|
|
Post by cheddarius on Jun 7, 2010 0:57:48 GMT
Though I believe that's a possibility, I doubt it. In my opinion, that would be akin to saying "We have not seen Annie eat chicken in the comic, therefore she must have an extremely rare phobia of chickens." The absence of something does not imply a specific reason that forbids that thing; not having a relationship does not imply that you are asexual. I'm heterosexual, and I'm not in a relationship at the moment. In addition, a boy hasn't, as Reynardine said, caught her eye, but that's true of other people too; do you mean that Paz is asexual as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by monkmunk on Jun 7, 2010 11:35:21 GMT
Actually, this sort of thing keeps coming up (not just here but in any story) because people are so insistent upon putting homosexuality forward as mainstream that it simply must be an option for any pairing, much to the detriment of artists' ability to portray deepness within a platonic relationship, even if said artist is completely open to portraying homosexual characters as well. If potential homosexuality is not expressly admitted, such as when Anja asked Annie what boy gave her the blinkerstone, then people become angry because they feel the minority orientation has somehow been slighted. Wait, are you blaming the gay agenda? That's pretty funny. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Jun 7, 2010 11:53:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 7, 2010 13:48:37 GMT
Good Lord, isn't it enough for all of you that Annie actually SAID that this sort of thing was of no interest to her? Leave it alone already. |
|
|
|
Post by cheddarius on Jun 7, 2010 14:27:35 GMT
Oh. Well then, she probably is asexual.
|
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Jun 7, 2010 15:42:41 GMT
Actually, this sort of thing keeps coming up (not just here but in any story) because people are so insistent upon putting homosexuality forward as mainstream that it simply must be an option for any pairing, much to the detriment of artists' ability to portray deepness within a platonic relationship, even if said artist is completely open to portraying homosexual characters as well. I think it's more that this sort of thing also keeps coming up getting shut down (not just here but in any story) because people are so insistent upon putting heterosexuality forward as mainstream homosexuality down as an exception that it simply must not be an option for any pairing, much to the detriment of artists' ability to portray deepness tension within a platonic relationship, even if said artist is completely open to portraying heterosexual homosexual characters as well. Fixed. I mean, geez, if you're going to do an inverse representation of my argument to display that its logic also works for the other perspective, at least retain the logic. If you're just going to swap out sexual orientations in an attempt to make me imagine a world where the orientation spread is reversed, well, that can be a fun exercise in speculation, and I'd love to co-author a fictional story with you exploring it, but in a serious discussion reality dashes such silliness. Speaking of serious discussions... Guys! Guys! We've totally missed something that is KEY here! Kat has a bird fetish! "Bird" is English slang for "woman." ERGO... |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jun 7, 2010 15:46:42 GMT
It's nothing unusual for a kid Annie's age to not have any particular sexual interest. Granted, most kids are showing at least some sign - but some aren't.
It indicates absolutely nothing about their behavior two years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by violet on Jun 7, 2010 15:48:38 GMT
Wait, are you blaming the gay agenda? That's pretty funny. It's sortof strange, isn't it? Het shippers are, variously, annoying and immature, or reasonably engaging with the material, depending largely on their age and gender and what the material in question is*. Slashers, by contrast, are a column of the powerful homosexual army. I suppose it makes sense, given their success. What with how they managed to get The Very Secret Diaries canonized by the Tolkein estate and all. And you can't even mosey down a Starfleet corridor without tripping over a gay orgy, nowadays. * — Twilight: annoying and immature. Buffy: acceptable, verges on scholarly. Pride and Prejudice: Revelatory, asif rendered unto the pope by Jesus, Mary, and Trotsky, all together (tho Benedict is a hardline Darcy man, it is known). |
|
|
|
Post by violet on Jun 7, 2010 15:53:01 GMT
If you're just going to swap out sexual orientations in an attempt to make me imagine a world where the orientation spread is reversed, well, that can be a fun exercise in speculation, and I'd love to co-author a fictional story with you exploring it, but in a serious discussion reality dashes such silliness. The point was that for all the ills you had writ, compulsory heterosexuality seems a demon of far greater reach and substance. |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 7, 2010 17:34:21 GMT
Actually, this sort of thing keeps coming up (not just here but in any story) because people are so insistent upon putting homosexuality forward as mainstream that it simply must be an option for any pairing, much to the detriment of artists' ability to portray deepness within a platonic relationship, even if said artist is completely open to portraying homosexual characters as well. If potential homosexuality is not expressly admitted, such as when Anja asked Annie what boy gave her the blinkerstone, then people become angry because they feel the minority orientation has somehow been slighted. Wait, are you blaming the gay agenda? That's pretty funny. "Fanboys who like lesbians and fangirls who like gays and see them in any story, even when there's no evidence, even when there are contrary evidences" is not the same as "gay agenda". |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 7, 2010 17:36:21 GMT
If you're just going to swap out sexual orientations in an attempt to make me imagine a world where the orientation spread is reversed, well, that can be a fun exercise in speculation, and I'd love to co-author a fictional story with you exploring it, but in a serious discussion reality dashes such silliness. The point was that for all the ills you had writ, compulsory heterosexuality seems a demon of far greater reach and substance. But that's just not true. When there's an official gay couple in a story, you don't see people pretending they're not actually gay. But the opposite is true, fanboys and fangirls want gay pairing, even if the characters have so far been shown to be 100% heterosexual. This is independant of wheither said fanboys and fangirls are themselves gay or not. |
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Jun 7, 2010 17:48:02 GMT
A good point, legion, at least in showing the aforementioned demon is irrelevant to this discussion. But shippers will ship despite evidence, regardless of orientation, so your follow-up point isn't without fault.
