[1200] It was from me

[legion]

May 24, 2013 4:13:59 GMT impish said:

May 23, 2013 7:44:02 GMT legion said:

I think part of the problem is really a tendency for the audience (and sometimes, newer interpretations of older works) to project sexuality in general in works that are devoid of it.

Except that this reaction is ALWAYS brought up when there is any mention of queerness, however canonical or non-

For reasons that I have explained (homosexuality is statistically less common, which means that 1) it stands out and is more often commented upon 2) assumption of heterosexuality are statistically more likely to be true than assumption of homosexuality [unless of course the author makes their work centered on queer characters]).

Zimmy and Gamma as a canon people isn't a major controversy as far as I can tell. The present case, however, I don't deny that the Kat-and-Paz-sitting-in-a-tree interpretation has good possibilities, but with the information we have, an interpretation where Paz likes Kat a lot but in a non-romantic, non-sexual way, and Bobby's letter was just poorly worded, seems equally reasonable.

The problem whenever this discussion shows up is that there's a bit of emotional blackmailing where if we don't accept that a given relationship between two same gender character is homoromantic, we come out as homophobic; when we could instead make the reverse case that some people are strangely bent on denying the possibility of strong bounds between characters that go beyond friendship yet are neither romantic nor sexual in nature.

But frankly having one side shout "homophobia" while the other counters with "asexual erasure" doesn't seem like it's an appropriate activity for us because we are not fourteen year olds.

And the reverse? Never - unless, as in situations like this, people are already arguing queerness is being 'projected into' it and it's brought up as a counterpoint.

This is not true, and I have provided a clear counter-example: Doctor Who.

The fact that Doctor Who's sexuality was never mentionned in the original series, and that in the new series he is portrayed as strongly heterosexual, has been commented upon.

I can attest so because I have never watched an episode of Doctor Who in my life, and so I am aware that this bugs some people because they have told me so.

And while Sherlock Holmes' portrayal as homosexual is commented a lot, this is mainly because this is a more recent and thus more salient interpretation of the character. But I can assure you that his earlier portrayal as a heterosexual are also commented upon, since they are no more (and no less) accurate, as the character's sexuality was never touched upon in the original book.

I mean, take Annie - she was listed by someone a couple pages back as 'straight', even though she hasn't canonically expressed actual interest in ANYONE.

Well you're just providing a counterexample yourself now.

Except this is not true, Annie did show (albeit very briefly) some interest in boys.

www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=942

This does not of course rules out anything, but it does show that you are a bit partial in your assesment.

And frankly, even in works that have no canonical queer characters, there actually is a long, incredibly complicated history of subtext, which is not 'wishful thinking', it's often something intentionally included.

Subtext is open to interpretation by essence; English teachers would have you believe there's all kind of subtext in great works of literature that the writer never intended to be there.

And sometimes the subtext is intented, but lost on everyone (Jack London intended "Martin Eden" as an attack on individualism and nietzscheanism, but he made his main character's plight so endearing that everyone saw it as a defense of these things; he had well explained that it wasn't what he intended afterward, his novel was still not received like he intendedà.

I have had the experience of writing several short stories with a lot of symbolism and references spiced into the story; most of the time all of that flew completely over the head of my readers.

What I am getting at is: there's no such thing as inherently obvious subtext, it's ultimately up to each reader individually what they see and don't see in a work.

If you don't care, fine. If you don't want to see it, you can have your pick of the vast cornucopia of works out there that have none. But the pompous, boneheaded, and completely self-absorbed arrogance in sneering at 'shippers' isn't clever or witty or insightful, just insipid. And pretending that the projection of sexuality*/romance into works is all equivalent and treated the same no matter the orientation is patently absurd, and frankly insultingly inaccurate, like calling night day right to my face.

I think you should read what I write more carefully because you have a tendency to erase the nuances, which are critical; right now I feel more like I talking to an angry ideologue with whom the only possibilities are complete agreement or total enemity.

This a problem I have encountered a number of time in the queer community [but is of course not exclusive, specific, or even specifically intense with them], where people can have the best intent but at the same time be pretty ideological, they have their system of beliefs and their concept and take them as an unmovable whole, and won't consider anything that would change any part of what they believe, treating it as an attack on the entire system, and everyone who questions some aspect of the ideology instead of passively shutting up, listening, and agree with everything their told, are automatically equated with a heteronormative biggot.

Being queer doesn't automatically makes you right about everything queer, and not being queer doesn't automatically disqualifies someone from talking about it; queerness as a whole has its own prejudices, its own asserted dogmas (again, just like anything), and they can be questioned, including by non-queer people.

