#a show can be queer coded because two same sex characters have an intense relationship with homoerotic undertones

[sexy-sapphic-sorcerer]

BBC Merlin being about 'magic' for 7 minutes gay

[forgiveness-in-the-misery]

I think as a retrospective for myself that there are complications on “this show handled queerness as well as it could” vs “this show pretended to have any idea how to handle queerness and used the fantasy of queer romances to bait in audiences then shame them.”

Let us start with Hannibal which falls into the category of handling it as well as it could with the era and the network tv factor. We got to see a lesbian romance between Alana and Margo which is already a plus above some other shows. The relationship between Will and Hannibal is deep and complex and coded with the word friend as we see in shows like Our Flag Means Death, Good Omens, and Righteous Gemstones. The word “friend” does not ever deny or negate the intimacy or queerness between two men, because with Hannibal we constantly get blatantly romantic dialogue between the two men, their final moments are spent in a romantic embrace with Will’s head resting against Hannibal’s chest. They constantly refer to loving each other and outside characters state that they are in love with each other.

The show did not have a faux promise of a gay romance. The romance was there.

Gotham is a cluster fuck. Gotham on the other hand was the network show where two women are making out and having sex and you assume they are a couple, but the show itself and most promotion for it claims they have an almost sibling bond. They are just friends waiting for men they love. Then the other “queer” rep of the show comes primarily in the form of Oswald, a heavily gay coded male character with no romantic interest, until falling openly and loudly in love with his male friend, Ed. Of course this doesn’t play out but the interviews and social media team fucking went into over kill cramming the idea of these two men becoming a couple down your throat….until they stopped. Suddenly the actors back pedal claiming Oswald isn’t even gay, he’s a virgin so he doesn’t know what he is. Both men are given female interests who act like them and its awkward and forced and dies fast. The show’s final season introduces a bizarre homoerotic relationship between Oswald and an older man…. The showrunners proclaim that Oswald and Mr.Penn have a father/son bond, that Penn is like a father to him…..despite the fact Oswald literally has this man on leash and collar and yknow already has a dad.

The show returns to teasing an idea of Ed and Oswald and a romance only to find them awkwardly embracing and claiming a sibling bond instead as if two seasons ago Oswald didn’t want to fuck his brains out. Allegedly the network is the cause of all this, but I don’t accept that. You would learn quickly if the network would not allow gay romances and work accordingly with that instead of pushing some of the worst handled non romances I have seen in modern TV.

What We Do in the Shadows I still clump with Gotham because I see and have seen the exact same tactics with both shows. The poor handling of queer love is at this point the least of my issues with What We Do in the Shadows, at this point finding out the chairman of FX wanted the sixth season to be the end because Paul Simms fucked himself by turning Guillermo into a vampire for one second then undoing it because Simms wanted to just “get it over with” is hilarious to me at this point. waikiki was open about Guillermo’s final choice as either slayer or vampire would be the story’s end and Simms somehow translated it to mean “get this shit out of the way so we can write jokes about ball hair”. The show had potential overall and was heading in a good direction. Season four was so fucking beautiful I can write a ton of pieces on the beauty and tragedy of it and I despise Simms with an intense passion for spitting on that.

In terms of queerness and romance….Guillermo and Nandor as friends or platonic or family or lovers all work fine narratively. I just despise how the show always promoted the idea and tease of romantic love, only to eventually get to the point of Simms joking or not to ask “who wants to see that?” In response to the idea of two men kissing, treating a kiss or exchange of love confessions as if it is obscene and repulsive.

I think the wildest thing for me is when shows are more and more current and still fall into this pattern of promoting a gay romance that was never truly intended in the first place. Mostly I despise this because shows end up wasting a lot of fucking time they could spend on actual plot and character development instead of polls on twitter about if in this new episode a kiss may happen when they know it never will.

[what-do-1000-swords-look-like]

Bi-coding vs straight-coding in the narrative

This is the most solid example I can give featuring two roles of Jensen’s (and I hope I’m using the correct terminology). I noticed the difference right away upon my rewatch of Dark Angel season 2:

People who hate the Dean is bi argument, who only see Dean as straight through and through: Oh God, what now? What? Why do you keep insisting Dean is bi? He’s not! He was only attracted to women.

