Two people of the same gender: *are very close and emotionally intimate with each other but show no signs of a sexual or romantic relationship*
Some of y’all dumbasses: there’s literally no heterosexual explanation for this
Me: You do know that not every intimate relationship involves sex or romance, right? That people can be very close to each other without being sexually or romantically involved? And that claiming otherwise actively damages real non-sexual, non-romantic relationships by spreading the notion that people can’t be emotionally close without being sexually and romantically involved? You do realize sexual and romantic relationships aren’t the only kinds that are important to people, right?
Translation: “I hate the gays and I don’t want them tainting the media I like” Like, you could’ve at least pretended that it’s about all close relationships and you feel the same way when people act like a man and woman who are close HVAE to be in love but no you had to go out of your way to specify that it’s only gay ships that bother you
It’s not homophobia, you ninny. It’s me being continually frustrated that people insist that any emotionally intimate relationship is romantic and/or sexual, regardless of any proof or not. Do you know how many times I’ve been called homophobic for saying Carol had no love interest in the Captain Marvel movie, when basic literary analysis shows no sexual/romantic relationship between Carol and Maria whatsoever? This post wasn’t even in response to that misreading of canon, but was actually in response a post I saw about one of the examples your post cited, Lord of the Rings, specifically with the “don’t go where I can’t follow” line between Sam and Frodo.
I’m really sick and tired of people on tumblr (and elsewhere, but I see it mostly on tumblr) insisting that any intimate relationship between two people of the same gender is a sexual or romantic relationship. I have zero problem with headcanons about them (as the post you linked talks about), but when people start insisting that something is there when, again, basic literary analysis shows it’s not, that’s when I get really frustrated and post things like this, or this (which actually links to a response to a post I made that I think is important). The people I’m complaining about are the ones who insist that the characters in question are in a sexual/romantic relationship when there’s nothing in the text that shows anything beyond an emotionally intimate relationship. It’s not homophobia – it’s irritation at insistent misreadings of literature that erase other kinds of intimate relationships.
The reason I didn’t mention heterosexual relationships is because that’s been rehashed over and over again, what with heteronormativity and the issues regarding cross-sex friendships, to the point where almost anyone could probably talk about the forced shipping of men and women and how it negatively impacts the non-romantic, non-sexual relationships between them. This post, and my one about Carol and Maria linked above, is a response to a complementary phenomenon to the insistence of a romantic and sexual relationship between emotionally intimate men and women, which is the insistence of a romantic and sexual relationship between two characters of the same gender because they’re emotionally intimate with each other. It’s not an issue with headcanons themselves; it’s an issue with people insisting that any emotional relationship between same gender characters has to be sexual and romantic, and can’t just end at emotional intimacy. It’s me holding people who ship same gender characters to the exact same standards as people who ship different gender characters.
And granted, yeah, this post is probably me being a bit reductionist towards the phrase “no heterosexual explanation for this”, since not everyone who uses it is insisting that the relationship in question is homosexual, with an emphasis on the sexual part and implied romantic part. But I still find major problems with people using it because of the implied sexual and romantic relationship when the words “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are in use.
Because really, to put this post, the post you linked, the posts and articles I linked, and shipping in general into context, what this post is actually about is an ignorance/rejection of queer theory when it comes to shipping headcanons. Insisting that any emotionally intimate same gender relationship has to be sexual and (by implication) romantic is to erase the possibility and acceptance of other kinds of queer relationships. It’s pushing sexual-normativity and romantic-normativity. Yes, maybe the phrase “no heterosexual relationship” is meant to imply a queer relationship in some usages, but from my experience with the literal hundreds of comments on my Captain Marvel post telling me I’m wrong for saying Carol has no love interest in the movie, and from my experience as a queer person and queer academic, I don’t think I’m off-base to assume most people using that phrase are using it in any way other than meaning “they’re actually in a gay/lesbian relationship” and all the things those imply in casual usage.
I have no problem with people making headcanons that Sam and Frodo were together or that Carol and Maria would have been married if not for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I have problems with people insisting that same gender emotional intimacy automatically means they’re in a sexual and romantic relationship. Ultimately, it’s not about me being homophobic, which I’m not. It’s me criticizing the parts of shipping culture that ignore queer relationships – meaning anything non-heteronormative – and that insist characters are something that they’re not just because of a headcanon. It’s a criticism of a lack of queer theory and critical reading skills in shipping culture.
In a much less tl;dr opinion springboarding off of this, I think it’s important when analyzing media to recognize that a lot of these fanon relationships are not actually what’s in the story for these reasons:
Deeply romantic nonsexual relationships and not-entirely-platonic friendships (romantic friendships) are also a part of life and rarely celebrated as being as deep as romantic love. I’m in a 15+ year romantic friendship with my best friend that sort of borders on a life partner thing. It’s very complex and slightly homoromantic and hard to put an actual label on. It’s nice sometimes to see that in media where it’s intended to be that and treated as deep as non-platonic romantic love. You see friendships like but often with a subtext of them being inferior to romance (though more often they’re seen as inferior to het romance).
Some people are straight up romantic aces and like sometimes having relationships like that in canons to celebrate
And most importantly of all: It’s important to recognize when GLBTQIA relationships and character representation are not implicit in the text because we should demand more of them actually are in media.
If you say that every relationship between two same-sex people is actual implicitly bonafied queer and not just a headcanon when it’s not, you can’t realistically assess the actual lack of decent queer representation.
It’s the same with trans headcanons. They’re good. They let people take certain characters as their own. But when it goes beyond headcanon to “no, they’re trans for real, it’s text” when it’s not, we also need to be reasonable and say “This wasn’t in the canon” to be able to say “It should be canon more often.”
Media analysis has to be able to say something is lacking so the shortcomings and bad trends can be criticized so people can demand these things actually show up as straight up canon the way we deserve to have them more.
A lot of the time it’s not implicit, it’s not intended, it’s not actually queer, and we need to be able to say that to also say “we deserve more.” Headcanons are good, but they’re for funsies and we deserve the real thing.
When this response by guardianofscrewingup was posted, this post had a few thousand notes, and now it has almost 21,000. Unfortunately, the version of my OP that’s gotten popular is one that claims I’m being homophobic and “hating gays” when they make same gender ships. If you’ve read my response above, that’s not the case. I don’t care what characters people ship; it’s when the justification for same gender ships is based on poor interpretations of the source material that I find a problem.
With that in mind, I’d like to ask if people would please reblog this version of my post in the hopes that this version will gain some traction and, maybe, counteract the versions spreading incorrect interpretations of my original post, and educate more people on the nuanced intersection of shipping, literary theory, and queer theory.
Discussion ¬