roximonoxide
Lab Technician
I don't really read this thread...and now I'm sorry I have.
First of all, gender and sexuality issues are awfully complicated and sensitive to even rightly bother bringing them up in a thread about SHIPS, but since you seem bent on doing so, you have to realize that you just suggested no one "put sexuality in a box", and in the same sentence managed to reduce homosexuality to a a couple of BASE questions on the the issue WHILE pointing out that you are capable of denying it's very existence in media, more specifically this narrative. Whether or not you see it, that is just as detrimental as being outwardly aggressive towards homosexuality. I'll give you an example: A lot of people say there is NO glass ceiling for working women anymore. Strangely enough, a lot of these people are men. It's very hard to accept something as an issue when you don't see it as an issue. If I felt I was being over looked in my workplace, that I was experiencing the glass ceiling, would I be wrong in thinking that it's there, looming over me just because my male co-workers don't see it?
Not only is that completely irresponsible, but downright offensive.
Secondly, you all take great solace in bantering about subjects as volatile as incest, and orientation in a thread wherein anyone who gives you a different point of view can be reminded this is not a debate thread and they need to take it elsewhere.
I think it's fair to say that some people argue for homosexuality's right to exist in the media because of their specific fanship of a particular pairing, sure, but I seriously hope you're all taking into account that every time you debase the possibility of homosexual content experienced through a narrative you repress a real person. You repress the way an individual has connected to a character or characters and you repress the way they experience things from a less than hetero-normative point of view.
First of all, gender and sexuality issues are awfully complicated and sensitive to even rightly bother bringing them up in a thread about SHIPS, but since you seem bent on doing so, you have to realize that you just suggested no one "put sexuality in a box", and in the same sentence managed to reduce homosexuality to a a couple of BASE questions on the the issue WHILE pointing out that you are capable of denying it's very existence in media, more specifically this narrative. Whether or not you see it, that is just as detrimental as being outwardly aggressive towards homosexuality. I'll give you an example: A lot of people say there is NO glass ceiling for working women anymore. Strangely enough, a lot of these people are men. It's very hard to accept something as an issue when you don't see it as an issue. If I felt I was being over looked in my workplace, that I was experiencing the glass ceiling, would I be wrong in thinking that it's there, looming over me just because my male co-workers don't see it?
Not only is that completely irresponsible, but downright offensive.
Secondly, you all take great solace in bantering about subjects as volatile as incest, and orientation in a thread wherein anyone who gives you a different point of view can be reminded this is not a debate thread and they need to take it elsewhere.
I think it's fair to say that some people argue for homosexuality's right to exist in the media because of their specific fanship of a particular pairing, sure, but I seriously hope you're all taking into account that every time you debase the possibility of homosexual content experienced through a narrative you repress a real person. You repress the way an individual has connected to a character or characters and you repress the way they experience things from a less than hetero-normative point of view.
and visa versa he never got her, nor understood her ways. And he was disturbed when she compromised evidence