Me: *points to romantic coding of Dean’s relationship with Cas and the confession scene*

Them: Omg, Cas is Dean’s brother and best friend. But regardless, it doesn’t matter because Dean is not into guys so it wouldn’t work.

Me: but Dean is bi-coded.

Them: Omg Dean is not bi-coded. Dean Winchester is not bisexual, he’s straight!

Me: *points to Dean checking out men all throughout the series*

Them: He’s straight! He only has sex with women! He’s only attracted to women! *points to Dean checking out women and flirting with them throughout the series*

Me: *pulls out projector*

Them: What...?

Me: *shows moments in Dark Angel when Normal obviously has a bit of a crush on Alec, when Alec and Logan have a bromance type moment at Crash thanks to Mia’s meddling, uses pointer to show Jensen’s acting; then shows moments where Alec is checking out women throughout the season and flirts with Max and Asha, uses pointer again to show Jensen’s acting*

Them: Are you kidding me? That’s not even the same show. It was a different time, different network, different genre, different directors, different writers, even a different character!

Me: *holds up a finger and switches up the projector*

Them: *rolls eyes*

Me: *shows moments in SPN where straight-as-a-board Dean Winchester checks out guys, has bromantic moments with certain male friends, the flirtation scene between Dean and Cas in 9x09, the scene between Aaron and Dean, uses pointer to show Jensen’s acting*

Them: *staring*

Me: *stares back*

Them: ...oh

Me: *nods smugly, turns projector off, drops pointer, and walks away, leaving people gobsmacked* Bi-coding.

Alec McDowell in Dark Angel is a perfect example of a straight male character written into the narrative. You never once guessed at his sexual or romantic orientations or saw hints of anything else. 

For Alec to suddenly be attracted to Normal or Logan, let’s say, or even to flirt with a random guy would have suddenly felt very out of character, even if the plot called for it (say if he and Max needed to get into a facility and it was a ruse). And why? Because he wasn’t written/coded for anything other than being attracted to/flirting with women, romantically or sexually. 

Dean Winchester on the other hand...

His character may have started out being written straight (he has many moments with women sexually, flirtatiously, and romantically), from Kripke, only turning any possible flirtations or attractions aimed at Dean from men into jokes. But once the series continued on past Kripke’s era and even Gamble’s, it became something else entirely.

This doesn’t negate any attraction to/flirting with women from Dean in the narrative. He still is very much interested in women sexually (and romantically though this seems to lessen more and more as the narrative begins to focus more on the found family, Dean himself, and his relationship with Cas). But the fact that they included this moment two episodes after Cain connects Cas to Colette in Dean’s life to Dean himself, the same episode there is a deleted scene where Cas and Crowley call each other Dean’s boyfriend, in the same season it’s heavily implied that Dean had a very intense bromance with Crowley while being a demon:

Regardless of the show’s whole push in the past to state that wasn’t the case, they knew what they were doing when they wrote these moments in the scripts, when they shot these episodes. It’s not viewers projecting a sexuality onto the character. It’s not viewers seeing something that isn’t there. It’s there. It’s bi-coding, or more specifically queer coding, plain and simple.

[adventures-in-a-world-of-fiction]

My First Ship

I was watching the video 36 TV Show Characters Who Should Have Been Gay and it got me thinking about one of my first ever ships - Jim and Blair from The Sentinel. For those who haven't seen the show, Jim is a cop who discovers he has heightened sense super powers that he struggles with how to deal with, while Blair is a PhD student writing his disertation on cultures who have these heightened sense super power people as Sentinels who protect the tribe. Blair helps Jim deal with his powers and they become partners (despite Blair not being remotely a cop) and together they solve crimes.

They have a very... intense relationship through the show with a lot of old married couple vibes. I wouldn't class this as queer baiting because I think the writers were desperately trying to push the message that of course these two are straight by throwing a girl of the week relationship at at least one of them every episode. But it ends up with the two of them having a bunch of really short-lived flings with women who are in an episode or two only to disappear never to be seen again, while Jim and Blair have a deeply affectionate relationship and are willing to do whatever it takes to protect each other. Not to mention, they're constantly hugging, touching, and being ridiculously physically affectionate with each other, or failing that, just standing unnecessarily close to each other with no regard for personal space.

The two of them live together. In a very, very early episode (I think it was the second episode, but it might have been the third - it's been a while since I've seen the show), the place Blair's been living gets blown up and Jim says he can stay with him for a couple of days while he finds somewhere new. Four seasons later, they're still living together. They cook meals together a lot, or Blair will cook for Jim while he's working or when he wants to do something nice. Early on, Jim refers to Blair cooking him breakfast as a "courtship ritual" and they just have a very domestic fluff thing going on. They bicker about chores or Blair playing his music too loud, and Blair takes care of Jim when he gets sick and goes with him on doctor's appointments because they make him anxious. It's all your domestic fluff AU fanfic tropes but... there... on screen... in canon.

And because the showrunners were trying to give a bit of fan service, there are a lot of scenes where Jim is not wearing very much. We get scenes of him sleeping in only his underwear only to get up and walk through the apartment for one reason or another. So you get a lot of scenes where the two of them together and Jim is just casually shirtless. In one episode, Jim gets covered in oil and needs to clean off and we get the next scene where he's wearing only his towel, up until the moment when he's being held at gunpoint and forced to lose the towel. Blair seems slightly distracted from the gun by the fact Jim is getting completely naked right next to him.

There are a lot of moments when they sacrifice/risk things for each other. It's an action show, so there's a lot of risking of lives to protect the other person, but the climax of the series has Blair throw away everything he's worked for to protect Jim's identity. He sacrifices his career, his academic integrity, and a large pile of money by declaring that his Sentinel research was fabricated in order to keep Jim safe.

Then there's the mystical bond between them. Blair is Jim's guide to his Sentinel powers. There's a scene in the second season where an old guide dies and there's a very serious moment where the old guide is holding onto both of their arms with blood-covered hands and telling them that Blair is now Jim's guide and it's his job now to help him. Jim on the other hand is the Blessed Protector - of the city as a whole, but of Blair in particular. It is a very serious moment that implies a very serious bond between them.

Then when Blair drowns, after Jim fails at giving him mouth-to-mouth, we get a spiritual moment where Jim caresses Blair's face while their spirit animals (yeah, the show's a bit appropriative unfortunately) jump into each other and it brings Blair back to life. It's an interesting scene from a subtext perspective.

There are a couple of other bits that stand out as fanfic fodder. In one episode, a new, female colleague joins the show and there's a bit of flirting from both guys. At the end of the episode, both Jim and Blair say that they have a date but when they show up at the restaurant, the other is there. Apparently they both asked the girl of the week out and she said yes to both of them and set up the date at the same time, at the same restaurant. The episode ends with her getting up from the table and leaving the two of them there. It's said that she'll be coming back, but it means that the final shot of the episode is of Jim and Blair sitting together in a restaurant for a romantic, candlelit dinner.

Then there's the undercover episode. Someone needs to go undercover to pretend to live in a neighbourhood to investigate some criminal happenings, and it's decided that it's going to be Jim, Blair, and recurring character Megan. The cover is that Jim and Megan are a couple and Blair is Jim's brother. They have a meeting with a couple who live in one of the neighbouring houses and the reaction of the guy is clearly, "Your brother? Yeah right." This guy is definitely queer coded and shows interest in Blair. After the meeting, Blair says he thinks this couple might be swingers - which Megan completely misunderstands and thinks he's talking about dancing. The scene is not remotely subtle - the neighbour thinks that there's something going on here. Unfortunately, queer coded guy turns out to be the bad guy because of course he does.

I don't think that the creators of the show intended for Jim and Blair's relationship to be coded as queer - in fact there is a lot of "no homo" in the writing to try and distance themselves from it. I think the inclusion of Megan as a recurring character was an attempt to give one of them a long-term relationship with a woman. But neither of them had the chemistry with her that they had with each other.

The end result is my headcanon for the two of them that they're not necessarily in a sexual relationship, and that the relationship they do have is open as far as sex is concerned. Either of them can go off and have a fling with whoever they like, but at the end of the day they are committed to each other. They love each other and are bound to each other 'til death do them part, but there's enough trust that neither worries about the other going off and having fun with whichever girl has caught his eye this week. Once the infatuation with the new girl has passed, they will always return to each other.

[that-curly-haired-lesbian]

Queer Analysis - Sparks Fly

Hi guys! 👋🏻👋🏻👋🏻

So, I sorta took an involuntary hiatus from this blog and Tumblr in general, this was due to a bunch of personal shit that have mostly been sorted out now! I’ve missed you all and did not mean to leave you hanging like this after my rep show, but like I said all hell broke loose in my personal life when I got back from Manchester… I had an amazing time at the concert though and I’m still very much a part of the Gaylor/Kaylor community, I did not stop believing 😂 ❤ 

 I am very glad to be back and hope to be getting into running this blog again from now on! ❤

Today I’m back with yet another analysis for that drunk anon from so long ago, anon, if you’re out there I hope you’re still reading these! ❤❤❤

Today’s song is Sparks Fly and I definitely feel like I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t link you all to the 2007 original version which some claim to be even gayer than the studio version from Speak Now…Here’s the performance and here’s the lyrics to this gayness from 2007, although as will soon become apparent I think the 2010 version is pretty darn gay too! 🌈🌈🌈

As far as I’m concerned this is yet another Taymily song and it has strong connection to my latest analysis (Fearless) so check that out if you haven’t already!

That’s right my dear gays, Theo The Taymily Trash is baaaaaack, let’s gooooo!!

Before we do though, I have to give my usual disclaimers, it might’ve been a while but I’m not letting up on those! Lyrics used in this analysis comes from AZLyrics so all cred for that goes to them. Also I am not Taylor Swift, or anyone else mentioned in this analysis, nor do I personally know Taylor Swift or anyone else I mention here, as such I have no way of knowing who or what Taylor’s songs are about and may very well be completely clueless in the matter. Therefore what follows below is nothing but speculation and as always everyone else is invited to join in the conversation too, I don’t in any way have monopoly on analyzing or interpreting Taylor’s songs 😊 

Now, let’s actually gooooo!

--

The way you move is like a full-on rainstorm

And I'm a house of cards

--

Okay, say what you will, but to me these opening lines seem very gay.

While it’s certainly not unheard of for people to find the way men walk attractive (For some reason? I’m v gay) I feel like it’s significantly more common to view (and to some degree oversexualize, but that’s a conversation for another time) the way a woman moves as a reason for why people find her attractive. Think of the seductive wiggling of hips that they can’t even resist programming into VIDEO GAMES in order to give female characters that feminine, seductive air…

Wow, objectification of women really is disgusting, huh? Remember however, lesbians/non-straight women can never have the male gaze and therefore they can never be predatory towards women in the same way men can, even when they’re using common tropes and imagery to describe a woman as attractive.

Long story short, I’m just trying to prove the point that Taylor Swift is gay, not accuse her of oversexualizing women because she literally isn’t capable of doing so (at least not to the same degree a straight man is.)

Okay, so I’m only on the opening lines and I’ve already gotten incredibly sidetracked, let’s get back to it…

All I’m saying is that describing the way someone moves as attractive has more feminine connotations and therefore that line is gayyyyyy.

So to summarize, the way the latest object of Taylor’s affections moves has our curly-haired lesbian weak in the knees and at any moment she may simply fall to the ground, blown away by this rainstorm of a woman, like a fragile house of cards would be by a gust of powerful wind.

--

You're the kind of reckless

That should send me runnin'

But I kinda know that I won't get far

--

There it is again, that word, “reckless”…It’s been a while since I did an analysis so I’ll remind you that we’ve previously established that “reckless” or “dangerous” or some variant thereof is a word commonly used by Ms. Swift to describe same-sex attraction, or more often, indulging in one’s same-sex attraction.

From a career standpoint it’s reckless and inadvisable, but somehow she never can seem to help herself and even though she knows this woman is exactly the kind to cause her to “slip up”, be reckless and indulge she also knows that it’s useless to try and distance herself from her new love.

She knows she’s bound to give into temptation, because regardless of what you may have heard homosexuality is in no way a choice and no exercise in self-control of any kind will make it go away.

