#is it necessarily queer coding

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

Pluralities

sci-fi novella

a burned out 20-something with premonitions has a gender-questioning journey, after quitting their job and becoming friends with benefits with a trans guy

with a parallel narrative about a runaway alien prince in a space empire and his complicated friendship with his sentient spaceship friend

audiobook arc from netgalley!

[bibuckaroo]

not the eddie diaz is not queer coded allegations, end me now. he’s the most repressed man of all times, he has catholic guilt, had to unlearn toxic masculinity, failed marriage he idolizes, panic attack with girlfriend, erectile dysfunction with the other girlfriend. i’m sorry, what show are you watching? if he only had one of these factors then fine, but all of them? scream closeted.

[hylianane]

Still not over Oda deciding to have every single male character peep on the girls’ bath in Alabasta- including Luffy, Chopper, (disgustingly) King Cobra, and the fucking camel- EXCEPT for Zoro. In fact I’m pretty sure he’s the only main guy to have never been included in any of the many pervert gags. We talk about Luffy’s sexuality and very deliberate aroace coding a lot, but I think Zoro’s disinterest in women’s bodies is just as important to how he’s portrayed, and just as intentional on Oda’s part. Like, when we talk about the extremely (and justifiably!) popular mlm Zoro HC, it’s usually just our personal readings of his relationships with men like Luffy or Sanji, or (cough) strangely sexy one-liners, nothing we actually believe was intentional on Oda’s part. But this, I do believe is on purpose.

[bean-spring]

"lacy" is about loving somebody a whole lot but despite that love still being jealous of them because they have everything you don't. could be a best friend. could be a crush. it doesn't matter how you see it, but the main topic here is how jealousy can make you loathe someone you absolutely are head over heels for just because you feel so inferior to them it kills you. because you can't actually hate them and you never will.

[several-ravens]

u sound like the kind of person that thinks ocelot would do drag 😭

haha i've never thought about that actually xD

i don't believe he would particularly enjoy doing drag or even think about it, but he is a good actor and also a bit dramatic so he definitely wouldn't be ashamed (he'd do it if he really needed to for an operation, and he would probably complain afterwards)

it would be cowboy themed though, so he feels at least a little bit comfortable

[ranseur]

just fyi in case you weren't aware - brandon sanderson has talked about still being a practicing member of the mormon church despite the homophobia/human rights stuff the church supports

hi anon i wasn't aware of this! i'm surprised actually because his portrayals of queer characters in his books didn't give me the impression he was homophobic or against human rights, himself.

looking into it more- i see that he addressed his relationship w the LDS church in a recent AMA on reddit. to summarize, it seems like he's saying that he is pro-lgbtq+, that while he is still learning how to be better, he stays with LDS with the hopes that the community's stance on lgbtq+ people will change. and how he contributes to that shift is that many members of LDS read his books (i guess because he is a member) and through his books they see his nuanced portrayals of lgbtq+ characters. (https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/vtua7m/comment/ifa50ab/) that said, it does make me uncomfortable to learn his tithes potentially go towards harmful things that I am against. though it seems that based on his comments the homophobia is something he genuinely wrestles with, and openly denounces. I think if someone chooses not to read his books due to his faith, that's a very fair choice. on the other hand I respect Sanderson for admitting that his faith and political beliefs don't always align and for learning the progressive beliefs that he currently holds. i'm atheist and ex-christian; so i can sympathize with people who have complex relationships with their spiritual leaders and their personal faith. (personally I chose to leave and never look back) granted i haven't had a lot of time to think about this; but i'm wondering, and hoping this is fair to ask: if Sanderson's personal beliefs don't align with what other mormons believe, would it be fair to hold their beliefs against him by association? and if it is fair, then would I have to start holding every religious person accountable for any uncouth things that their religious text says or their leaders are responsible for? or could a person denounce those things, and be left to practice their faith in their own way? this is not an easy conversation to have- so its very fair if you won't agree with me but i hope i didn't come across as unfair. i think Sanderson isn't malicious, unlike Rowling who sucks, and i don't think he specifically supports or ignores the homophobia and anti-human rights that the church supports. also, sorry if this was long- im not good at being succinct.