I had only heard of "slasher" as a type of horror flick until today. Always great to learn something new!
Anyway, I thought I'd have to come back here to apologize that maybe the ill-attempted mirror had the intended point that shippers will ship regardless of orientation, which would have been a fair point. But fortunately it has been clarified that my original interpretation was correct.
In any case, violet, your general interpretation of the comic has been very good compared to a lot of the nuts we keep around here, for which I respect you. The defensiveness with which my observation has been met (not nearly implicitly linking me to some sort of anti-gay agenda), as well as the level of information you possess regarding related issues, indicates to me that this is far more important of an issue to you than to me. With identity so much hung up in sexuality by our culture, a disagreement on this topic far too quickly disintegrates into feelings of personal insult, and the sterility of the internet prevents my warm smile and friendly touch to show my heart, so I will respectfully butt out of this thread altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuckingretard on Jun 7, 2010 17:54:35 GMT
people on the internet are just generally emotionally stunted and don't understand how real-life relationships work. sex, friendship, and love are all intermingled into a hazy mess, even for the minds of 13-year-old girls, and everyone is paired with everyone. kind of sad, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by fuckingretard on Jun 7, 2010 18:01:25 GMT
Oh. Well then, she probably is asexual. i had a friend who was "asexual."  |
|
|
|
Post by violet on Jun 7, 2010 18:30:38 GMT
"Fanboys who like lesbians and fangirls who like gays and see them in any story, even when there's no evidence, even when there are contrary evidences" is not the same as "gay agenda". Pro tip: If you mean, “fanboys who like lesbians and fangirls who like gays…” then saying, “people [who] are so insistent upon putting homosexuality forward as mainstream…” is unlikely to convey your meaning. It will convey a different meaning, instead. (Contrawise, if someone has said the latter thing, they are unlikely to have meant the former.) |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 7, 2010 21:42:44 GMT
"Fanboys who like lesbians and fangirls who like gays and see them in any story, even when there's no evidence, even when there are contrary evidences" is not the same as "gay agenda". Pro tip: If you mean, “fanboys who like lesbians and fangirls who like gays…” then saying, “people [who] are so insistent upon putting homosexuality forward as mainstream…” is unlikely to convey your meaning. It will convey a different meaning, instead. (Contrawise, if someone has said the latter thing, they are unlikely to have meant the former.) interpretation~ |
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Jun 7, 2010 23:19:59 GMT
That's probably because straight couples in modern society have never needed to be closeted - you don't get to see straight people denying their sexuality. You see *gay* people denying and hiding their sexuality all the time. Anja and Reynardine ASSUME that perhaps a boy is interested in Antimony or vice-versa -- and their assumptions are part of the culture which would make Antimony *easier* to admit a boy attraction, and *harder* to admit a girl attraction.
Here's another PRO-TIP: Instead of insulting people as "fanboys", try to get a clue about where their perspective is coming from. Here's another hint: they're living in a world where the majority of gay relationships and the majority of gay attraction is hidden. From Republican Senators all the way down to British schoolkids.
You, living in a world where straight attraction is open, and straight relationships have nothing to hide, don't have the right to say "we don't do the same with straight-shipping". Of course you don't. You don't need to.
So in short: don't insult people.
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 7, 2010 23:33:19 GMT
Blah blah blah.
I have the right to say "we don't do the same with straight-shipping" if I damn want to, *especially*since, by your own admission, it's true. Your clearly do lack perspective if you've never noticed the popularity of gay shipping among fanbases (how many Harry Potter fanfictions shipping Harry and Draco? Probably more than stars in the sky), which is what I'm talking about since the begining of this thread. Assuming a Annie/Kat ship with so little evidence is just wishful thinking, and I think it's actually less insulting to see those who indulge in this as misguised fanboys who think that kind of thing is "hot" or "cool", rather than as disgrunted homosexuals who politicalize everything and spend most of their time whiming that homosexuality isn't mainstream enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 7, 2010 23:36:27 GMT
(how many Harry Potter fanfictions shipping Harry and Draco? Probably more than stars in the sky) Given how poorly Harry and Draco got along in the books, I always found that one strange (at least Annie and Kat are close friends), unless it's a manifestation of the theory that open hostility is a cover for hidden attraction. |
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Jun 8, 2010 0:05:02 GMT
I've seen a lot of H/D. I've also seen a lot of Harry/Hermione, Draco/Hermione, and Draco/Ginny other uncanonical relationships. But because they're straight, I don't see you calling those people "fanboys".