Taylor can try running as she’s been advised to do, but she won’t get far. If she doesn’t fall for this woman there will be another down the line, Taylor can’t outrun her “recklessness”, her attraction to other women and this one in particular.

--

And you stood there in front of me

Just close enough to touch

Close enough to hope you couldn't see

What I was thinking of

--

Let’s address the elephant in the room, y’all say Dress or So It Goes or some other song of your choice from Reputation is Taylor’s dirtiest, sexiest song to date, but have you people LISTENED to Sparks Fly? (And Treacherous for that matter) come on, I can’t be the only one getting a strong sex vibe from Sparks Fly!

What I’m trying to say is, this could either be a dirty lyric where Taylor is either in public with her lover and is tempted to touch her (in a way inappropriate for public settings?) and hopes people or (if they’re not dating yet and Taylor isn’t sure her feelings are requited) Emily can’t tell that all Taylor can think when looking at this girl in front of her is dirty thoughts.

Or it could be a sweeter, more innocent, kind of heartbreaking lyric where Taylor hasn’t told Emily how she feels and so isn’t sure if her feelings are requited or even if the other girl is gay.

It’s that kind of heartbreaking thing where you want to touch or kiss somebody who you really like, but you have to hold back because you aren’t sure if that person would be into it. In that case the thing Taylor hopes the crush can’t tell she’s thinking of isn’t necessarily sex or anything dirty, but sweet things (such as holding hands or kissing) she isn’t sure the (possibly straight/not interested) lady would like to do.

The lines could be significantly more queer-coded if we imagine Taylor isn’t just scared of being rejected, but also of Emily not being gay and thus being creeped out or made uncomfortable by Taylor’s advances, a common fear among lesbians, but again, we CANNOT be predatory in the same way men can!!!!!!

Annnnd I’m sidetracked again..............

Alternatively she has the common gay fear of any kind of PDA and thus hopes no one can tell she feels like being gaily affectionate towards her girlfriend in public, she’s not yet fearless.

--

Drop everything now

Meet me in the pouring rain

Kiss me on the sidewalk

Take away the pain

--

Kissing in the rain is a motif Taylor often uses to describe a grand romantic gesture or the first move in a relationship. It’s a romantic trope that makes one think of the kind of romantic movies Taylor has admitted to growing up on.

But here there’s also an other relevant lines, the “drop everything now” may imply that her girlfriend is busy and has a lot going on, or is far away Taylor wants her to drop all that and come spend time with her girl.

If we think of the fact that Taylor and Emily started going out while touring it’s easy to understand why they’d have a lot going on and maybe wouldn’t have time for personal affairs such as relationships, but here Taylor wants them to drop all obligations for a second and just spend some romantic time together…

In a Taymily narrative the kissing in the rain brings the thought to Fearless another song I believe to be about them. In that song Taylor describes wanting to “dance” (or be affectionate) in a parking lot, a very public space, here she wants to be kissed on the sidewalk, in other words another very public space.

In Fearless there’s a line suggesting this is Taymily’s first kiss (at least in public) and poor Taylor is so nervous that she’s shaking, but as soon as they actually start kissing the fear goes away, in Sparks Fly Taylor wants the pain taken away by a kiss. In a song that seems largely happy or at least hopeful a line about pain struck me as out of place at first glance, but if we dig deeper and connect this song to Fearless in no longer feel that’s the case.

The pain can either be the aforementioned fear of judgement from the public or from people around them who think the relationship is ill-advised (because it’s gay) that play a large role in Fearless (where they ultimately overcome that fear with the power of their love.) Or the pain can be the struggle of having to keep their relationship secret and of being closeted, that pain matters little when it’s just the two of them spending time together and being in love and/or intimate, then the closeting seems like a small sacrifice to make, even insignificant., because all that matters in that situation is their love for each other and being a couple suddenly become much easier. A simple kiss or touch when alone can take away the burden of that pain. (“When you get me alone, it's so simple”)

--

'Cause I see sparks fly whenever you smile

Get me with those green eyes, baby, as the lights go down

Give me something that'll haunt me when you're not around

'Cause I see sparks fly whenever you smile

--

The line about the sparks and the smile is simply Taylor acknowledging that her and this girl have mad chemistry, the kind that produce sparks even from the simplest actions such as a smile. Teenage Taylor was gay for Emily’s smile #confirmed

The other lines? Well, yet again this seems like sexy-times to me, intense, hungry eye contact as you turn off or dim the lights in a room where it seems there’s just the two of you qualifies as soft foreplay to me. The line about that intense stare haunting Taylor, yeah, um, sex flashbacks…

*Stops impulse to adopt mom-voice and start yelling at Taylor about how she’s twelve and this is inappropriate*

If we want to get our minds out of the gutter it could also be the lights dimming on a stage and a last reassuring or loving look between lovers before the start of a show. The haunting could be about how those pre-show looks is one of the things that haunt Taylor when she later tries to get over the relationship, but since we’ve previously established that she had a version of the song including that line in 2007 (when Taymily were still very much dating) I think that’s unlikely tbh…

--

My mind forgets to remind me

You're a bad idea

--

Taylor knows she’s being reckless falling for a girl, but as her mind races with all the things they could and should do (both innocent and dirty to a degree that can rival rep-era Tay) she “forgets” why being with Emily is so “inadvisable”.

--

You touch me once and it's really something,

You find I'm even better than you imagined I would be.

--

That chemistry strikes again, a simple touch, or a kiss can lead to so much more (both metaphorically and literally) and here it does, they have sex, probably for the first time. I’m not saying this is Taylor losing her virginity (remember that car that had a tendency to get stuck on backroads at night during her high school years?) but the older Emily may have been hesitant to get physical with Taylor, not wanting to pressure her, but when they finally do sleep together Emily realizes Taylor is more experienced (or “better”) than she assumed.

This is actually getting slightly uncomfortable to me now seeing how Taylor was underage at the time and I don’t want to imply or read things into lyrics written by a minor that may not be there, but I think the sexual overtones in this song is pretty clear.

--

I'm on my guard for the rest of the world

But with you I know it's no good

--

I think what Taylor is saying here is that she’s usually careful about who she lets into her life and emotionally opens up to (and perhaps also who she sleeps with, just to go with the sex theme)

She’s usually careful who she shows her true colors to so to speak 🌈🌈

 But with Emily she just felt this instant connection and knew there was no point in trying to hide her feelings for her as it was clear right away they felt the same way about each other.

--

And I could wait patiently but I really wish you would...

--

The mention of patiently waiting honestly just makes me think this entire song is Taylor basically begging Emily to make a move, to kiss (or sleep with) her already! She’s saying “Come on, I want you, I’m ready and done waiting for you to make a move!”

--

(Chorus)

--

I'll run my fingers through your hair and watch the lights go wild.

--

Running your fingers through someone’s hair strikes me as a much more enjoyable activity to engage in if the person in question has long hair, something stereotypically associated with girls, just saying…  🌈 🌈 🌈

--

Just keep on keeping your eyes on me, it's just wrong enough to make it feel right.

And lead me up the staircase

Won't you whisper soft and slow?

I'm captivated by you, baby, like a firework show.

--

Before we continue I just have to say, I’ve always thought the line is “it’s just STRONG enough to make it feel right” not “wrong”, as in the effect that person’s gaze is having on Taylor is strong enough that whatever they’re about to do (sex) feels right and good, but that might just be me mishearing the line. 🤔

Moving on though, she’s saying the way her partner looks at her is an aphrodisiac; it’s making Taylor want her.

Then she’s being led up a staircase, in the original 2007 version I think she’s being led onto a dance floor (which make the “wild lights” make more sense), but since dance is often used as a metaphor for sex and/or sexuality (x) (in fact, In 1698, it may as well have been sex) that slight change doesn’t ruin my reading of the song.

In literature reaching the top of a staircase is often read as a new beginning and here it seems to be the beginning of another step in Taylor and Emily’s relationship.

Emily whispers something in Taylor’s ear as they head up the staircase (towards the bedroom? The lyrics from All Too Well seems to imply the bedroom is up the stairs as they head down the stairs in the middle of the night to get to the kitchen, presumably from the bedroom)

Personally I’ve never been able to figure out if Emily whispers the thing about the firework show or if her whisper is something more risque that we don’t get to hear and Taylor’s the one who says the thing about the fireworks?

