cursormortis wrote:Calm down, no one said Fitz is definitely gay because he turned her down. It was offered as an additional possibility to the ongoing speculation.
Prestwick wrote:I'd say he is red faced because he's annoyed that she's not doing her f*cking job. I'd be a shade of red (perhaps purple) if I was managing a University faculty with a member of staff as shambolic as her...
LadyObvious23 wrote:cursormortis wrote:Calm down, no one said Fitz is definitely gay because he turned her down. It was offered as an additional possibility to the ongoing speculation.
Hey. I was calm. Just miffed because it's a crappy speculation with bad evidence.
Tandel wrote:cursormortis wrote:Mew-Universe wrote:I almost wonder if she's using this as an excuse to flirt with Fitz... that's what it looks like to me, at least.
Glad I'm not the only one.
I'm in camp Hatefuck. Not that I WANT it to happen, but either it will or it has.
Not that it never happened but the evidence seemed pretty flimsy to me most of the time.
cursormortis wrote:No one is disagreeing with the fact that it's a trope that people and characters believe that a person or character is gay because they don't have sex with a woman. What I do disagree with are the assumptions that it's what BenjaminT was doing and that it's homophobic.
First, the original post you took issue with did not say that Fitz was gay because he rejected Ellen. It did not imply it. What it said was, essentially, "What if Fitz is gay? Then he could be turning red because he's getting mad that Ellen refuses to recognize that he is gay and continues to hit on him." It's a multi-level speculation designed to answer the question of "Why is Fitz turning red?" Not the question of "Why is Fitz not sexing with Ellen?" No one has asked the latter. I doubt anyone here would argue the premise that Ellen is a disagreeable person and that Fitz is not sexing with her due to that. No one except you, apparently, as you're arguing against a point that no one is making.
As for the second disagreement I have with you, sofar you have not explained how it's homophobic. You've pointed out it's a stereotype, but not how it's a stereotype of gay people. This is a stereotype of men in general, that they cannot refuse sex without it being significant in some way. Which, incidentally, I should point out includes that the woman is morally flawed in some way. There's plenty of examples of a man turning down a woman because he finds her morally repulsive. But that's a side note and doesn't address the main question. Why is this assumption homophobic? How is it harmful to gay people? If the assumption is that a man will not turn down a woman unless something is wrong with him, and that something wrong is that he is gay, then yes, it is homophobic. You could argue that the stereotype that men always want sex with women leads to the caveat "unless something is wrong with him," leading back to him turning her down, but that is not automatically the case. As far as I've seen, the trope is that a man will not turn a woman down without significant reason. This could mean he's gay or finds her morally repulsive or needs to go save the world or thinks she's related to him, or whatever. It's never that he's tired or has a headache or one of the dozens of trope "insignificant" reasons that women use to turn down sex. This therefore implies that homosexuality has no part of the trope except when the trope is used as there being something "wrong" with the man, which shows it is not a homophobic trope but rather a sexist one.
LadyObvious23 wrote:It isn't sexist because sexism against men doesn't exist.
I did explain how it's homophobic. Because it means it literally means they must be gay to not want a woman. Because somehow not desiring a woman who is personally gross or worse is somehow gay. Like. Dude. It's using gay as a horrible excuse/insult as for why they don't want the woman.
Return to Candi Comics Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests