Gay subtext in media: why?

Just like the cashless society, I would like to get a shipless television series. Warehouse 13 came close because you had male and female actors but no relationships other than professional between them. I would like a show about vampire slaying to actually be about vampire slaying without what seems to be a soap opera playing in the foreground.
 
Ethan Reigns said:
Just like the cashless society, I would like to get a shipless television series. Warehouse 13 came close because you had male and female actors but no relationships other than professional between them. I would like a show about vampire slaying to actually be about vampire slaying without what seems to be a soap opera playing in the foreground.
Click to expand...
The problem is that even if you give the audience a show with no actual, canon relationships, they will undoubtedly find a way to ship anyway.
 
Ethan Reigns said:
Just like the cashless society, I would like to get a shipless television series. Warehouse 13 came close because you had male and female actors but no relationships other than professional between them. I would like a show about vampire slaying to actually be about vampire slaying without what seems to be a soap opera playing in the foreground.
Click to expand...

I think people ship or place concentration on ships because it is human nature to see connections with the characters you know and love. So even if there were no relationships in the text of the show you still look for different kinds of chemistry, sub text etc. But I can understand how for some it can get annoying when it becomes the central premise and dominates all discussions in a fandom.

With Buffy/Angel (the shows not the ship) the show is about the relationships between these people and how they relate to each other. Buffy is never really without a love interest throughout the show/comics. So really I'd say you could blame the fandom less and Joss & Co. more because her story seems to be at least in large part related to those relationships and how she navigates them within the context of her calling and the big/little bads. And especially in the early seasons the Big Bads are metaphors for life experiences related to being a young adult: crushes, sex, bad boyfriends, etc. So its hard to ignore the relationship context.
 
Puppet said:
The problem is that even if you give the audience a show with no actual, canon relationships, they will undoubtedly find a way to ship anyway.
Click to expand...
.

Only the loud obnoxious minorty, fighting what they perceive as hate with hate make this a problem. Is ship purely sexual or can it mean friendship? Good couple? Team? Some do support gays but not the way society is bring steered. For example, by some popular media.

I don't read slash fic, it's not my thing, but at least I have the option to easily avoid it without sticking to Disney stories. I am all for free love, but I don't need near on porn in every adult targeted series. I do enjoy some bi storylines, like Clarke on the 100, it's no big deal, it's not the norm, but it is'a' norm. No fuss, not overdone. The story continues without being stuck on emotion or Money based desires, nor breeding (at this stage). Basically, while romance happens, it's not all about who boned who.

I have enjoyed star trek lately for a more platonic type show. Social connections working together for a goal vs baby making. It's more entertaining to me.
 
OccaQuokka said:
I have enjoyed star trek lately for a more platonic type show. Social connections working together for a goal vs baby making. It's more entertaining to me.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Well, except for the Star Trek part.
 
OccaQuokka said:
I am all for free love, but I don't need near on porn in every adult targeted series.
Click to expand...
I am a little confused. Is this a general problem, or do you connect it to the normalisation of homosexuality and the popularity of slash fiction?
 
November
November
Porn culture perhaps?
Blaze said:
It's okay to disagree, but when people start saying that they don't believe in being gay or that they believe being gay is wrong, then that is homophobic...the problem isn't that you disagree about a ship and think that the character is straight, the problem is when you turn around and critisize others for liking that ship.That's doing to others exactly what you don't like being done to yourself.
Click to expand...


But nobody here said anything like that. The discussion was about ships we DON'T like, then you jumped in, talking about homophobia. When someone says they hate Destiel (Or Wincest, or whatever) that doesn't mean they're against gay people. But you already know that, right? I certainly hope so.

As for criticising people who like ships that I despise, well, yeah...it's part of being a fan. And it's fun. 😛 I mean, I wouldn't do it here but on other sites, hell yeah!! God, when I think of all the silly arguments that erupted at the end of Supernatural S5...! There was a group of chicks who started a "Castiel Skeptics Club" on one site. I didn't give them a second thought until some of them invaded a pro-Castiel thread I was posting on. Then it was war.
 
Last edited:
OccaQuokka said:
.

Only the loud obnoxious minorty, fighting what they perceive as hate with hate make this a problem. Is ship purely sexual or can it mean friendship? Good couple? Team? Some do support gays but not the way society is bring steered. For example, by some popular media.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand how anyone can support the LGBT community but not support media representation. If you don't even support our inclusion in fictional shows, how can you support us for real life stuff. I don't think you can. Representation is a big part of acceptance and education when it comes to the LGBT community. If you support gay rights you support our inclusion in society and that includes media.

I also don't get the fighting hate with hate comment, how is asking for better representation hateful? And calling things how they are whether it be racist or homophobic is not hateful. The people being homophobic are the ones being hateful.

I agree that not everything has to be about sex, but gay representation doesn't have to be sexual in nature just like straight represenation doesn't have to be either.
 
