-
Do you suppose the x-men use Emma‘s mind swapping device for kinky role reversal and partner swapping scenarios? Because you would wouldn’t you?
-
[QUOTE=ExodusCloak;4638520]Scott and Emma were swingers during Utopia this has just grown from there.[/QUOTE]
Wait is this a joke or did this happen???
-
[QUOTE=Devaishwarya;4638473][B]The Brass may certainly need to hear and understand the consumers' feedback and critique[/B] but they are not obligated to change their product if they think 1: doing so may be more problematic than positive. 2: if the critique comes from a small percentile of the market. 3: if the expectations just doesn't fit into their model plans. At which point, if the consumers feel they're not being listened to, then they stop buying the product.[/QUOTE]
[B][I]I think we're in agreement here. [/I][/B]
So, we should circle back a little.
[QUOTE=Devaishwarya;4638233][B]@StriderBlack01[/B]
If (Huge gigantic "IF") polyamory is what's being written here, then I leave it up to the writer to present it in a way that he thinks best serves the story. [B]HIS story.[/B][/QUOTE]
I believe the subtext (ahem) of this post is [I]"shut up and let the writer tell his story"[/I].
Normally, we'd have a lot of common ground here. I've advocated for more freedom for artists and less entitlement from fans.
This is because I've seen where fan entitlement leads, and it's never a good place.
But I've never argued that people should shut up and not state their opinions.
I take umbrage to that.
[I]Please let me know if I've misunderstood you. [/I]
[HR][/HR]
[QUOTE=Devaishwarya;4638473]If, as a polyamor...or gay, or lesbian or whatever group seeking representation...you can read into the subtext clearly, then the writer isn't denying them anything. It's there for us/everyone to see. It doesn't need to be said in bold underlined italicised words: Jean, Logan and Scott are in a polyamourous relationship...for the message to be received.
...
"Polybaiting"?...I don't think Polyamors consider themselves to be a persecuted and vilified group...at least not to the extent of the LGBTQ community. And consider..."free and open" love has been an accepted (if often misunderstood) alternative to monogamy...its practitioners aren't being poly-bashed and disenfranchised when they walk down the street. There aren't laws that blatantly criminalize the act of/being polyamory.[/QUOTE]
[B][I]So, not being poly (or queer) and not being educated - I can't speak to their persecution.[/I][/B]
But if understand correctly, Queerbaiting is a [B]marketing technique[/B] that promises one thing, but under-delivers or delivers something else entirely.
Now, all marketing can be guilty of this, but the reason this is so egregious -the reason it pisses people off- is because of the lack of genuine, quality, queer content.
So it's not just about standard marketing deception.
It also applies when queer content is superficial, underdeveloped, and dare I say, relegated to 'subtext' when straight relationships are overt.
I would cite folks being upset by queerbaiting as real-world examples of 'subtext' not being enough.
I see a lot of parallels in that situation with polyamory.
Now if you don't see that as a problem, or the double-standard there-in, then you and I should end this conversation.
-
[QUOTE=Striderblack01;4638661][B][I]I think we're in agreement here. [/I][/B]
So, I think we should circle back a little.
I believe the subtext (ahem) of this post is [I]"shut up and let the writer tell his story"[/I].
Normally, we'd have a lot of common ground here. I've advocated for more freedom for artists and less entitlement from fans.
This is because I've seen where fan entitlement leads, and it's never a good place.
But I've never argued that people should shut up and not state their opinions.
I take umbrage to that.
[I]Please let me know if I've misunderstood you. [/I]
[HR][/HR]
[B][I]So, not being poly (or queer) and not being educated - I can't speak to their persecution.[/I][/B]
But if understand correctly, Queerbaiting is a [B]marketing technique[/B] that promises one thing, but under-delivers or delivers something else entirely.
Now, all marketing can be guilty of this, but the reason this is so egregious, the reason it pisses people off, is because of the lack of genuine, quality queer content.
So it's not just about standard marketing deception.
It also applies when 'queer content'(?) is superficial, underdeveloped, and dare I say, relegated to 'subtext' when straight relationships are overt.
I would say this is a real-world example of 'subtext' not being enough.
I see a lot of parallels in that with polyamory.
Now if you don't see that as a problem, or the double-standard there-in, then you and I should end this conversation.[/QUOTE]
I agree queerbaiting and race baiting is a thing.
Just ask African American's about the blacksploitation movies from the 70's. Sure you got a few movies about African Americans, but it was always generic, everyone in the movie was a stereotype. The dialogue was written by white people to be how they thought African American's talked. I can't fault the actors for taking the roles, because when you are trying to put money on the table a well paying top billing job in a movie is definitely worth the time and effort. They must have seriously rolled their eyes at some of the dialogue and the way the African American villains were portrayed in the same movie.
-
[QUOTE=powerpax;4638250]This is truly goalposts shifting before our eyes. First it was 'obviously' untrue that anyone was sleeping around, then it was the coping mechanism of "hahahaaa I'm not mad at all it's just so funny you all think that's happening and getting trolled!!", and now we're apparently at "okay well it's only Scott". You keep changing your story. Based on what?
Do you think Jean has connecting rooms for two men for funsies? What does she need in Logan's room (who is, again it must be said, oddly occupying her family home)? Her shoe collection? Is he the Summer House's outer space handyman, like Schneider on "One Day at a Time"?
Also, it was absolutely implied, in the Sinister Secrets and on panel repeatedly in subsequent issues. Marvel editorial and creative personnel have also tacitly co-signed fan commentary on the Sinister Secret in question on social media. And yes - Scott and/or Jean or Logan or Emma engaging in consensual non-monogamy is, in fact, polyamory. What you got for us next?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean by changing goalposts. I've been saying that if we see "poly" at all it'll be just the situation I described. If one person being in two separate sexual relationships counts to you, ok. The room list is just a gag regardless, but I imagine that'll be realized over time.
Didn't the Sinister Secret only imply cheating? It didn't say the group would be [I]together[/I].
-
Y’all are too deep for me.
It didn’t know queetbaiting and race baiting were a thing.
-
[QUOTE=Kitty&Piotr<3;4638684]Didn't the Sinister Secret only imply cheating? It didn't say the group would be [I]together[/I].[/QUOTE]
[B][I]Yeah.[/I][/B]
I would say Sinister is a bit of an unreliable narrator, but so far the book itself is fairly light on details regarding the whole affair.
That's the problem with beating around the bush [I](Phrasing!)[/I]: the nebulousness.
But that's also how you titillate an audience.
You rope them in with juicy details and gossip, but you don't give away the game.
It's a complex situation and I understand if people think we're putting the cart before the horse.
...
Still.
It's exciting!
-
Emma is grey morally since born so we will be all ok with the foursome.
Maybe being dead twice make Wolvie, Jean and Cyke less jealous of each other?
-
[QUOTE=DarkMagnus;4638718]Emma is grey morally since born so we will be all ok with the foursome.
Maybe being dead twice make Wolvie, Jean and Cyke less jealous of each other?[/QUOTE]
It’s not about jealousy, I have seen successful happy open marriages. It’s not a foreign concept, Scott and Jean are doing the right thing
-
-
[QUOTE=BitParallel;4638739]It’s not about jealousy, I have seen successful happy open marriages. It’s not a foreign concept, Scott and Jean are doing the right thing[/QUOTE]
lol, I think Emma was a goodie goodie nerd in Junior High. Even in college she was still more or less a nice girl. It wasn't until after Ian showed he was a mutant hating racist that Emma started to dislike humans. Then after that she got mixed up with the Hellfire Club and that changed everything.
But yeah, Hellfire Club is a BDSM club for ultra rich people, I am sure Emma has seen practically everything and even experienced some of it herself.
-
[QUOTE=Devaishwarya;4638744]I believe the subtext (ahem) of this post is "shut up and let the writer tell his story".
And your belief would be wrong...and if you are going to be reading whatever you want and believe other than what I've explicitly written, I have nothing more to say to you on this matter.[/QUOTE]
[B][I]Okay.[/I][/B]
I understand that willful misinterpretation is very common on the internet, but this was accidental.
That's my bad.
-
[QUOTE=RachelGrey;4638745]lol, I think Emma was a goodie goodie nerd in Junior High. Even in college she was still more or less a nice girl. It wasn't until after Ian showed he was a mutant hating racist that Emma started to dislike humans. Then after that she got mixed up with the Hellfire Club and that changed everything.
But yeah, Hellfire Club is a BDSM club for ultra rich people, I am sure Emma has seen practically everything and even experienced some of it herself.[/QUOTE]
Emma is a queen, everyone else is a pawn
-
[QUOTE=Mr Cochese;4638641]Do you suppose the x-men use Emma‘s mind swapping device for kinky role reversal and partner swapping scenarios? Because you would wouldn’t you?[/QUOTE]
I think anyone would. I remember the Skrull Kill Krew main couple did something like that (but they just shape-shifted into each other) and it was hilarious.
-