Conversely, not eveything anyone says that is related to queerness has to be about supporting/opressing queer people, everything is not everything, everything is not politics, the heteronormative patriarchy is not pulling the strings of anyone who says anything you do not like about queerdom.

[xtinas]

Dear impish: Bless you a thousand times for your post. I logged in just to say I appreciate the hell outta it.

[snipertom]

May 24, 2013 4:13:59 GMT impish said:

May 23, 2013 7:44:02 GMT legion said:

I think part of the problem is really a tendency for the audience (and sometimes, newer interpretations of older works) to project sexuality in general in works that are devoid of it.

Except that this reaction is ALWAYS brought up when there is any mention of queerness, however canonical or non- (I mean, look at this page, and how there are still people trying to interpret this as anything else; how all the buildup to this was dismissed as 'shippers being delusional!' even though we now know quite clearly that all the buildup was there and intentional, and the ones fooling themselves were the ones who were dismissing it). Or Zimmy and Gamma's relationship, towards which the same people who will insist on adherence to canon in trying to cherrypick in hetero themes will magically ignore the Word Of God.

And the reverse? Never - unless, as in situations like this, people are already arguing queerness is being 'projected into' it and it's brought up as a counterpoint.

I mean, take Annie - she was listed by someone a couple pages back as 'straight', even though she hasn't canonically expressed actual interest in ANYONE.

Characters are always expected to be 'proven' queer, and those who don't want to see them as gay will not actually accept anything, no matter how blatant, and will continually dismiss and handwave even the most obvious undeniable facts, and move the goalposts every time.

Projecting in queer relationships is different, because despite all that's said about 'so many webcomics with lesbians', there are really, really few that aren't written as cheesecake, and even then compared to the number of het romances out there, it's negligible. I didn't have any lesbian couples in any media i was aware of / had access to for most of my life, whereas I was being told het narratives before I could even speak.

And frankly, even in works that have no canonical queer characters, there actually is a long, incredibly complicated history of subtext, which is not 'wishful thinking', it's often something intentionally included. Take Garak from DS9 - it's easy to dismiss the homoerotic themes as imagined, but the actor has been quoted saying he did intentionally add them in and play them up.

If you don't care, fine. If you don't want to see it, you can have your pick of the vast cornucopia of works out there that have none. But the pompous, boneheaded, and completely self-absorbed arrogance in sneering at 'shippers' isn't clever or witty or insightful, just insipid. And pretending that the projection of sexuality*/romance into works is all equivalent and treated the same no matter the orientation is patently absurd, and frankly insultingly inaccurate, like calling night day right to my face.

(*At least, in terms of sexual orientation. it's actually super, super refreshing to have a work focusing on these teenage girls, some in relationships, some queer, who're not creepily hypersexualized. Kudos again to Tom.)

Yes, exactly. The characters aren't that young, they are definitely old enough to be having crushes and romantic relationships. Obviously sexual relationships aren't going to be covered in a webcomic like GC for obvious reasons but as I recall from my own teenage days, some people were most certainly having sex at the age of 14.

The argument I think is that you can't possibly "know" that you're not straight at the age of 14 (whereas you can "know" that you're straight). That is clearly untrue. I mean not everyone will be sure of their sexuality, not even for decades sometimes, but there will be some people who are sure of who they are and what they want.

Anyway society as a whole has a double standard and blind spot for adolescents who are not straight vs those who are straight.

i doubt that Kat and Paz are certain of their identities or what/who they want however that's not to say that it's not romantic in nature. and I'm pretty sure Gamma and Zimmy are already clear on that.

EDIT: Please don't attack me for agreeing or say I'm an ideologue, I'm just agreeing with a different POV, happy to discuss otherwise. Also- we get to find out in 40 mins anyway!

DOUBLE EDIT: I'm not saying it's totally definitely gonna happen between Kat and Paz either. It totally might not.

[TBeholder]

May 24, 2013 6:15:34 GMT snipertom said:

EDIT: Please don't attack me for agreeing or say I'm an ideologue

I doubt anyone would mistake you for a high-profile target.

May 24, 2013 6:15:34 GMT snipertom said:

, I'm just agreeing with a different POV

Different from what?

[GK Sierra]

May 24, 2013 6:40:39 GMT TBeholder said:

May 24, 2013 6:15:34 GMT snipertom said:

EDIT: Please don't attack me for agreeing or say I'm an ideologue

I doubt anyone would mistake you for a high-profile target.

9.5/10

Ausgezeichnet Ausführung, ein Meister bei der Arbeit.

Würde wieder lachen.

[spritznar]

May 24, 2013 5:40:11 GMT xtinas said:

Dear impish: Bless you a thousand times for your post. I logged in just to say I appreciate the hell outta it.

+1
also to snipergirl

legion,

an interpretation where Paz likes Kat a lot but in a non-romantic, non-sexual way, and Bobby's letter was just poorly worded, seems equally reasonable

i don't understand this argument. the letter has a HEART on it. i find it hard to believe even an incredibly socially awkward teen would send a letter with a heart on it if they didn't mean to imply romantic intentions, no matter what bobby may have theoretically done to the wording.

[legion]

May 24, 2013 8:06:17 GMT spritznar said:

legion,

an interpretation where Paz likes Kat a lot but in a non-romantic, non-sexual way, and Bobby's letter was just poorly worded, seems equally reasonable

i don't understand this argument. the letter has a HEART on it. i find it hard to believe even an incredibly socially awkward teen would send a letter with a heart on it if they didn't mean to imply romantic intentions, no matter what bobby may have theoretically done to the wording.

It's also Bobby who put the heart on it, and we know those robots are uncurably romantic. Bobby was channeling the shippers. This is all so meta.

[impish]

May 24, 2013 5:17:45 GMT legion said:

May 24, 2013 4:13:59 GMT impish said:

Except that this reaction is ALWAYS brought up when there is any mention of queerness, however canonical or non-

For reasons that I have explained (homosexuality is statistically less common, which means that 1) it stands out and is more often commented upon 2) assumption of heterosexuality are statistically more likely to be true than assumption of homosexuality [unless of course the author makes their work centered on queer characters]).

Zimmy and Gamma as a canon people isn't a major controversy as far as I can tell. The present case, however, I don't deny that the Kat-and-Paz-sitting-in-a-tree interpretation has good possibilities, but with the information we have, an interpretation where Paz likes Kat a lot but in a non-romantic, non-sexual way, and Bobby's letter was just poorly worded, seems equally reasonable.

Not a BIG controversy, since as has been expressed in this thread, this fandom is pretty tolerant. But there've also been multiple posts in this thread saying they weren't, or expressing confusion and surprise at them.

And no, it really is not equally reasonable at ALL to assume this is in a non-romantic, non-sexual way. This is kinda exactly what I meant when I said that even patently blatant text will be dismissed as insufficient.

The problem whenever this discussion shows up is that there's a bit of emotional blackmailing where if we don't accept that a given relationship between two same gender character is homoromantic, we come out as homophobic; when we could instead make the reverse case that some people are strangely bent on denying the possibility of strong bounds between characters that go beyond friendship yet are neither romantic nor sexual in nature.

But frankly having one side shout "homophobia" while the other counters with "asexual erasure" doesn't seem like it's an appropriate activity for us because we are not fourteen year olds.

Missing the point, or rather, fabricating one I didn't make (but others definitely do, albeit no one in this thread). YOU DON'T HAVE TO INTERPRET THE TEXT THE SAME WAY I DO. You don't have to 'ship' anyone, and can perfectly well edit out relationships that are there. Enjoy it your way.
But!
When you start telling other people that they're wrong and denying to them that blatantly obvious text exists, when you pretend that het and queer romantic relationships are treated equivalently in the culture at large, when you say people are having wishful thinking (or, like so many others say, straight-up deluded) or projecting, and ESPECIALLY when you do any of these things with a smug and superior air, you are being a tedious blowhard.

Also, the fact that you seem to be looking for representation for yourself, but again pompously dismissing those doing the same, is really weird.

This is not true, and I have provided a clear counter-example: Doctor Who.

The fact that Doctor Who's sexuality was never mentionned in the original series, and that in the new series he is portrayed as strongly heterosexual, has been commented upon.

I can attest so because I have never watched an episode of Doctor Who in my life, and so I am aware that this bugs some people because they have told me so.

And while Sherlock Holmes' portrayal as homosexual is commented a lot, this is mainly because this is a more recent and thus more salient interpretation of the character. But I can assure you that his earlier portrayal as a heterosexual are also commented upon, since they are no more (and no less) accurate, as the character's sexuality was never touched upon in the original book.

Well you're just providing a counterexample yourself now.

Yes, 'never' was hyperbolic. But if you think people criticizing the projection of het themes happens equivalently often at ALL, or produces equivalent effects at ALL, or is taken just as seriously at ALL, you're seriously out of touch and really have no idea what you're talking about.