Yes, so? All shipping is wishful thinking, straight and gay alike. Harry/Hermione just as much as Annie/Kat.
It's your posts that I see as those of a disgruntled heterosexual who politicizes everything, and spent most of his time whining that some people want to make homosexuality mainstream.
The people who like Annie/Kat I just see as people who'd enjoy seeing a cute couple. No politicization there. The politicization comes from *you*.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Jun 8, 2010 0:18:57 GMT
As an ironic sidenote: it was the those fans OPPOSED to Kat & Annie shipping that mainly kept seeing lesbian subtext in the "Residential" chapter. Did you ever see the comments under the comic, back then? People HORRIFIED, thinking that Kat calling Annie "babe" meant that Tom was gonna lez the two of them up.
This proves a falsehood in your seeming claim that only the people desperate to see such a relationship, see subtext. People HORRIFIED at the idea also saw subtext. I *didn't*, mind you, there's nothing there that I didn't consider within the boundaries of a normal girlish friendship. But the homophobes did see something more.
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 8, 2010 0:30:42 GMT
Peope aren't horrified, they laugh at the silliness.
Yeah clearly I have been doing nothing but ranting about homosexuals on this board. It's also funny to be called heterosexual when I myself don't really know, or care, where I stand on this whole "sexual orientation" issue. I just like who I like, and I find these labels more annoying than anything. It gets sillier when people are so obsessed with labels than they try to come up with additional labels for everything that doesn't fit neatly in the basic ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Jun 8, 2010 0:41:10 GMT
Oh, really, the rabid anger, the claims at perversity, those were all about "laughing at silliness"?
It was horror at the very idea of a homosexual relationship in the comic. I don't know how you missed it, or whether you really missed it, but it was very clearly there. And as I said it was the rabid homophobes that mainly saw the subtext back then. I was instead among the people who DIDN'T see such.
Even in this very thread we saw people reacting as if the idea of gay kissing in that age group is something utterly perverse, when they never showed the same reaction at the explicit (Kat-Allie) or implicit kissing of young different-sex couples.
|
|
Pig_catapult
Full Member
Keeper of the Devilkitty
Posts: 171
|
Post by Pig_catapult on Jun 8, 2010 0:45:10 GMT
Guys! Guys!
We have a canon girl/girl couple already. It's called Zimmy/Gamma. Let the asexual girl be asexual. There's not enough honest-to-god asexuals portrayed realistically in fiction
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 8, 2010 0:49:12 GMT
We don't know the precise nature of Zimmy and Gamma's love, though - is it (to use the Greek) "eros", "agape", or "phileis" (I hope I spelled the last one correctly)?
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 8, 2010 0:59:21 GMT
ariskatsaris > you're crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Jun 8, 2010 1:07:45 GMT
Are you say that I am crazy for *not* seeing romantic subtext in Kat/Annie during "Residential", while the homophobes did?
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Jun 8, 2010 1:13:38 GMT
No I am saying you are crazy period. Don't worry, I am crazy too.
BUT MY CRAZINESS IS BETTER THAN YOURS, HAHAHA.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonestheheretic on Jun 8, 2010 2:31:55 GMT
'allo! Long time lurker here. Well, not LONG time. Like, year-old lurker?
Anyway.
I don't think Annie and Kat will ever have a romantic relationship, judging by the comments made by Tom, but it would be pretty cute... I think it would be more likely one-sided then mutual, though I'm not sure why.
But that's what fanfiction's for, hey? No reason to argue about whether it will happen or not - it won't.
But us shippers can always pretend. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Jun 8, 2010 3:17:12 GMT
Aris, twice you've mentioned that the people who were "horrified" (and I'm taking your word at this, as I don't read the on-page comments) must have been homophobes, because they were horrified at how such a relationship would ruin the comic.
I have to take issue with that though, because it's equally legitimate that someone might be "horrified" at the idea of sexualizing the main characters in ANY way, because to do so would shift the focus of the comic away from the story and onto the personal love lives of the characters. JK Rowling started off writing a book about students in a magical place, and slowly started making the books more about the relationships between the students. People can decide for themselves whether that was a good or a bad thing, but in either case, it can't be denied that it changed the tenor of the series.
So if you get a bunch of people decrying the same kind of shift in GC, it isn't (necessarily) because they are homophobes. And otherwise, I thought you were putting together a good counter-argument, so I was surprised to hear you make that statement. In fact, though, I think that if Annie did pair up with even a boy, the comic would change wildly, and just as many people--indeed, likely the -same- people--would bemoan the polluting of the comic with straight relationships as with gay relationships.
And this brings me back around to Tom's quote, which basically says that the comic is never going to be about them finding cute boys to take them to the prom. (Incidentally, I like to interpret that statement as a direct dig at HP and that whole nonsense with the Yule Ball.) It simply clutters up the story too much to focus on the characters' love lives, regardless of what orientation they are.
|
|
