Queer in Storybrooke pt 2
Apr. 27th, 2013 10:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
babydracoThe Relationships Thread, as linked to earlier, but this is the part that upset me.
Then someone suggests Jefferson could hook up with August (this was before he turned back into wood, died and was reborn a small child again), and someone else points out (as I did a few entries back in this journal) that Storybrooke lacks any gay characters. The thread devolves from there for several pages into an argument about GLBT representation on the show and it does so in a way that nearly makes me cry.
Apparently, the show shouldn't “do gay characters just to show how progressive they are” and people “don't see why the show needs gay characters”. A couple of people even tried to claim that the show shouldn't be ethnically diverse "just to show how progressive they are" (or something to that affect). Well, of course not, they should do it because it is reality that people are diverse. Yes, even in small town coastal Maine.
But the problem here is that there is so much invisible straight interaction going on all over the place on every show . Every character not loudly proclaimed gay is assumed to be straight. I mean, I even saw some Kings fans initially claiming they didn't see Jack's homosexuality coming. And okay, so maybe they didn't read any spoilers, or they have terrible gaydar, and they have never been exposed to the giant pile of academic and folkloric tradition going back centuries that argues that Jonathan was gay- but you know, also I think maybe they just assume everyone's straight until otherwise loudly announced.
Heterosexuality is treated like the default setting. Not only is it just assumed that everyone is straight unless otherwise explicitly announced, implications that het sex has happened or will happen, even small implications of a heterosexual romance like holding hands, are allowed in PG rated productions as long as all private parts are covered. Most of these stories end with weddings, and weddings, y'know, generally imply that sex will shortly ensue, yet this is still allowed in “family friendly”productions. But if a character expresses homosexual desire for another character the show stops being referred to as a family safe production. And by “expresses desire”, I mean “does things that straight people can get away with on children''s shows”. Like hold hands, and want to get married!
Because even people who otherwise would never judge what two consenting adults get up to in their own bedroom, often still think that gayness is a lifestyle and for grownups. In the back of their minds, it's still thought of as a sexual choice, not a difference in the way your brain works, like the difference between liking beer and liking wine, not being left handed or being right handed. You can't know which you prefer if you've never had alcohol and there's an age below which people should not have alcohol, or think about it, or understand what it involves. But preferences of any kind don't work like that. We make decisions about what we like, based on other things we like. If little girls can have crushes on little boys, and everyone thinks that's adorable, then clearly the ability to, on some level, know what we want can appear before puberty and sexual activity. Or in general, be independent of actual sexual activity.
It's the reason “pre slash” is not a real thing. Slash is slash regardless of whether or not sex takes place in the story.
I keep seeing the same argument “but they shouldn't force a pairing, it should be organic”. Ohhh, organic, like Snow/Charming, two people set up by fate before the show even starts, who are essentially, together because tradition says they belong with each other? I mean, the actors have adorable chemistry, the writers are giving us reasons to care and it's not like I'm not rooting for them, but it's a pre made pairing with characters that are usually portrayed a great deal more woodenly.
If you want an “organically developing” gay romance, I think we're seeing it with Mulan and Aurora. Two characters who are not from the same story, both initially presumed straight, who lose their significant others and end up bonding as they are forced to work together and we eventually almost forget they were supposed to be with other people. And the scene where Mulan gives Aurora her heart back is subtext rapidly becoming text. It's a toss up whether or not they'll go there, because they've been blatantly ignoring gay people so far but Jane Espenson is a writer on the show and she's from the Whedonverse. . But some of the people in that TwoP thread mentioned above insist that they don't see Mulan and Aurora as broadcasting sapphic subtext. If you're trying to tell me you'd be down with it if it happened the way you say you want it but you can't see it as it's actually happening exactly the way you said you wanted it to, then I just don't know how to deal with you, dude. Because I think that means you don't actually want any gay characters, you're just using “I'd be fine with it if it was organic” as an excuse. You aren't interested enough in gay characters to know how to recognize them when they appear, so you will never see the evidence you claim you want to see.
“But it's a family show!”
So those absurdly low cut bodices (and spear counterpart extremely tight leather pants) are family friendly? Calling people whores is family friendly? Disney characters getting drunk together is family friendly? A woman practically getting off on her boyfriend beating a man to death with a cane is family friendly? Torture is family friendly? And Regina and Graham? That was family friendly?
This may be more family centric but it is hardly for children . At the start, it was compared to Grimm and branded the lighter and softer version. But really, it's a romance/family/relational drama which is not the same thing as a "family show"), while Grimm is a police procedural. But Once can get just as dark and horrifying as Grimm even if the darkness is more subtle than monsters literally leaping out of the shadows at people. Not to mention, the sexed up Disney characters. Please, do not try to argue that this show isn't heavily sex focused.
Actually, all joking about slash aside, I am in love with the idea of Emma/Jefferson. If it never happens, I will cry, I promise you. I.will.cry.
I mean, I've read some hot, hot Hook/Jefferson, which makes sense with the leather pants and the eyeliner and the moral ambiguity and both coming from Victorian children's novels with somewhat disturbing subtext...but really, I don't trust Hook with anyone on a permanent basis. He's Captain fricking Hook. Jefferson is ambiguous and has the clear goal of only really being concerned about his own family, while Hook is a straight up villain. Sexual encounters, sure, but I can't picture him like, moving in and helping pick out curtains with a man who is so fiercely protective of his preteen daughter. And that means I can't get behind a serious Emma/Hook relationship either.