Except this is not true, Annie did show (albeit very briefly) some interest in boys.

www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=942

This does not of course rules out anything, but it does show that you are a bit partial in your assesment.

Oh, I am. Although reading this straight (heh) is one interpretation ;P It reads more as guilt to me; candidly, you do not know the pressure on a woman if she's been "leading him on!!!" as she actually had been in that scene, not to mention her long history of being very uncomfortable and avoiding situations with him that had romantic buildup, and especially in light of what I see as much more prominent homoromantic themes with her. But you see my point?

Subtext is open to interpretation by essence; English teachers would have you believe there's all kind of subtext in great works of literature that the writer never intended to be there.

And sometimes the subtext is intented, but lost on everyone (Jack London intended "Martin Eden" as an attack on individualism and nietzscheanism, but he made his main character's plight so endearing that everyone saw it as a defense of these things; he had well explained that it wasn't what he intended afterward, his novel was still not received like he intendedà.

I have had the experience of writing several short stories with a lot of symbolism and references spiced into the story; most of the time all of that flew completely over the head of my readers.

What I am getting at is: there's no such thing as inherently obvious subtext, it's ultimately up to each reader individually what they see and don't see in a work.

No no no. I am referring to queer subtext SPECIFICALLY, for a strong reason: there's little queer representation in general, and long long trends of this in all sorts of works, and it often is intentionally put there despite denial and insistence that those who see homoerotic subtext are imagining it and making it up.

You don't have to see it or interpret it that way. But when you DENY THAT THERE IS SUBTEXT (which you and others have been doing, both with subtext and text, pervasively!) and insist that those seeing it must be wrong or making it up or what-have-you, you're blatantly wrong. Don't.

If you don't care, fine. If you don't want to see it, you can have your pick of the vast cornucopia of works out there that have none. But the pompous, boneheaded, and completely self-absorbed arrogance in sneering at 'shippers' isn't clever or witty or insightful, just insipid. And pretending that the projection of sexuality*/romance into works is all equivalent and treated the same no matter the orientation is patently absurd, and frankly insultingly inaccurate, like calling night day right to my face.

I think you should read what I write more carefully because you have a tendency to erase the nuances, which are critical; right now I feel more like I talking to an angry ideologue with whom the only possibilities are complete agreement or total enemity.

This a problem I have encountered a number of time in the queer community [but is of course not exclusive, specific, or even specifically intense with them], where people can have the best intent but at the same time be pretty ideological, they have their system of beliefs and their concept and take them as an unmovable whole, and won't consider anything that would change any part of what they believe, treating it as an attack on the entire system, and everyone who questions some aspect of the ideology instead of passively shutting up, listening, and agree with everything their told, are automatically equated with a heteronormative biggot.

Being queer doesn't automatically makes you right about everything queer, and not being queer doesn't automatically disqualifies someone from talking about it; queerness as a whole has its own prejudices, its own asserted dogmas (again, just like anything), and they can be questioned, including by non-queer people.

Conversely, not eveything anyone says that is related to queerness has to be about supporting/oppressing queer people, everything is not everything, everything is not politics, the heteronormative patriarchy is not pulling the strings of anyone who says anything you do not like about queerdom.[/quote]

The hypocrisy is overwhelming, dude. You are putting all sorts of words into my mouth that I did not say; you latched on to general themes and extrapolated this big imaginary strawman. Look back up to the quoted text (or preferably, my whole post) and read what I actually said. (And FTR I don't even assume you're straight; I assumed then, and now, that you're ace, and possibly aro.)

I was actually considering a Crocker-esque, semi-facetious LEAVE THE SHIPPERS ALONE!!! line in the last post, for what it's worth.

What I want is for you (general)
-to recognize that there's a long history of subtext and that you not seeing anything does not mean we're imagining it;
-that even where there ISN'T acutal subtext we still have strong reasons for doing what we do;
-that drawing an equivalence between treatment of queer and het relationships will always always always be a false equivalence;
-and to STEP OFF.

[TBeholder]

May 24, 2013 4:13:59 GMT impish said:

If you don't care, fine. If you don't want to see it, you can have your pick of the vast cornucopia of works out there that have none.

Ah, but given the nature of the issue, who exactly is going to say which ones have none and which ones don't?

May 24, 2013 4:13:59 GMT impish said:

But the pompous, boneheaded, and completely self-absorbed arrogance in sneering at 'shippers'

I don't see a big problem if my actions get classified as "pompous, boneheaded, and completely self-absorbed arrogance" by the author of the very abovequoted sentence - which in itself, evidently, is supposed to be a perfect example of the opposite?
So... Shipping ahoy! Load the tubes! Down periscope! ;D

May 24, 2013 4:13:59 GMT impish said:

isn't clever or witty or insightful, just insipid.

