn't let them off the hook"?
2) I'm a part of fandom too, you know. I find your generalisation of the "overactive hive-mind" rather offensive. Sometimes, I ask myself why you're in fandom at all, really... All you seem to have to say is negative.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

O_o Er... This wasn't directed at you, it was directed at lazy canon creators, but ok.

1.) Means that those canon creators who go, "See?? The SUBTEXT says they're LGBT people, so that's enough! We don't need to create anyone who's icky enough to be openly LGBT or anything!" really shouldn't.

2.) First I wouldn't have to specifically point this out, but looks like I do: me, too, you know. I met the majority of the friends I ever had IRL and online through fandom. I met my wife through fandom. Most of my sparse free time I spend with fan activities. That doesn't mean that I have to agree to everything, and yes, I included myself in that hivemind. Would you have found "extreme prevalence for slash goggles" less offensive? I didn't mean it in an insulting way, though I get why you were insulted, I suppose. Sorry, at any rate. Also, news to me that you can't be part of something AND be critical about it. o.O

[lordhellebore]

1) Now I get it.

2) I know you're part of fandom too - you brought me there, after all. I suppose I said that because I never see you post anything positive. All you post is about how people are doing it wrong...

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

1.) Awesome. :) I think this post really depends on the context of the quote, maybe I ought to have included more context there.

2.) Ok, I know I tend to go through life with a red marker at the ready, but this wasn't even about fandom, this was about canon and how people are getting it wrong there. And yeah, I only ever post about how people are getting it wrong in canon, because most of the time, people ARE doing things wrong. And this is a big part of the reason why I'm in fandom in the first place, fanon has more of the things I'm interested in in better quality than canon does.

[lordhellebore]

2) I...think I misunderstood. I admit to not having read the link but only your excerpt.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it probably wasn't my brightest idea to use my LJ like a Tumblr, either. Should provide more context in future. :)

[lordhellebore]

Now that worked out well *grins*

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was me believing that pointing out that something is not the entire text would be enough in this case, as I thought what I said would be self-explanatory when having read the article. Next time I'll do a step-by-step guide through a text to avoid any confusion as to why I said what about what.

[lordhellebore]

Actually, that is how I try to write my posts when its about external aticles ;) And hey, no need to get so cynical. I wasn't trying to put you down.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

I didn't feel like that in this case because something about this person makes me want to shake her because she's writing about people like me in a way I find horrible and limiting and so fucking stupid that I'm actually kinda jealous at how incredibly cushioned she must have been by straightness that she never had to think about these things before. Plus, I haaate not being able to communicate what I want to say to people, nothing drives me crazier, so I'm cynical now. Not aimed at you, mind, but UGH WHY IS COMMUNICASHN SO HARD.

[lordhellebore]

*hugs muchly*

That is the feeling I get from a lot of "Christian" articles and posts, so yes, I understand your frustration.

how incredibly cushioned she must have been by straightness that she never had to think about these things before

I think I also get a bit riled up because I feel addressed when you write things like this.

Communication is of the devil :/ It's sometimes like even good friends like us are from different planets. Also, I suspect if we could talk in IM or even better in person, some of the issues wouldn't come up.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

*hugs back*

I think I also get a bit riled up because I feel addressed when you write things like this.
But why? That, I don't get. Are you straight? And even if you are straight, privilege and internalised homophobia exist, and they do inform people's views on life (as, as you know, they did mine and pretty much that of all gay women I know who believed they were straight at some point), they do cushion and limit experiences, as they did the author's of this article, and I get to moan about that in my journal because they marginalise me and tell me that the way I am is in some way wrong.

Communication is of the devil :/ It's sometimes like even good friends like us are from different planets. Also, I suspect if we could talk in IM or even better in person, some of the issues wouldn't come up.
Very likely, yes.

[lordhellebore]

Nah, I'm not straight at all, and never believed I was. The first time I was in love with someone other than a fictional character, it was a woman, and from then on it was pretty equally split between men and women.

Think it's maybe just because I'm so easily read as straight - I had 3,5 years of being in a straight relationship AND I have the kid. Especially the kid.

[mothwing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, kids apparently make everybody straight, it pisses me off - and the kind of gossip my friend whose the head of a KiTa overhears about queer parents is just vile. NOT looking forward to dealing with that at all.

Ok, for the record - I don't think you're straight. I doubt I ever did, seeing as how you told me in our first conversation that you crushed on your best friend at school. ;)

[lordhellebore]

I did? *g* It's been so long, I don't even remember. But that sounds like me, to shove it into someone's face like that. I like confrontation with these kind of things in the first longer conversation I have with a potential new friend/partner, because that helps immensely with deciding right at the start whether or not they're worth knowing ;)