- you won't hurt me -
 |
In response to this bullshit:
http://orbitingasupernova.tumblr.com/post/23649154029/bisexuality-in-doctor-who-and-the-queerbaiting-antics
“The problem is that otherwise, River’s queerness seems to drift away into the Time Vortex. In fact, one might even say that River Song is Doctorsexual, since she only ever seems to show interest in him. I understand why we get very little insight into River’s life outside of the Doctor, but I don’t have to like it—we don’t see her dating, falling in love, sleeping with anyone who would give credence to that label of bisexuality. Nothing. “
Never mind the fact that tons of bisexuals are in monogamous relationships, River has to PROVE her queerness!
Before when we thought she was straight she was just a character. But now that she’s bisexual she’s a REPRESENTATIVE. She has to REPRESENT ALL BISEXUALS AND DO IT WELL. She has to PROVE WHAT MOFFAT THINKS A BISEXUAL IS. She has to DEFINE HER SEXUALITY and GOD FORBID she should pass as straight by having a monogamous relationship with a man because then she doesn’t count because she isn’t actively demonstrating her queerness. Or, sorry, “giving credence to that label of bisexuality”.
I’m sorry but two things: in fiction and in the real world a person’s sexuality is not defined by who they’re currently shagging. There’s an awesome little cartoon that addresses that here: http://erikamoen.com/comics/queer/nggallery/image/queer-english-version/
Secondly, the point of River’s character is to be a character, not to represent all bisexuals in the most diversely accurate way possible. She doesn’t have to prove her queerness and nor does anybody. She doesn’t have to conform to the polar opposite of every stereotype so that people don’t get the wrong ideas about bisexuals. And just as if I am in a monogamous relationship with a man that does not make me straight and if I’m single that does not make me asexual, River being ‘doctor-sexual’ does not make her a bad bisexual or a bad representation of bisexuals or not a bisexual. So fuck you.
“the Doctor sees a lot of negative bi stereotypes in Miss Song—hypersexuality (every single appearance), flightiness (she doesn’t stick around), bisexuality as a phase (she gets a bit of freedom and goes wild in the Library), incapable of monogamy (see: the Library) [wtf. at most, the doctor and river’s relationship is polyamorous at that time, that does not mean they are INCAPABLE OF MONOGAMY], yay threesomes (telling her father that she fucked the Doctor and a clone of his for her birthday), etc. “
Dude you are JUST AFTER saying that River is ‘Doctor-sexual’. She can’t be monogamous with a man because then she’s not giving credence to the bisexuality label and she can’t be polyamorous with both genders because then she’s a bisexual stereotype (despite the fact that both of these are perfectly realistic, consistent and perfectly fine behaviours). She can’t be sexually charged because then she’s a bisexual stereotype, but if she were asexual and romantic, that’d be a female stereotype. And why shouldn’t she be any of these things? As personality traits they a) are perfectly realistic and b) do not define her. And it bugs me that if she were straight male character you wouldn’t have a problem with any of her behaviour because that would just be the character’s personality, but because she’s a bi female her behaviour has to be down to the bisexuality.
if he didn’t really think about it and was like, “Oh shit I don’t have any real recurring queer characters in my run… uhhhh RIVER! THERE WAS THAT JOKE ABOUT THE FANCYING AND THE SEX, RIGHT??? CANON!” that is what we call queerbaiting. And Steven Moffat: Master Queerbaiter loves doing it—Johnlock, Eleven/Rory, River being a male gaze-y biseuxal, those random few queer characters from AGMGTW who never showed up again ‘cause one of them fucking died, etc.
Queerbaiting is what most shows with (predominantly white) male leads do. Put a little gay subtext in there to stir up interest, and then every so often go to the press, shout NO HOMO NO HOMO NO HOMO at the interviewer, and everything is fine.
How in god’s name is river a ‘male-gazey bisexual’? She’s just a bisexual. Also as far as I can see…the two gay couples in AGMGTW WERE GAY there was nothing no-homo about that at all. Canton was gay/bi/pan, again THERE WAS NO SUBTEXT OR NO-HOMO ABOUT IT he was an out-and-out non-straight guy. So I’m sorry but right now I really don’t get the big fucking deal except that it’s blatantly obvious you’re determined to find something offensive in this and willing to analyse it to hell until you do.
EDIT: Oh and a few more things, though god knows why I’m wasting more time replying to an essay that ends ‘stop being a piece of shit’. Firstly if you got the idea that she was a little bit queer then obviously you must know there was something implicit in the script (actually I know there was, in SITL and in TWORS) unless you honestly thought “Oh, she lived in the same century as Captain Jack so she must be queer as well!” In which case I really am wasting my time here.
Secondly, I don’t know how it makes sense that you think Moffat decided to make her bisexual at the last minute yet was already stereotyping her as a bisexual in Silence In The Library. Make your mind up.
there is VERY little context in the actual script that justifies her queerness
Nothing has to justify a character’s queerness. After all, nothing has to justify a character’s straightness. She’s just queer. And why the hell wouldn’t or shouldn’t she be?
(Source: fuckyeahgodofmischief, via drivemytardis)
Waited long enough (by LadySteena)
and they think they’re so clever when they go ‘OMG GUISE MIRANDA POND’
like, no shit people, only about 200 people have said this before you
(Source: sweettasteofbitter, via nightowl81)
Thought I’d try out my new scanner on today’s Radio Times feature
(Right-click, open in new tab/window for full-size)
(via sweettasteofbitter)