You really don't realize why it's not exactly a silver bullet?
Do you seriously expect that for anyone already clearly not holding your intelligence and tastes as a shiny platinum measurement tools such a grand proclamation of your low opinion on their own intelligence and tastes may somehow fall short of being a burning brand and/or insta-converting sermon?

May 24, 2013 5:17:45 GMT legion said:

But frankly having one side shout "homophobia" while the other counters with "asexual erasure" doesn't seem like it's an appropriate activity for us because we are not fourteen year olds.

Well, in my experience forumites usually don't do it? What's with most of us not being mentally four- and hormonally thirteen- year old. Conversely, the "buttzone" does, but its mooning presence usually wanes briefly after it waxes.

[lit]

May 24, 2013 8:06:17 GMT spritznar said:

an interpretation where Paz likes Kat a lot but in a non-romantic, non-sexual way, and Bobby's letter was just poorly worded, seems equally reasonable

i don't understand this argument. the letter has a HEART on it. i find it hard to believe even an incredibly socially awkward teen would send a letter with a heart on it if they didn't mean to imply romantic intentions, no matter what bobby may have theoretically done to the wording.

Well, I definitely at least signed non-romantic notes with hearts at the age of 14. I liked hearts a lot. Luckily nobody misinterpreted me, particularly because the notes didn't usually have other content that could be mistaken for romantic.

[stef1987]

May 24, 2013 8:06:17 GMT spritznar said:

i don't understand this argument. the letter has a HEART on it. i find it hard to believe even an incredibly socially awkward teen would send a letter with a heart on it if they didn't mean to imply romantic intentions, no matter what bobby may have theoretically done to the wording.

Not taking any sides here,
but Annie send Mort a letter with a heart on it back in the day.

[spritznar]

May 24, 2013 14:37:22 GMT lit said:

May 24, 2013 8:06:17 GMT spritznar said:

i don't understand this argument. the letter has a HEART on it. i find it hard to believe even an incredibly socially awkward teen would send a letter with a heart on it if they didn't mean to imply romantic intentions, no matter what bobby may have theoretically done to the wording.

Well, I definitely at least signed non-romantic notes with hearts at the age of 14. I liked hearts a lot. Luckily nobody misinterpreted me, particularly because the notes didn't usually have other content that could be mistaken for romantic.

May 24, 2013 14:56:44 GMT stef1987 said:

[...]
Not taking any sides here,
but Annie send Mort a letter with a heart on it back in the day.

fair enough. i boiled my argument down too much.

the original thought went along the lines of:
-the letter appears to be a love letter
-kat and annie both reacted to it as a love letter
-kat called it a love letter (which paz didn't correct)

my point being that all narrative signs point to it being a love letter but legion's saying it "seems equally reasonable" that it's not? that kat misinterpreted it? that paz didn't proofread the letter she had bobby write?

were people claiming it might not be a love letter when we thought bobby sent it? (that's not a rhetorical question, i wasn't reading all the previous threads)

even if tom pulls a narrative twist where it winds up not being a love letter, that would be a twist because all the text we've been given indicates it's a love letter. based on tom's writing so far, i'd say such a twist is a small possibility but i wouldn't call it an equally reasonable interpretation of the text we've been given.

it seems to me, as impish said,

no, it really is not equally reasonable at ALL to assume this is in a non-romantic, non-sexual way. This is kinda exactly what I meant when I said that even patently blatant text will be dismissed as insufficient.

[xtinas]

"but I think that's in part because most people assume heterosexuality is the default (which, at least statistically, it is)." --legion

Well, thank all the saints that this comic <i>strictly adheres</i> to the statistical demographics of humanity! I look forward to meeting [any number of non-human characters in GC] or experiencing [any number of non-realistic phenomena].

I especially enjoyed the juxtaposition of "this is statistically more likely to be het" and "both views are equally likely". A+, would skip statistics class again.

[download]

Wow, this is really getting out of hand. How about everyone just shuts up until the comic proves/disproves you theories

[legion]

May 25, 2013 7:59:59 GMT xtinas said:

"but I think that's in part because most people assume heterosexuality is the default (which, at least statistically, it is)." --legion

Well, thank all the saints that this comic <i>strictly adheres</i> to the statistical demographics of humanity! I look forward to meeting [any number of non-human characters in GC] or experiencing [any number of non-realistic phenomena].