I’m inclined to believe the latter, so as Emily whispers something not for our ears Taylor tells us she’s mesmerized by this woman, in the same way she gets mesmerized by firework shows, something we know she likes quite a lot.

In the 2007 version the line is “you make it like a firework show” interesting, since fireworks are often used as metaphor for orgasms… 😏

No, but, SERIOUSLY; I’m not insane or overly dirty-minded, am I? I’m not the only one who thinks this one is CLEARLY about sex, right?

--

(Chorus)

--

That’s it guys, hope you enjoyed reading and that you didn’t miss me too much while I was gone ❤ Next up on the analysis list is Ours the last on the list of requests from my favorite drunken anon!  😊❤ If you have any ideas for other Taylor songs I should analyze feel free to send me an ask or ten  😊🌈

[republicstandard]

SJWs: New Harry Potter Movie for Kids Is not Gay Enough

L.Siren

It has emerged that some people are still obsessed with sexuality, rather than enjoying a good story about magic.

Despite more than a decade passing since the revelation that a fictional wizard took a bludger from his own team, social justice warriors are up in arms that The Crimes of Grindelwald will focus on grown men fighting with magic wands rather than homosexuality.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I am a major Potter Head. I have the tattoos to prove it; (although they are a work in progress that I plan to finish- I’m Slytherin and proud!) Now a positively ancient 23 years old, I started reading these books when I was 12- the same year that Dumbledore was outed, in fact. The Potter series were the first books I ever read cover to cover, start to finish, and just like many other Potter fans I was lost when I thought the series was over. What fictional world could compare to that of Harry Potter?

As it transpired it was naive to imagine that a cash-cow would remain unmilked for long. The Potterverse keeps expanding, with stage shows and fantastic beasts and so on. So far, so money. But wait, what hue and cry? There’s a new movie called The Crimes of Grindelwald and it won’t be two hours of Johnny Depp kissing Jude Law on the mouth?

To those who say: "wait for it, it's a long saga": No. 10 movies (8HP, 2 Fantastic Beasts) and they failed to include any clear signs of Dumbledore being gay. His love with Grindelwald is literally THE point of the whole drama & they decide to exclude it. Screw them.

— Dana. 🌈🌍 (@Dana_Lurchliebe) February 1, 2018

Here we go again. There is no appeasing the SJW’s even when they are getting fan service movies made explicitly for them.

It would suck if there was just no lgbtq rep in the books and that was the end of it. But her saying Hogwarts Gandalf was absolutely gay, then dodging it deliberately, that is a different level of stink.

— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) February 1, 2018

In an interview, Director David Yates stated Dumbledore’s sexuality would not be handled explicitly.

“But I think all the fans are aware of that. He had a very intense relationship with Grindelwald when they were young men. They fell in love with each other’s ideas, and ideology and each other.”

Oh David. That was a mistake. Of course this has many Potter fans outraged- many claiming the film is about ‘Dumbledore and his boyfriend who turned evil’ and therefore should be gayer.

In the book, Albus and Grindelwald became best friends as teenagers. Together they made plans to locate and secure all three Deathly Hallows and lead a wizard revolution to bring about the end of the international statute of secrecy- which, as of course you know, was the magic law that hides wizards from us muggles and our world. Alas, their friendship came to a tragic end after the two were involved in a three-way wand-fight with Albus’s Brother, Aberforth, that resulted in the death of their younger sister, Arianna. After the duel, Gellert left Britain. This is what we know from the Harry Potter novels, at least.

Rowling never mentioned them being in a relationship at all. You don’t have to be gay to be gay. It's fine to be a normal person that doesn't define your entire identity around what arouses you sexually. Even if the homosexual relationship was explicit, you can never be gay enough for some people.

So, Dumbledore's still only Hays-code gay and the abuser Johnny Depp is still Grindelwald. That's a hard pass from this Harry Potter fan on Fantastic Beasts 2 or whatever it's called.

— molly tanzer (@molly_the_tanz) February 1, 2018

In her novels, Rowling never mentioned Dumbledore’s sexuality. Never.

Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay after a fan asked her if he “had ever loved anyone” at a Q&A in Carnegie Hall, 3 months after the final book had been published. She then continued to answer the fan’s question and said he had love Gellert Grindelwald, his childhood friend.