Anyanka Bunny Killer said:
But nobody here said anything like that. The discussion was about ships we DON'T like, then you jumped in, talking about homophobia. When someone says they hate Destiel (Or Wincest, or whatever) that doesn't mean they're against gay people. But you already know that, right? I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

Nobody outright said it, but a lot of opinions seem to allude to that. The discussion wasn't just about ships you don't like, it was about not liking gay ships specifically. You can;t fault me for bringing up homophobia because homophobia is a big part of people not liking gay representation on TV. Homophobia is also a big reason for discrediting fans over non-cannon ships even though subtext is there. Maybe your reasons for disliking a gay ship aren't homophobic in nature, but a lot of people dislike gay ship based on homophobic views that they have.

Mr. Pole said:
Of course you can.
Click to expand...

How?
 
Mr. Pole said:
Because there is a difference between supporting the LGBT community and not supporting media representation when the bulk of the media representation just seems like it's only ticking a box and wanting to jump on a 'fad' because it's popular.
Click to expand...

But in order for the LGBT community to become more accepted in the world, there is a need for representation. I agree that not all representation is good, and I can agree with boycotting shit representation (there's plenty of that out there). But just because there's lots of crap out there doesn't mean that we should settle to have no representation at all. So what we should do is support better representation, not eliminate it. Eliminating representation will just make life worst for LGBT people.
 
Blaze said:
But just because there's lots of crap out there doesn't mean that we should settle to have no representation at all. Eliminating representation will just make life worst for LGBT people.
Click to expand...
Again, who said that? You keep going to extremes. Not supporting media representation doesn't equal eliminating it. There are a ton of crap shows out there I don't support but doesn't mean I want them to be gone; I don't watch.
 
People can dislike programs with gay content without their opinion being homophobic. In 1998, during Buffy's run but before anything gay showed up (other than Larry Blaisdell), Ellen de Generis came out as part of her show. After that, it became a political diatribe and lost most of its comedy - you might get three laughs per episode. Even Elton John was quoted as saying, "We know you're a lesbian. Now shut up and be funny."

But homosexuality was never the issue - in 1998, Will and Grace, a program about a gay guy renting out a room to a straight woman, became the highest rated new sitcom even though it had been pitted against Ally McBeal and Monday night football. NBC migrated it to the Thursday 9:00 PM slot (the must see slot) as a result of its success. There was no controversy. Advertisers did not bail like they did with Ellen. Religious groups that had gone after Ellen left it alone. There were no boycotts as there had been with Ellen. Dawson's Creek and Party of Five added gay characters. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy debuted in 2003 with a lot of people watching. Willow and Tara had come out during this time and there was no threat to shut it down, change the story or even have Willow revert to straight. Gay had become mainstream and people went along with it.
 
If we are looking for shows that fetishes homosexuality gay people and rides a fad, wouldn't Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy be at the top of the list?
 
It's not about how someone happens to not like this or that gay ship. It's about how a thread was made where people are saying that they are annoyed and find it ridiculous that there is so much gay subtext on television and that people ship non-canon gay ships.

I couldn't care less if someone dislikes some gay ships. I don't love them all myself and I'm gay. But targeting gay subtext (or people shipping non-canon gay ships) as an annoyance when it's more often that not all we have in the medias is sad and it does piss me off. I don't think it was the thread was created with bad intentions, but I also think that there is another side here that some people are not seeing. And the whole does have homophobic undertones to me. I'm really not calling anyone homophobic here (at least I don't intend to) but this is how, as a lesbian, I am perceiving this outrage over gay subtext/non-canon ships.

And lgbt representation is mainstream now? Seriously? I don't recall there being so many lgbt characters on TV and when they are they're rarely main characters (and that's when they don't end up dying but that's an entirely different issue).
 
Mylie said:
It's not about how someone happens to not like this or that gay ship. It's about how a thread was made where people are saying that they are annoyed and find it ridiculous that there is so much gay subtext on television and that people ship non-canon gay ships.

I couldn't care less if someone dislikes some gay ships. I don't love them all myself and I'm gay. But targeting gay subtext (or people shipping non-canon gay ships) as an annoyance when it's more often that not all we have in the medias is sad and it does piss me off. And lgbt representation is mainstream now? Seriously? I don't recall there being so many lgbt characters on TV and when they are they're rarely main characters (and that's when they don't end up dying but that's an entirely different issue).
Click to expand...
Just fyi, this thread was not created with the intention that it was bad or ridiculous. As the OP states, it was merely curiosity on my part. It's fine that you don't care, but I'm still curious. It was never meant to offend.
 
Puppet said:
Just fyi, this thread was not created with the intention that it was bad or ridiculous. As the OP states, it was merely curiosity on my part. It's fine that you don't care, but I'm still curious. It was never meant to offend.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I edited my post and then saw that you replied. I really should always reread my post before clicking send.

But like I said in my edit, I don't think the intentions were wrong, and I might be a bit oversensitive about this particular issue, but I do think that what this thread has become has homophobic undertones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom