" the truth about how aj reads fictionalized sexualities / romansu
I am not sure if this is just because I am like. Really dense. Or just Not Into Romance in that way or what. But in general unless it is explicitly stated that someone is x or y or z sexuality I don't really . . . pin it down. I don't count "She thought that girl was hot" as an indicator that she is a lesbian. I don't count "He hasn't shown any interest in women in the show" to mean he is gay. But I also don't follow the "Oh, he/she/ze is a teenager, therefore they masturbate and have sex and are sexually attracted to others" rule either.
Part of this is, I think, because there is this thing about culture and fiction. The presentations of X and Y and Z. You don't have to say "Bob has a working urinary track, he pees 4 times a day and sometimes if he holds off, only 3 times." It is just ASSUMED we would say something if Bob had a urinary track that was extraordinary. So the assumption that Jill is X sexuality or otherwise would say so. Or even the assumption that Louis would be sexually invested unless X was stated is just . . . it is a convention of expectations and fiction -- working with how our brain works and how fiction works! But it also makes a lot of assumptions on basal knowledge. It also rides on the assumptions of everyone wants to have sex, etc.
And then there is the intrinsic tie of "the people you want to have sex with" and "the people you get emotional support and gratification from in a romantic way." Which is often a hand-in-hand concept, but can also not be.
This disbelieving is especially true for me in nonromantic genre media. Romance genre fiction I do believe adheres more to certain conventions and expectations based on its genre! But in terms of like "I ship this" or "I was reading U canon and now RP Oren from U and would like to play him as attracted to Rob" or whatever it is a bit . . . different?
"Kale kisses a boy in his canon, and likes it." Does this make Kale gay?
"Robin doesn't say she likes any of the men in her canon." Does this mean Robin doesn't like guys ever?
"Paula says she likes Jill, but ends up dating George." Does this mean Paula is bi?
"Lee and Jo have really good tension and emotionally depend on each other." Does this mean Lee and Jo have to be a couple?
I don't see any problem with choosing to go in any direction. Especially in reader perception of fiction. Hell! Even if an author says "BTW, Ed is gay" that doesn't actually mean anything \:D/. I know there is a big debate on authorial intent and ownership and "canon" and construction of perception, etc. But the act of processing fiction (and then the further act of re-perceiving and re-presenting the fiction) are just . . . different. I don't believe much in authorial canon, to be honest. If, in text, it says "Ed is gay" that is different than "Soandso said so" and "Soadso obviously meant that."
In the end for me the bottom line is really "AJ dislikes pinning down sexuality a lot in terms of gender/sex preference." I think too, part of that is because it assumes sexuality is strictly based on gender and not other sexual preferences as well :|a I have a really difficult time pinning this down in terms of "attractiveness" as well though.
. . . I was going to write more but then I forgot what I was writing towards :|a