I especially enjoyed the juxtaposition of "this is statistically more likely to be het" and "both views are equally likely". A+, would skip statistics class again.

What does my talking about how people react due to real world factors (such as the pesky fact that yes, straightness is overwhemingly majoritary) has to do with what the comic decides to do?

Assuming that everyone is straight may be rude, it may be stupid, it may be opressive, it may be close-minded, yes; but statistically, it makes sense. It making sense statistically doesn't give it a moral seal by any means.

All I have been saying is that for me, at that point, with the information we knew, I would not definitely rule out that what Paz felt for Kat could be something else that homorantic attraction.

The angry, dismissive, indignant attitude I have however been facing in response gives me the impression that we're having two completely different conversations.

[spritznar]

xtinas, take deep breaths. it will be ok. (eventually.) ((probably...))

download, erm... while i agree with your sentiment, it would kind of shut down the forum part of the forum... *shrugs* well i suppose we'd still have the fanart and meme threads. those are my favorite ones anyway


edit: legion, yes it's possible paz's feelings are not homoromantic, but she is expressing them in ways that are socially coded as romantic. i find it more likely that she has homoromantic feelings (or believes she does), than that she failed to realize the romantic implications of her letter, especially when she was so sensitive to the possible homoromantic implications of kat's compliments previously.

(also, i personally don't believe completely straight is that much more prevalent than queer sexual identities when they include various degrees of bisexuality, so that vague statistical statement isn't helping your argument)

[download]

May 25, 2013 8:23:26 GMT spritznar said:

xtinas, take deep breaths. it will be ok. (eventually.) ((probably...))

download, erm... while i agree with your sentiment, it would kind of shut down the forum part of the forum... *shrugs* well i suppose we'd still have the fanart and meme threads. those are my favorite ones anyway

I wouldn't normally care but this is getting ridiculous

[TBeholder]

May 25, 2013 7:59:59 GMT xtinas said:

I look forward to meeting [any number of non-human characters in GC]

The main problem here, in my eyes, is that in most cases this would also require any number of non-human characters in GC to look forward to meeting you. Same as with entities that are not GC characters, for that matter. And/or not non-human.

May 25, 2013 7:59:59 GMT xtinas said:

or experiencing [any number of non-realistic phenomena].

You know why the word "ralistic" frequently makes old *D&D players giggle, right? For example, my personal favourite-of-all-times "realism" house rule was the one aimed at making it possible to shoot a squirrel in the eye. With a longbow.

May 25, 2013 8:03:33 GMT download said:

Wow, this is really getting out of hand. How about everyone just shuts up

Yes, Your Majesty!

May 25, 2013 8:03:33 GMT download said:

until the comic proves/disproves you theories

See also the title of the next thread?

[spritznar]

May 25, 2013 8:56:30 GMT TBeholder said:

See also the title of the next thread?

yes, that.

(but i can never resist joining this argument every time it comes around)

[legion]

May 25, 2013 8:23:26 GMT spritznar said:

(also, i personally don't believe completely straight is that much more prevalent than queer sexual identities when they include various degrees of bisexuality, so that vague statistical statement isn't helping your argument)

Well, I've answered this: the ultimate measure of what people identify as (at least as far as the queer community seems to be concerned) is what they say they identify at; if someone says they're gay, they're gay, if someone says they're bi, they're bi, if someone says they're ace, they're ace, and well, if someone says they're straight, they're straight.

I do believe a majority a people identify as straight, and therefore there are more straight people.

This doesn't mean 100% of straight people are 100% attracted to the opposite gender. But if you're 60% attracked to the opposite gender, and 40% to other genders, or if you just have 10% of attraction to the opposite gender and nothing at all toward others, but in both cases identify as straight, then you're straight, because that's how these labels work, as far as I can tell.

[Lightice]

May 24, 2013 5:17:45 GMT legion said:

The fact that Doctor Who's sexuality was never mentionned in the original series, and that in the new series he is portrayed as strongly heterosexual, has been commented upon.

I can attest so because I have never watched an episode of Doctor Who in my life, and so I am aware that this bugs some people because they have told me so.

Hehh, this is ridiculously off-topic, I know, but I really can't resist correcting stuff concerning one of my favourite shows. The Doctor was generally portrayed as asexual in the original series, to the point that some fans speculated that the Time Lords don't even reproduce sexually, but it had remarkable amounts of deliberate subtext concerning many other characters, both hetero- and homosexual kinds. It couldn't be open text due to the values of the time, along with the fact that it was mostly considered a children's show.

But in the new series the creators have explicitly stated that the Doctor flat-out does not understand categories like "homosexuality" and the Eleven has randomly kissed both men and women, as well as failed to get why the men in Amy's wedding were "a bit shy" when he insisted on dancing with them, as well as the women. In the new series the Doctor is supposed to beyond the standard human boundaries of sexuality and rather out of touch with them.

[snipertom]

May 25, 2013 11:34:28 GMT legion said:

May 25, 2013 8:23:26 GMT spritznar said:

(also, i personally don't believe completely straight is that much more prevalent than queer sexual identities when they include various degrees of bisexuality, so that vague statistical statement isn't helping your argument)

Well, I've answered this: the ultimate measure of what people identify as (at least as far as the queer community seems to be concerned) is what they say they identify at; if someone says they're gay, they're gay, if someone says they're bi, they're bi, if someone says they're ace, they're ace, and well, if someone says they're straight, they're straight.

I do believe a majority a people identify as straight, and therefore there are more straight people.

This doesn't mean 100% of straight people are 100% attracted to the opposite gender. But if you're 60% attracked to the opposite gender, and 40% to other genders, or if you just have 10% of attraction to the opposite gender and nothing at all toward others, but in both cases identify as straight, then you're straight, because that's how these labels work, as far as I can tell.

What if you're 10% into the opposite sex and 90% into the same sex and self-identify as straight?

[dracazula]

May 25, 2013 11:39:07 GMT Lightice said:

May 24, 2013 5:17:45 GMT legion said:

The fact that Doctor Who's sexuality was never mentionned in the original series, and that in the new series he is portrayed as strongly heterosexual, has been commented upon.

I can attest so because I have never watched an episode of Doctor Who in my life, and so I am aware that this bugs some people because they have told me so.

Hehh, this is ridiculously off-topic, I know, but I really can't resist correcting stuff concerning one of my favourite shows. The Doctor was generally portrayed as asexual in the original series, to the point that some fans speculated that the Time Lords don't even reproduce sexually, but it had remarkable amounts of deliberate subtext concerning many other characters, both hetero- and homosexual kinds. It couldn't be open text due to the values of the time, along with the fact that it was mostly considered a children's show.

But in the new series the creators have explicitly stated that the Doctor flat-out does not understand categories like "homosexuality" and the Eleven has randomly kissed both men and women, as well as failed to get why the men in Amy's wedding were "a bit shy" when he insisted on dancing with them, as well as the women. In the new series the Doctor is supposed to beyond the standard human boundaries of sexuality and rather out of touch with them.

^ This. The Doctor doesn't care one bit about gender (or species, really). Rose and River are his only really-super-official love interests, but the fact that they're both girls doesn't fix him into heterosexuality.

[spritznar]

May 25, 2013 11:34:28 GMT legion said:

Well, I've answered this: the ultimate measure of what people identify as (at least as far as the queer community seems to be concerned) is what they say they identify at; if someone says they're gay, they're gay, if someone says they're bi, they're bi, if someone says they're ace, they're ace, and well, if someone says they're straight, they're straight.

my understanding is that the label a person chooses for themselves should be assumed to be their sexual identity because the person in question is the only one who can know their own feelings. BUT there are a great deal of social incentives to identify as straight and not as gay or queer. this leads to a great deal of obfuscation in what people report about their sexual identities and what labels they will accept for themselves.

if someone labels themselves as gay or bi or ace, they have probably put considerable thought into it and have enough conviction about its accuracy to accept that label despite social stigmas. (although keep in mind feelings are confusing and labels are subjective so they may decide a different label is a better fit later)

the 'straight' label is less accurate because it's the assumed default. most people in het relationships are assumed to be straight even if they self identify as bi. also, some people with bisexual tendencies may not act on their homoromantic impulses due to social repercussions. for that matter most asexuals are probably assumed to be straight too. heck, there are plenty of gay people assumed to be straight in casual interactions because they don't "look gay" or "act gay"

as long as queer labels carry a social stigma, there is social incentive to adopt the straight label even if it's not the most accurate label for your identity. this self perpetuates the perception that straight is the default majority otherwise known as "normal". (as opposed to "queer")

this is also why the queer community is so concerned with visibility and representation. (we're here, we're queer, and we're pretty sure we're a lot more common than you think)

[legion]

But then you're just inverting the traditional double-standard; it becomes gay people who are automatically believed about their gayness and straight people who have to "prove" that they are indeed straight. That doesn't sound healthy.

And we still find an overwhemingly majority of straight in, say, anonymous surveys, so this goes beyond what people are willing to publicly admit in front of social pressure.

