-

dorknessrising
-
Because I'm feeling thinky. It's short, though.
If there is one reaction I'm so very fucking sick of in fandom, one that will turn me into a raging pile of URGE TO KILL RISING faster than any other form of self-righteous douchebaggery, it's this:
"If you have a gay character, you have to drop hints about their sexuality if the Big Reveal is going to make any sense. Otherwise, it's just lazy/bad writing."
The reasons this pisses me off so much:
1) The implication that sexual orientation is somehow an integral part of overall characterization, when in fact it's the least important thing that defines a human being (which, yanno, characters are based on). We have so many other traits that define us -- neuroses, quirks, individual experiences that have shaped how we think, likes and dislikes, hobbies, etc. -- that the gender we take to the bedroom bears virtually nothing on creating a unique, human, relateable character. It is, contrary to popular opinion, possible to create extremely deep and layered characters without revealing their sexual orientation at all. See: Achren (Prydain Cycle), Prince Ellydir (Prydain Cycle), Treize Khushrenada (Gundam Wing), D (Vampire Hunter D), among many many others. Just like it is very much possible and all too common to know a person well enough to finish their sentences for them, yet have no clue which side they take to bed. It's the reason coming out is especially difficult to the people we're closest to; the ones whom we see as knowing us best and most intimately.
2) The idea that we need not drop hints if a character is straight for their sexuality to "make sense" (assuming that sexuality can make sense at all), but clues must be dropped for any other sexual orientation. If it "comes out of blue," it's stupid, and oftentimes accused of being an afterthought for shock factor (see: Serena Sutherland of Law & Order). The implication, of course, is that in the absence of any clues pointing to what gender the character prefers in bed, the character is automatically assumed to be straight. Because really, that's the only way that a completely un-hinted-at sexuality can "come out of the blue"; if the audience is expecting something else.
Heterosexuality being the default value for sexual orientation is a more widespread by-product of homophobia than even the most liberal straight person (and even a significant portion of the gay community) likes to admit. And when fandom acts personally affronted that a character they assumed was straight -- often because the character's sexuality was simply never brought up before -- is revealed to be gay, it takes a lot of effort for me not to beat them to death with their own Privilege Bats. The fact that you assume that the character is straight until proven otherwise is not the author's problem.
I'm all for more GLBT characters in mainstream media. I'm still waiting for my GLBT Disney protagonist, and I'm likely going to be waiting a very long time (it took them how many decades just to give us a black one?). But if those representations are going to be all about being gay or bi or a tranny rather than being human just like everyone else, then I would infinitely prefer the heteronormative straightwashing to watching yet another psychotic-because-he's-gay man with AIDS murder his promiscuous lover in a jealous rage. If "stereotypically gay" is the whole point of the character, I'll pass.
Which is why when a character being gay or bi "comes out of the blue," I praise the author for doing it right (provided the character in question is fleshed out and unique and awesome already). For not making the character's sexuality a huge goddamned deal, and letting them be well-rounded badasses who just happen to be gay (why hello there, Dumbledore!).
Bottom line: Who We Fuck and Who We Are are two completely different things. Sexuality is weird like that. Life is not required to give you clues as to whether the people around you are gay, and neither should fiction be.
*Entry unlocked so you may whore it out if you please.