No character with a kid is going to let that man in their house.
Then someone suggests Jefferson could hook up with August (this was before he turned back into wood, died and was reborn a small child again), and someone else points out (as I did a few entries back in this journal) that Storybrooke lacks any gay characters. The thread devolves from there for several pages into an argument about GLBT representation on the show and it does so in a way that nearly makes me cry.
Apparently, the show shouldn't “do gay characters just to show how progressive they are” and people “don't see why the show needs gay characters”. A couple of people even tried to claim that the show shouldn't be ethnically diverse "just to show how progressive they are" (or something to that affect). Well, of course not, they should do it because it is reality that people are diverse. Yes, even in small town coastal Maine.
But the problem here is that there is so much invisible straight interaction going on all over the place on every show . Every character not loudly proclaimed gay is assumed to be straight. I mean, I even saw some Kings fans initially claiming they didn't see Jack's homosexuality coming. And okay, so maybe they didn't read any spoilers, or they have terrible gaydar, and they have never been exposed to the giant pile of academic and folkloric tradition going back centuries that argues that Jonathan was gay- but you know, also I think maybe they just assume everyone's straight until otherwise loudly announced.
Heterosexuality is treated like the default setting. Not only is it just assumed that everyone is straight unless otherwise explicitly announced, implications that het sex has happened or will happen, even small implications of a heterosexual romance like holding hands, are allowed in PG rated productions as long as all private parts are covered. Most of these stories end with weddings, and weddings, y'know, generally imply that sex will shortly ensue, yet this is still allowed in “family friendly”productions. But if a character expresses homosexual desire for another character the show stops being referred to as a family safe production. And by “expresses desire”, I mean “does things that straight people can get away with on children''s shows”. Like hold hands, and want to get married!
Because even people who otherwise would never judge what two consenting adults get up to in their own bedroom, often still think that gayness is a lifestyle and for grownups. In the back of their minds, it's still thought of as a sexual choice, not a difference in the way your brain works, like the difference between liking beer and liking wine, not being left handed or being right handed. You can't know which you prefer if you've never had alcohol and there's an age below which people should not have alcohol, or think about it, or understand what it involves. But preferences of any kind don't work like that. We make decisions about what we like, based on other things we like. If little girls can have crushes on little boys, and everyone thinks that's adorable, then clearly the ability to, on some level, know what we want can appear before puberty and sexual activity. Or in general, be independent of actual sexual activity.
It's the reason “pre slash” is not a real thing. Slash is slash regardless of whether or not sex takes place in the story.
I keep seeing the same argument “but they shouldn't force a pairing, it should be organic”. Ohhh, organic, like Snow/Charming, two people set up by fate before the show even starts, who are essentially, together because tradition says they belong with each other? I mean, the actors have adorable chemistry, the writers are giving us reasons to care and it's not like I'm not rooting for them, but it's a pre made pairing with characters that are usually portrayed a great deal more woodenly.
If you want an “organically developing” gay romance, I think we're seeing it with Mulan and Aurora. Two characters who are not from the same story, both initially presumed straight, who lose their significant others and end up bonding as they are forced to work together and we eventually almost forget they were supposed to be with other people. And the scene where Mulan gives Aurora her heart back is subtext rapidly becoming text. It's a toss up whether or not they'll go there, because they've been blatantly ignoring gay people so far but Jane Espenson is a writer on the show and she's from the Whedonverse. . But some of the people in that TwoP thread mentioned above insist that they don't see Mulan and Aurora as broadcasting sapphic subtext. If you're trying to tell me you'd be down with it if it happened the way you say you want it but you can't see it as it's actually happening exactly the way you said you wanted it to, then I just don't know how to deal with you, dude. Because I think that means you don't actually want any gay characters, you're just using “I'd be fine with it if it was organic” as an excuse. You aren't interested enough in gay characters to know how to recognize them when they appear, so you will never see the evidence you claim you want to see.
“But it's a family show!”
So those absurdly low cut bodices (and spear counterpart extremely tight leather pants) are family friendly? Calling people whores is family friendly? Disney characters getting drunk together is family friendly? A woman practically getting off on her boyfriend beating a man to death with a cane is family friendly? Torture is family friendly? And Regina and Graham? That was family friendly?
This may be more family centric but it is hardly for children . At the start, it was compared to Grimm and branded the lighter and softer version. But really, it's a romance/family/relational drama which is not the same thing as a "family show"), while Grimm is a police procedural. But Once can get just as dark and horrifying as Grimm even if the darkness is more subtle than monsters literally leaping out of the shadows at people. Not to mention, the sexed up Disney characters. Please, do not try to argue that this show isn't heavily sex focused.
Actually, all joking about slash aside, I am in love with the idea of Emma/Jefferson. If it never happens, I will cry, I promise you. I.will.cry.
I mean, I've read some hot, hot Hook/Jefferson, which makes sense with the leather pants and the eyeliner and the moral ambiguity and both coming from Victorian children's novels with somewhat disturbing subtext...but really, I don't trust Hook with anyone on a permanent basis. He's Captain fricking Hook. Jefferson is ambiguous and has the clear goal of only really being concerned about his own family, while Hook is a straight up villain. Sexual encounters, sure, but I can't picture him like, moving in and helping pick out curtains with a man who is so fiercely protective of his preteen daughter. And that means I can't get behind a serious Emma/Hook relationship either.
No character with a kid is going to let that man in their house.