[mofsblog]

Me when I wanna reblog controversial ship art but I don't want to make anyone I follow uncomfortable and I'll probably tag it correctly but I also don't want people to assume I 100% always ship the characters. AND I DONT?? WANT PEOPLE TO THINK??? I THINK INCEST IS MAGICALLY SUDDENLY COOL?? I JUST?? DON'T PERSINALLH INTERPRET THEM AS LIKE. SIBLINGS LIKE MOST OF THE FANDOM but I also do engage with fandom stuff that does portray them siblings BUT? THATS??? LIKE?? COMPLETELY SEPARATE?? FROM ME SHIPPING THEM?? BECAUSE??? I HAVE 2 SEPARATE INTERPRETATIONS OF THEM??? THAT DONT OVERLAP?? I JUST?? SOMETIMES FEEL LIKE?? MORE INCLINED TO ONE THAN THE OTHER???? but also what if I'm a bad person forever

[catnippackets]

disclaimer: as a sex-repulsed aroace person myself--

on one hand, there is definitely a bit of a double standard when it comes to handling canonically queer characters like, from what I've seen in the circles that I frequent (if you've had different experiences then great but I'm just telling it how I see it). for example, you're morally reprehensible if you ship a canon lesbian with a man or refer to a canon bi character as a lesbian. people will be so angry with you. and it's understandable, since there's so little queer rep in comparison to cishet rep that when there IS a rare actual queer character, the unofficial rule is "don't take that away from them when you add more headcanons to them". like, respect that this one is REAL and NOT just a headcanon. I think it makes perfect sense to feel upset when people take that away, even if it is just fiction and not even canon to the original source. and yet, whenever there exists a canon asexual character suddenly it's all "oh well asexual people can still have sex so it's fine if we headcanon THIS canon sexuality as something different". it makes me feel so genuinely heartache-y and depressed to see ppl ignoring that aspect of a character.

and by "canon" I'm also including characters that were never specifically referred to with a label but are very obviously coded as something, because those characters will still get the "even if it's not stated it's pretty obvious!!" treatment when it comes to showing attraction to the same gender, but not when they DON'T show attraction to any gender. like aro and/or ace coding just doesn't count. I understand that it's kind of hard to represent an absence of something, especially when you're only implying it and not even directly showing it, but it's not impossible. there's a lot of characters that you could argue are aroace coded the same way you could argue a character is gay coded. obviously to a degree every queer identity gets disrespected in fandom and it's something you just kinda have to deal with, but it's easier to notice when it's something you personally relate to. I don't think it would bother me as much if we didn't have that unofficial "respect the canon" rule and everyone just went wild with whatever, but the double standard does genuinely hurt me, especially when I see people I thought were cool about this stuff participating in it. so whenever I see someone fiercely defending an asexual character it really makes me feel good, like I'M being defended, not a random fictional character that I might not even recognize the name of. I feel safe, like that person will respect ME.

THAT BEING SAID,

AS a sex-repulsed aroace person who enjoys thinking about the entire spectrum of intimacy and where a character may fall exactly on that spectrum, ALSO as a person who is aware that "asexual" simply means "does not experience sexual attraction" and not necessarily "is violently repulsed by anything sexual", sometimes I DO want to play out scenarios for my own enjoyment. sometimes I DO want to think hm I wonder where this ace character's line is, compared to a different ace character. I wonder if there is anyone who would be an exception for them, and how they could go about dealing with that exception. I wonder if they're favourable, neutral, or repulsed. if those aspects of their character aren't explicitly stated then what's to stop me from playing around with them and working through my own issues in a controlled and non-canon environment? if they have the same identity as me, I am way more likely to want to play around with them like a doll and perhaps play out scenarios that I might have thought about before but don't actually want to do for real. I'm not taking away their identity, after all; I'm just, in this scenario, imagining this ace character as an ace that might have sex on at least one occasion for whatever reason. either just to try it, or because they do have someone they'd make an exception for, or if they got bored enough, whatever the reason. it isn't quite disrespecting their truth unless it's explicitly stated either in canon or by word of god that it's something they're uncomfortable with. and to be honest, if I see another asexual creator headcanoning a character as somewhere on the asexual spectrum and depicting them in sexual situations, it makes me almost happy, to know that they're still acknowledging that character's canon identity and accepting and exploring the nuance that could come with it, even if I personally believe that this specific character would be repulsed instead of neutral or favourable. there's this understanding of "I'm doing a character study exploration thing", and not "I don't care I just wanna sexualize this character"

but I literally feel GUILTY when I want to write what is essentially a thinkpiece disguised as a fanfiction or original story on asexuality and take an asexual character (canon or coded) and involve them in sexual situations to explore different avenues of the spectrum. I feel like I'm betraying everyone who's like me and is frustrated with how aroace characters are treated within fandom. I'm like "am I being just as bad as those other people who will disrespect a character's canon sexuality just because they think that character is hot and want to ship them with someone? do they do the same thing with other types of queer characters? how does this reflect that person's view of people, if they're explicitly told someone feels a certain way and decides to ignore it for their own amusement? or is it just because they're fictional and not real people and I'm being really sensitive and thinking way too much into it? am I not doing the exact same thing? do I have more credence to explore scenarios like this because I am aroace and sex-repulsed myself and therefore have a pass to do whatever I want and it won't come off as a little weird the way it might if someone who's allosexual did it?"

and these two opinions are at war in my mind constantly. like both of them can and do co-exist but I still struggle to accept that lol

[alexwilltellyouthings]

Ok I have so many thoughts about painland ending up canon or not and I. Just.

Listen I AGREE that their bond goes beyond being romantic or not. It's obvious, it's beautiful, I love it and I love them and their friendship and I truly do think it is important that media has this kind of relationship portrayed.

But.

But.

I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be disappointed if it doesn't turn romantic. It involves a lot of things.

1: I want Edwin to have that. He'll still be happy without it, yes, but god can't he have that? He's been through so much. He had a speedrun through his sexuality issues and confessed in hell. Like wtf. Can't he have that???

2. Bisexual Charles would actually be so important to me. And yeah he can be bi and not in love with Edwin but come on lol. The thing is, there's not many bi men in media. Even less bi men figuring out their bisexuality. Even less bi men figuring out their sexuality when they were raised in the 80s and knowing their best friend is in love. Do you see how many layers exist here? How amazing his story could be? Charles has so much we still don't know about him. And yes, I would like that one of those things could be something I relate to. Besides trauma. Call me selfish. And like he's so bisexual coded it would be offensive for him to be straight I'm sorry.

3. They exist in other universes. Let them be platonic there. Let them be romantic this one time.

4. I know falling in love with a straight person is a very common story and I don't think it's wrong for it to happen in a show, but honestly, it's not what I sign up for when I'm watching queer stuff. Think Our Flag Means Death. It probably changed my brain chemistry because anything less than that gets really hard to swallow. I know, we all have queerbaiting trauma, and I know this wouldn't be the case, and it never claimed to be something as queer as OFMD. But I got so attached that... Well, I wouldn't stop watching if this happens, but it wouldn't sit well with me. It's a bitter feeling, you know?

5. They didn't have anything be explicit, but come on, they did set us up. Charles got jealous at Monty, and only Monty, for that matter. I wouldn't say his thing with the Cat King is necessarily jealousy, more like protectiveness, but that can be disputable. And both George and Jayden said more than once that Charles' response to the confession let things open. So I mean if that door wasn't closed, then please don't close it now! The road until things happen can be long, dramatic, tortuous, whatever, there's many ways to tell a love story. But if I'm sitting for it, then I don't want to get shot in the face later on (unless it's for plot reasons which ok).

6. Have I mentioned that bisexual Charles

Anyway I feel kinda bad for wishing so much they get romantic because I see and agree with the whole platonic discourse. But yeah those are all the reasons why I can't stop myself. Have a good day everyone

[a-timely-problem]

not saying that Jemily should be together necessarily but not canonically making JJ and Emily queer in some feels wrong... They're both just so queer coded. JJ can keep being married to Will but it would be nice to see her realize that maybe she's also attracted to women... And Emily, well, she's just so damn gay without being confirmed gay. Just let them be powerful queers, please. Like Tara and idk if Penelope is confirmed or not (it should be but oh well). Just... Please

[sir-ballister-boldheart]

"Having gay characters in media nowadays isn't very impressive, or pushing boundaries because gay people are soooooo accepted by everyone today, but this character from 20 years ago who was once maybe hinted to be gay by one of its actors is revolutionary" sure is a statement. Especially when that statement is made about Nimona, you know, the movie that Disney almost killed for the super accepted gay kiss at the end.

I am not insulting queer coded (actually queer coded, NOT queer-baity) characters that had to exist that way because it was the only way to get their stories told. I am not even saying that queer coding is necessarily a bad way of telling a story. But some of you really need to get out of your fandom biases and give two thoughts about what you are saying

[mousegoesmoo]

Okay I'm sure many of you all have seen this tiktok:

This tiktok has seemingly reached a very broad audience and I'm lowkey beefing with some of the comments. And then comments are stirring some byler doubt in me but I'm just gonna come on here and think through things logically. I'm only going to take into account things that are canon or have been stated by official sources.

Many commenters have stated that Byler will only be one sided, Will in love with Mike. Narratively, this does not make sense. Will's character has been pre-planned to be queer from season 1 episode 1 and in his character description. Additionally, Robin originally was not going to be gay, but that was changed during the filming of Season 3 (Maya Hawke talks about this). So, why would they have the only canonically gay character be used as a plot device to further El and Mikes relationship? It just doesn't make sense for his love to be unrequited. They have stretched out the plot point of Will's sexual orientation and love for Mike for many seasons, it has been slow burned. They could have given Will a sharp rejection in Season 3 during the rain fight, but they didn't. If they did, moving to California would be an opportune time for Will to move on from his love for Mike. But they didn't. Will made an entire painting for Mike and gave him a veiled confession- if it ends in unrequitedness they stretched out this plot line for far to long. It is unnecessary. It would just be unnecessarily devastating for Will to be rejected in the final season. Plus, we have seen it before, entire relationships can form in one season. Mike and El were formed in one season, Nancy and Steve broke up and then Nancy and Jonathan got together, why can't the same happen with Mike and Will?

2. Mike has never been implied or done any actions to suggest he is gay or reciprocates Will's feelings. First of, to quote the byler slides, Mike has more queer coding than Will (slide 7, slides linked). To preface, queer coding is "...when a character’s sexual orientation is implied by significant subtext without being stated outright."(Elizabeth Duarte). So, this doesn't necessarily prove that Mike is in love with Will, but it does imply that he is in the very least bicurious. Personally, I believe that one of the strongest bits of queer coding for Mike is during his initial attraction to Eleven. Eleven was often described to look very similar to Will and boy-ish. A little suspicious if you ask me. To add on to that, the problems in Mike and Eleven's relationship have grown as El has explored her femininity and self. Granted, the problems could have arose due to them both aging, but, it is still another common denominator. But, the byler slides have many instances of queer coding for Mike (some probably better than what I presented), so I would suggest looking into those rather than having me repeat them here. But queer coding implies queerness, therefore, Stranger Things has suggested that Mike is not straight.