After the announcement, many fans were shocked, claiming they couldn’t see him that way. How did Rowling respond?

For once, flawlessly. Rowling was put on the spot in a Q&A session about Dumbledore’s sexuality. Whether it was her intention to still be talking about the wandcraft of gay warlocks over a decade later, only she can say. It takes all sorts. Once the wizard was out of the closet, there was no going back- but his sexuality is fundamentally unimportant to any story he appears in. As mentioned before, his sexuality was never explicit in the novels. Does that mean he’s not gay? No. No it does not. Perhaps Mundungus Fletcher had a penchant for buggery, maybe Mr. Weasley is hung like a mouse’s ear. None of this matters to the tale in the slightest.

In Kevin Smith’s 1995 movie Mallrats the central character, Brodie, is obsessed with superhero genitalia.

“It's impossible. Lois could never have Superman's baby. Do you think her fallopian tubes could handle his sperm? I guarantee he blows a load like a shotgun right through her back.”

In the 22 years since that movie was released, society has come around to be as fixated with what fictional characters do with their sex organs. It is behavior worthy of the Catholic church, as the permanent Social Justice present is similarly devoid of comedy. Or nuance, for that matter.

Hogwarts isn’t home, that Wizarding World world isn’t home if you’re going to erase the expression of HOMOSEXUALITY. DUMBLEDORE IS GAY AND WAS IN LOVE WITH GRINDELWALD. HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY @FANTASTICBEASTS!

— Francis Dominic (@frncissdominc) January 31, 2018

There are plenty of Movies and stories where the romance is a subtext. After all, people pay money to watch things blow up with a side order of smooching. The original Star Wars trilogy, The original Ghostbusters, even Pixar’s Anastasia complies with this basic storytelling format. All these movies have romance but love is not the main focus of the story, in some of them it is barely even shown at all. A New Hope has a love triangle played out with a kiss on the cheek, a jealous glance and Han Solo being a jerk. It is perfect. If The Crimes of Grindelwald uses this storytelling technique, deploying something subtle showing what they had- if anything other than friendship- I would be completely fine with that. The storyline would work with a nod to a gay history, and just as easily without- because the story isn't about Wizard Gay Pride 1922, it's about two of the toughest wizards of all time going tête-à-tête. Even with this blatantly obvious fact spelled out, you can guarantee though that Yates, Rowling, and the stars Jude Law and Johnny Depp are walking into a social justice sh*tstorm.

and on top of that now Dumbledore won't be "explicitly gay" and Rowling is mocking queer people who just wanted a bit of representation. yikes. it's like they want us to despise Fantastic Beasts 🚮 pic.twitter.com/cUO99SSTyN

— Riley J. Dennis (@RileyJayDennis) February 1, 2018

Need we be reminded that this is still a movie for kids? While a lot of people my age and older will gladly enjoy it without the company of our little ones, a lot of young kids will still watch it. Perhaps I am a relic of the past, but is it not the case that parents decide when and how to educate their children about love and sex and the different forms it takes- not Hollywood?

Although this whole affair is the fault of Rowling for chumming the waters with the gay wizards revelation in the first place, she has at least handled the resulting mess in the correct manner. It doesn’t matter about Dumbledore’s sexuality in the context of a movie about fighting with magic. Fantasy stories fare very poorly with the addition of moralizing messages of leftist politics. As we saw with the Last Jedi, pandering to Social Justice instead of making a good movie never works. Ever.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I’m as much as a Potter fan as any- all I want is a solid movie that tells the story with the minimum of pandering fan-service. They have already changed so much. All I want is to see this part of wizarding history accurately portrayed. This is the story leading up to one of the greatest fights in the Potterverse.

It’s simply not a love story. Please, for the sake of movies, stop shoe-horning socio-political agendas into them- and that goes to both movie makers and goers alike. If nothing else let this be a lesson in speaking carefully. Rowling had an off-the-cuff remark that she thought would gain her a few wokeness points in 2007, and here we are today- still picking up the pieces, and still watching the identity politics chimera run amok.

Can't we just hope the movie doesn't suck?

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine http://ift.tt/2BQ2DQm via IFTTT