I don't see why this is problematic either; in animal species where homosexuality exists (not talking about species that reproduce asexually or parthenogenetically, I mean here the existence of homosexual behaviour in species that exclusively use male-female sexual reproduction), it never seems to be a majority of the cases.

The fact that homosexual practices have a special (not necessarily negative) status in the majority of human cultures does seem to imply it's a marked, non-default, and thus minoritary behavior.

If staightness wasn't majoritary, even then, most people have the belief and perception than it is, and they act according to those beliefs.

[warrl]

May 23, 2013 20:01:05 GMT GK Sierra said:

Sometimes I wonder if most (say, 75%+) people are completely "straight",

Being abnormally straight, I can tell you that it's a much lower percentage than that. I seriously doubt that it's as high as 10% who are as close to completely straight as I am, and I can't say with confidence that I'm absolutely 100% completely straight.

The other extreme is even more rare, of course. Think on this: there is a stereotype that male hairdressers and fashion designers are gay. Why would a *completely* gay male want to help women be more beautiful - and how would he know what makes them more beautiful?

[GK Sierra]

May 26, 2013 6:22:00 GMT warrl said:

May 23, 2013 20:01:05 GMT GK Sierra said:

Sometimes I wonder if most (say, 75%+) people are completely "straight",

Being abnormally straight, I can tell you that it's a much lower percentage than that. I seriously doubt that it's as high as 10% who are as close to completely straight as I am, and I can't say with confidence that I'm absolutely 100% completely straight.

Damn. That's pretty straight, warrl. They could use you for deviation measurements in the Large Hadron Collider.

May 26, 2013 6:22:00 GMT warrl said:

The other extreme is even more rare, of course. Think on this: there is a stereotype that male hairdressers and fashion designers are gay. Why would a *completely* gay male want to help women be more beautiful - and how would he know what makes them more beautiful?

Like all stereotypes, it is culture that people consciously and unconsciously impose upon themselves. They want to project a certain image, so they act according to certain norms. Society has a weird fixation with gay hairdressers, so that is now a trope/meme in the gay community.

I do however, firmly believe that sexuality is inborn and innate, whatever shade of the spectrum you fall on, straight, bi, gay or somewhere else entirely.

I didn't used to think that, but then my younger sister let us know she had always considered herself a guy, and I had a bit of a realization after talking to her in depth about it. Now when I hear people tell me they just are a certain way, I believe them.

[warrl]

I'm thinking of all the harshness I took for simply saying that while I didn't expect Paz to be the letter-writer, it wasn't absolutely proven that she's straight.

May 24, 2013 4:25:45 GMT TBeholder said:

Just to poke fun at the return of chibisoma.
The new wild guess:
It's not really a love letter. Just the girlish squeeing, hearts and ponies. Paz tends to swing between "awkward" and "carried away", after all.
However, between Kat knowing about Court robots and her previous little chat with Paz, she assumed it was, and will continue to do so.

Kat's reaction when Annie pulled the letter out in the cafeteria makes it extremely probable that it is a love letter.

Edit: Kat *calling* it a love letter when talking to Paz, and Paz's description of her reasons for having it written, only add to that probability.

[warrl]

May 24, 2013 14:19:13 GMT TBeholder said:

May 24, 2013 4:13:59 GMT impish said:

If you don't care, fine. If you don't want to see it, you can have your pick of the vast cornucopia of works out there that have none.

Ah, but given the nature of the issue, who exactly is going to say which ones have none and which ones don't?

Heck, even in El Goonish Shive - which has three explicitly homosexual main characters (out of eight) and two explicitly homosexual minor characters (out of dozens), so certainly doesn't need any homosexual SUBtext - there are fan debates about homosexual subtext.

[download]

May 26, 2013 14:44:26 GMT warrl said:

I'm thinking of all the harshness I took for simply saying that while I didn't expect Paz to be the letter-writer, it wasn't absolutely proven that she's straight.

May 24, 2013 4:25:45 GMT TBeholder said:

Just to poke fun at the return of chibisoma.
The new wild guess:
It's not really a love letter. Just the girlish squeeing, hearts and ponies. Paz tends to swing between "awkward" and "carried away", after all.
However, between Kat knowing about Court robots and her previous little chat with Paz, she assumed it was, and will continue to do so.

Kat's reaction when Annie pulled the letter out in the cafeteria makes it extremely probable that it is a love letter.

Or how about just Paz saying it's a love letter and Kat saying it's a love letter. There is no speculating that at this point. It's naive to think that Paz isn't into Kat now and shows you're not willing to face the music