2.5 Mike's feelings have never been reciprocated for Will. Now this is a trickier one. We haven't had a scene from Mike's perspective in a while, making it very difficult to have hard evidence that he is into Will as well. However, we can prove that Mike is heavily queer coded (because he is). So, if Mike were gay, who would he direct his affections towards? Lucas, who is trying to rekindle his relationship Max, Dustin, who has had a steady long distance relationship with Suzie, or Will, who has never shown interest in any girls despite having many opportunities (arguably, more opportunities than the other party members)? They would not put Mike into a one sided pining with Lucas or Dustin for the final season, it simply does not make sense. But Will, who has already had a developed crush on Mike for several seasons, the pieces start to click together. Mike liking Will is very dependent on Mike being queer, which we have proven through the fact that he is heavily queer coded. So, the only same sex individual that would make logical sense as his love interest is Will. Also: a huge point about not having a Milkeven endgame is that Eleven was supposed to die and, consequently, so would their relationship.

3. Unlikely for the time, so it will never happen. Girlypops. It is unlikely for someone to be dating someone with superpowers in the 80's. It is unlikely for a parallel dimension to take over and infect this one random town in Indiana in the 80's. ITS FICTION. Additionally, it is know that homophobia exists in the fictional Stranger Things universe (Lonnie, Troy, Robin's extreme hesitance to come out, etc.), ,but on the other hand, the Duffers are actively pursuing a relationship between Robin and Vickie. As of our knowledge right now, Vickie's sole purpose in the show is to be a love interest of Robin's. If they don't end up together it is most likely because Robin either gets a new love interest or one of the two dies in the final season. Ultimately, I do not think that Stranger Thing's taking place in the 80's will have an impact on whether or not byler becomes canon.

So those were the main three points made in the comment section of that tiktok.

I just want to also state that if Byler isn't canon, I would want to consider this to be a case of queerbaiting (but, this still depends on how they wrap up Season 5). Also, I would consider slapping a new love interest for Will to wrap up the season as very sloppy and lazy writing. AND, I think using Will's love for Mike as a stepping stone to progress a heterosexual relationship deeply offensive. If they were going to have Will be rejected, they should have done it way earlier in the series.

Thats all I have to say xx

[youssefguedira]

like the thing is i DO think misogyny is a major contributing factor to a lot of older 'bro' movie homoeroticism. sure sometimes it's queercoding and deliberate subtext. other times it's the base assumption that the Love Interest will fall for the Hero because that's just how things work, the hero saves the day, the girl is his reward. there's so little effort put into the writing of the intended love interest because she is ultimately there to fulfil the role of hero's prize and therefore their relationship doesn't need development because it will simply happen. she's not a real person she's decoration. but the hero's sidekick, or best friend, or rival - more time is invested into these relationships because they are both men, and therefore permitted to be more complex characters by the film. they are not necessarily written well, dependent on the film, but they will get more to work with than the women in the film. and so of course their relationships will be deeper and get more screen time, because they are not a foregone conclusion. which lends itself to queer readings and homoeroticism.

this isn't confined to bro movies or action movies either! like the examples i cited in the tags earlier were the lost boys, dead poets society, and die hard, which are different types of film but have the same issue. both the lost boys' and die hard's love interests are so woefully underdeveloped that the more compelling relationship is with another man, the villain and the cop respectively. those are the relationships that get developed. die hard's wife is just kind of there sometimes, and the lost boys' is just a generic damsel in distress with nothing going on for her beyond standing there and looking pretty.

dead poets society is a different beast, more drama heavy. there's barely any women in it! one subplot with one romantic interest that involves repeated overstepping of boundaries despite the girl telling the guy to stop, but it's fine because she wants him really, she's just trying to protect him of course, and she needs rescuing. the rest of the film is easy to read through a queer lens because of the exclusion of women from the environment entirely, partially because it's an all boys school, but also because women are simply there to be looked at and pursued but not intellectual equals. when they're brought into the cave it's a threat to the space, and of course they've never heard of shakespeare, because dead poets society's idea of culture and intelligence is reserved for men near exclusively. there's a campaign to bring girls into the school but it's so they can fuck them. so of course it feels like they're all gay because women are deliberately excluded from the film's spaces.

like i get the point about intricate rituals and queer coding and all that. but i DO think misogyny is an important factor here

[ultimate-marysue]

To me headcanons fit in one of these categories:

Implied by canon (any baiting and coding of a character as queer or neurodivergent for example)

Logical conclusion based off of canon (Consequences of the events the characters go through)

Canon fucked this one up actually (Classic in DC fandom when a character suddenly stops behaving like themselves or everyone ignores other canon events)

Coping (when you try to make sense of the previously mentioned fuck ups without just giving up on them)

Revelation( something you can't necessarily explain but you know in your heart of hearts to be true. The character has descended and told you about it)

Projection (self explanatory)

It would be so funny (does it make sense? Not necessarily. Does it spark joy? Absolutely)

[jeonscatalyst]

as someone whos been on army twitter since 2018, it only seems like armys dont support jikook's bond the way jikookers do is because shippers are in a sub-fandom and within that subfandom they are in an echo chamber. its nothing unusual it's in literally every fandom but thats the only reason lol. like taekookers are saying the exact same thing, that the fandom is full of jikookers and everyone dismisses taekooks bond. solos and shippers all have their own "evidence" and "proof" or armys "not defending ___", and 9.9/10 its something 1) armys have never seen or even heard about bc twitter and the internet is a biiiig space or 2) something taken completely out of context. i like to be in this tag bc ive been an ot7 biased army since 2019 with jikook being my fav duo, and while i dont care to know if theyre in a relationship with each other, its not something crazy either because friends to lovers is like the oldest trope ever and also theyd be cute as hell together lmao. i dont follow any solo focused accounts or pairing accounts, literally only armys and when are you sure came out my tl looked like this tag 😭. armys are well aware of jikook's bond and are supportive of it, the issue is taekookers. i could make a thread of vmin, namkook, sope are married and get 10k likes, but i couldnt do that bc of taekookers. theyd swarm the quotes and no thats not armys doing it or armys fault, thats the twitter algorithm being 100000000x worst after elon musty took over bc it was not like that at *all* pre-him. with likes being hidden and the algo pushing deplorable disgusting terrible tweets, it makes it infinitely harder to take accts down.

also its like the way straight armys and lgbtq+ armys experience being a fan. you notice subtexts and clues that may or may not actually be there or mean what you think/want it to mean but its still your fandom experience and youre able to talk about it with other like-minded people. perfect example for this: like crazy. the queer coded-ness of it all, the makeup & earing on one side, jimin in my eyes created the bisexual Iliad in song form ! but thats not how most het armys wouldve viewed it at all, and that doesnt even mean my interpretation of it is correct or the only way to view it. im not going to look down on those who viewed it differently. so shippers are experiencing something different; they watch their pairing to see how they look at each other, touch each other, speak to each other, treat each other compared to everyone else. armys simply arent doing all that; and that doesnt mean we dont care or that shippers love them more (lol), it just means that within the shipping culture and sub-fandom, thats what yall do. which is cool, but like i said its not the *only* way an army can love and appreciate their bond. there's also the echo chamber aspect of the subfandom culture i didnt really get into but it also plays a huge part in why jikookers think armys dismiss or dont love jikook in the same way jikookers do. all this isn't necessarily a slight against you but i think conversations like these are necessary bc talking points like "armys dont actually like seeing jikook together" or "majority of the fabdom is taekookers who hate jikook" are extreeeemely slippery slopes that discourage any type of meaningful thought, and only encourages and eggs on solo rhetoric, which as we hopefully all know is directly antithetical to what any of the boys would ever want.

Hi anon,

I completely understand the points you’ve made, and I do agree with you to an extent. It’s true that in every sub-fandom within the main fandom, whether it’s Taekookers, Jikookers, other shippers, or solos, everyone essentially complains about the same issues, each armed with their own “proof” to justify their arguments. That part, I fully agree with.

However, while I see your point, I do want to emphasize that Jikook’s bond is often undermined by many within the fandom. And it’s not just Taekookers or solos; even some OT7 fans contribute to this. The reasons for this vary. Yes, you’ll find other groups complaining about the same things we do, but when you dig deeper to understand their grievances, it often turns out to be something taken out of context or just bitterness over someone highlighting Jikook or saying something positive about their bond.

