The Rectangle Resolved: Jean/Scott/Emma/Logan Poly APPRECIATION 2019

[FluffyCyclopsRLZ]

Its all about context. Logan and Gorgon and Scott and Alex are making their peace. This is Scott and Alex first interaction since Alex inversion was reversed and Scott and Alex were on bad terms before that.

No, it wasn't and no, they weren't. Scott and Inverted!Alex weren't on bad terms during Bendis' run nor were Scott and Uninverted!Alex on particularly bad terms during Rosenberg's run. Unless you're referring to the retconned context Hickman hasn't bothered showcasing yet?

In Scott/Jean/Logan/Emma case its also about making peace except in their case, the conflict was always romantic and sexual in nature so peace has different implications.

1. Because Alex didn't totally have 'I am a much better love interest than my eviiiil older brother, tell me I'm the best you've ever had!' phase.
2. Logan's "rivalry" with basically any male villain ever is more homoerotic than two same-gendered individuals having intercourse.

[tuck frump]

U right. Id totally scrubbed Rosenberg run from my brain and now I gotta forget it again.

[FluffyCyclopsRLZ]

U right. Id totally scrubbed Rosenberg run from my brain and now I gotta forget it again.

It's fine. I'm mostly kidding with the Alex stuff. Scott might be a jerk sometimes, but throwing Alex at Jean/Emma/Logan just so he could make moar mutants with Lorna would be an hilariously epic dick move. Although given the crazy rant Scott went on and the possibility of Xavier screwing with people's minds to make them get along, it wouldn't actually be *that* far-fetched...

[Striderblack01]

So, a couple questions for discussion...

1) Do you think this is actually happening? Will Hickman/Marvel actually show it or will it only be left ambiguous for reader's imaginations? Maybe not even hinted at much anymore?

2) What would be happening exactly? Are Jean and Scott together but on an open relationship where they can do Logan/Emma on the side? Or is it like a full-on throuple or... Idk what with 4 is called? Or are neither of them on an official relationship just doing whatever?

3) Do you think Marvel would ever allow, even imply same-sex stuff to it? Aka Scott/Logan or even Jean/Emma?

4) Should these polyamorous relationships be relegated to subtext and innuendo?

Oh!

It occurs to me that I never answered these questions.

1) This is tricky, because so far Hickman is only using insinuations and hints. "Subtext", if you will. I'd say, hell yes this is actually happening.
Unfortunately, I don't think it'll ever be more than 'subtext'. Which is regrettable.

2) I would think that Jean and Scott are together, and having side pieces. However, the room layouts in the Summers house suggest a true throuple.
As I can also see Emma having a palace of her own, it might be a true quad.

3) One can only hope. It's 2019, for goodness sake.

4) If a true throuple/quad is the plan, then hope that Hickman isn't relegating all of this to 'subtext'.
As fun and as that is, it's important to show this stuff on panel.

---

Here's a bit of tasty fanart by J-Estacado.

[RachelGrey]

ummm, raises hand!

Yes, Mr StriderBlack01 I would like to point out a flaw in that beautiful picture, how can blondes be for wimps if Jean Grey loves a blonde? It doesn't make sense!

I think perhaps it should say "brunettes are for wimps" and "Redheads and Blondes are meant for each other!"

[Striderblack01]

ummm, raises hand!

Yes, Mr StriderBlack01 I would like to point out a flaw in that beautiful picture, how can blondes be for wimps if Jean Grey loves a blonde? It doesn't make sense!

I think perhaps it should say "brunettes are for wimps" and "Redheads and Blondes are meant for each other!"

You know.
I was a little confused by the caption as well.

Doesn't seem to go with the subject matter.
I like yours much better.

[RachelGrey]

You know.
I was a little confused by the caption as well.

Doesn't seem to go with the subject matter.
I like yours much better.

I am gushingly glad I could be of help! I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page darling!

[Devaishwarya]

Edited......

[Striderblack01]

Personally, while I'm all for it...I'm quite Okies with the trouple/quad being subtexxxtualised. Even subtly stated (We know Vulcan has been having a time turning his domicile into his own personal SC palace). But I don't necessarily need to see Logan waking up in Jean's bed one issue and a naked Scott leaving her room the next issue. I think a talented writer can state things obviously enough without being completely obvious.

Hm.

We've been having a lot of fun here, and letting our imaginations run wild with all the different and excellent possibilities.
And that fun will absolutely continue.

But if I maybe serious for a moment - I'm not poly.
I am enthusiastic about these relationships in a way that I don't fully understand yet.

That said, representation is important.
I know this because I'm Puerto Rican, and I don't look like Miles.
While that didn't stop me from connecting with various books and characters, it made it a little harder.
When there are characters that share overt similarities to you (race, gender, birthplace, sexuality, etc.) it does something.
Somehow it makes you feel like you exist. Like people can see you as a person. Like you matter.

That's probably too much to hang on a writer or a comic book company.

Anyway.

All that to say: subtext is fine, but on-page canon is better.
It's important.

[Kitty&Piotr<3]

If and when "poly" turns out to be simply Cyclops switching between sleeping with Jean and Emma, just remember that polyamory was never actually said or implied to be in the books. Yall are likely setting yourselves up for disappointment.

[Devaishwarya]

Edited......

[powerpax]

If and when "poly" turns out to be simply Cyclops switching between sleeping with Jean and Emma, just remember that polyamory was never actually said or implied to be in the books. Yall are likely setting yourselves up for disappointment.

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?

[Striderblack01]

If and when "poly" turns out to be simply Cyclops switching between sleeping with Jean and Emma, just remember that polyamory was never actually said or implied to be in the books. Yall are likely setting yourselves up for disappointment.

You are incorrect.

@StriderBlack01
While on-page canon is better, it surely isn't an absolute necessity...not under the pen of a skilled writer.

And I do think one"s individual expectations is too much to hang on the writer...who may not think it's that important a plot point to the story he's telling.
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. HIS story.

For me, seeing their quarters connected is subtext enough...if he decides to expounded on it, fine. If not, that's also fine.
Seeking/wanting/needing representation should not be the most important, or even the only reason why you read a book.

But why be coy?
Why deny folks who are in poly relationships the chance to see themselves in a comic book?

I thought the reason for all that Claremontian queer subtext was because American society and/or Marvel weren't ready for on-page canon queer characters.
And Marvel would be severely punished if it went there. So subtext = plausible deniability.

But I believe those specific circumstances have changed.
And I also believe that polyamory should be represented in comic books.
You and I will just have to disagree on that larger point.

And again - I'm not queer. But there is such a thing as queerbaiting.
Your mileage may vary on what constitutes it, but Hickman should tread carefully.

Queerbaiting is a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment[1] in which creators hint at, but then not actually depict, same-sex romance.[2] They do so to attract ("bait") a queer audience with the suggestion of relationships that appeal to them,[3] while at the same time attempting to avoid alienating other consumers.

(polybaiting?)

So yes, it is HIS story to tell - and I'm the one shelling out money to consume it. (And loving every panel of it)
I'm allowed to critique it. That's how this works.
The feedback provided by the consumers lets artists know how they feel their artwork can be improved.

If his hands might be tied by the Marvel brass, then they need to hear what we've got to say.
That way they can be more in-tune with what we consumers want.

[Devaishwarya]

Edited.....

[ExodusCloak]

Scott and Emma were swingers during Utopia this has just grown from there.