Anyway, I didn't mean that "doesn't reproduce"="Asexual," because some things can reproduce asexually. I don't mean to come off as defensive or anything either, I just meant that they don't 'reproduce' in a conventional way that would drive them together biologically.
I'm thinking characters like this form attachments that are almost all personality/emotion driven with some surface attraction going on. I mean, Bobble thought Tink looked pretty good in that one scene where she first wears her leaf dress right?
Another good example is Toy Story where some of the toys have romantic relationships and they're not technically alive. I do enjoy characters like that.
I haven't read the original Peter Pan novel(s). Do you think he was alluding to a wholly agender asexual(as in no sexual organs) or no features that determine whether a fairy could be assigned a gender? I'm talking about gender as in secondary characteristics that would define masculinity or femininity not biologically. I don't know how specific what you read was, it might not be that in depth.
Yeah, sorry, wasn't trying to argue with you on the asexual point. It's a term with multiple meanings, and I was using it more in the orientation sense -- asexual implies no sexual attraction, while aromantic means no desire to form relationships.
So asexual romance (with some appreciation for aesthetic aspects) seems most likely. They might go a bit further than Toy Story characters, since fairies can actually remove their clothing . . . but the comparison is still sound.
Barrie's comment on agender fairies was basically a throwaway line with Wendy talking about fairies -- "They live in nests on the tops of trees; and the mauve ones are boys and the white ones are girls, and the blue ones are just little sillies who are not sure what they are."
Some of these terms have too many different meaning that can get confusing.
I like the ideas that fairies would be able to form all sorts of relationships, free from the burdens that human relationships can have. Well, I can see some jealousy going on maybe.
My thoughts are kinda malformed right now, and I can't think of what else to say.
I really wish there was more of a fandom for the franchise. I would love talking more about it (whenever I get time.) Especially for the novels. I always have ideas for fanart and fic, but they never really quite reach completeness, especially the fanfic ideas.
Regarding the Barrie quote,there's something similar that happens to dragons in the Dealing with Dragons series in which a young dragon has to choose whether to be male or female later, but I digress...
Oh, no question of jealousy being involved -- Tink gets jealous of Wendy, after all.
I do wish the fandom were more of the type to get into discussions, but after a g-rated post on shipping got the involved parties banned from the other community, everyone seems to be walking on eggshells over things like this. It makes me almost miss shipping wars.
Sympathies on the fic and art ideas that never seem to solidfy -- I've got a fic that I've been working on for YEARS that has yet to reach the end of chapter 1.
Anyway, I didn't mean that "doesn't reproduce"="Asexual," because some things can reproduce asexually. I don't mean to come off as defensive or anything either, I just meant that they don't 'reproduce' in a conventional way that would drive them together biologically.
I'm thinking characters like this form attachments that are almost all personality/emotion driven with some surface attraction going on. I mean, Bobble thought Tink looked pretty good in that one scene where she first wears her leaf dress right?
Another good example is Toy Story where some of the toys have romantic relationships and they're not technically alive. I do enjoy characters like that.
I haven't read the original Peter Pan novel(s). Do you think he was alluding to a wholly agender asexual(as in no sexual organs) or no features that determine whether a fairy could be assigned a gender? I'm talking about gender as in secondary characteristics that would define masculinity or femininity not biologically. I don't know how specific what you read was, it might not be that in depth.
Reply
So asexual romance (with some appreciation for aesthetic aspects) seems most likely. They might go a bit further than Toy Story characters, since fairies can actually remove their clothing . . . but the comparison is still sound.
Barrie's comment on agender fairies was basically a throwaway line with Wendy talking about fairies -- "They live in nests on the tops of trees; and the mauve ones are boys and the white ones are girls, and the blue ones are just little sillies who are not sure what they are."
Reply
I like the ideas that fairies would be able to form all sorts of relationships, free from the burdens that human relationships can have. Well, I can see some jealousy going on maybe.
My thoughts are kinda malformed right now, and I can't think of what else to say.
I really wish there was more of a fandom for the franchise. I would love talking more about it (whenever I get time.) Especially for the novels. I always have ideas for fanart and fic, but they never really quite reach completeness, especially the fanfic ideas.
Regarding the Barrie quote,there's something similar that happens to dragons in the Dealing with Dragons series in which a young dragon has to choose whether to be male or female later, but I digress...
It is an interesting and cute quote though.
Reply
I do wish the fandom were more of the type to get into discussions, but after a g-rated post on shipping got the involved parties banned from the other community, everyone seems to be walking on eggshells over things like this. It makes me almost miss shipping wars.
Sympathies on the fic and art ideas that never seem to solidfy -- I've got a fic that I've been working on for YEARS that has yet to reach the end of chapter 1.
Reply
Leave a comment