The truth is that Jikook’s bond stirs mixed feelings in this fandom for many reasons. It has never been the simplest relationship to understand…or even to love, if I’m being honest. Many people join fandoms and sub-fandoms as an escape from real life issues, seeking something that feels lighthearted, comforting, or entertaining in their spare time. Because of this, a lot of people dislike grappling with more complex dynamics like Jikook’s. They either reject it outright because they don’t understand it or ignore it altogether. This lack of understanding often leads to their bond being undermined.

Jikook’s dynamic has historically made many people uncomfortable for a variety of reasons that I won’t delve into here. But when we talk about this fandom ignoring or undermining their bond, there is more than enough evidence to support that claim.

In contrast, what’s complicated or complex about Taekook? Their dynamic is fun, easygoing, and comforting, qualities that are universally appealing. There’s no need to overthink their interactions or navigate any layers of complexity when watching them. Everything that has ever appeared complex about those two is largely a result of shippers fabricating explanations to reconcile their behavior with the expectations of a romantic dynamic. These narratives are often crafted to justify why they don’t exhibit the typical actions or interactions one might expect from a couple… I.e Taekook not seen spending much time with each other = the company separating them or regulating their interactions on camera. Most people in the fandom, except for some Jikookers and solos, have no reason not to enjoy their dynamic. An easy way to see this is by observing the response to their content. A Taekooker can make up lies, edit photos, or take moments out of context, and it will gain over 20k likes, with the fandom eagerly eating it up. Meanwhile, Jikookers can post real, authentic moments of Jikook, only to have their posts reported. So, no, for the most part, Taekookers don’t have a strong basis for their claims. (This isn’t the bone of contention but just had to mention this)

I also agree with you that many fans don’t pay attention to the same things shippers and solos focus on. Sometimes they’re simply unaware of certain dynamics, which can come across as indifference. I also don’t entirely agree with the narrative that ARMYs dislike seeing Jikook together. I’ve seen the fandom be supportive of Jikook as a duo but I still firmly believe Jikook is one of the pairs whose bond is most heavily undermined. A clear example of this is how much of the fandom dismisses Jikook’s interactions as mere fanservice, simply because some of their moments appear too “intimate” or “gay” for their liking.

This is definitely a topic that deserves more discussion because there’s so much to unpack here.

[renthony]

I can't stop thinking about Arcane. I've never been so obsessed with a piece of media that irritated me so much. I can't put it in my "I love this, it's my favorite" category, but I can't put it in my "I hate this, it sucks" category. It is the ultimate mixed bag that I will be obsessed with forever.

Season 1: This is an intensely political story that invokes real-world systemic injustice, and the core conflict is between the oppressed undercity and the privileged upper city. It's a little messy and doesn't necessarily handle everything perfectly, but the plot is wrapped up in ideological divides and poverty vs privilege.

Season 2: Actually we want to go play around with other worldbuilding stuff that we haven't set up very well, because none of that political stuff matters as much. We aren't going to explore how fucked up it is that the city fighting for its independence gets absolutely nothing they wanted and the last character who seemed to actually give a shit about that conflict is not going to get a single speaking line in the final act of the show. We are not going to explore what actually wound up happening with the political situation. Also, the only happy canon queer couple are cops, a gay-coded character got word-of-god confirmed as ace in the most homophobic AND aphobic way possible, and nobody from the undercity got an actual happy ending. The working class is going to continue suffering while the rich cop lesbians get their happy ending. Fuck you.

Like, I really cannot get over the fact that the show's marketing did a big "Sevika's story ends in act 3!" and then she didn't even speak. What the fuck.

Also, we're supposed to accept that Jinx has an ambiguous ending because of her pink shimmer dash, but all that makes me think is, "babygirl, why couldn't you do that for Isha?" It feels weak. She's a superpowered machine who can defy the laws of physics, but not when her kid is in danger???

This show makes me want to chew glass. It's so fucking beautiful. The soundtrack is fire. I find most of the characters deeply compelling. I am going to be unhinged about them for the rest of my life. But the plot...augh.