I'm with you here. It's a kids (or 'family') show. Kissing is boring - between whomever. One of the reasons I loved Dr Who (and SF in general) is that it was about plot and characters who were friends having really wild adventures. UST and sex didn't feature much. It holds up the plot.
I think our reasons are somewhat different. I've never watched Doctor Who for the plots, always for the emotions and the character moments. And I will admit that if the Doctor were romancing a man, I would have many fewer objections so long as the show handled it well (though I don't think I'd like the "kiss and flirt with everyone all the time" approach then either, because it's just cheap innuendo and I get tired of that very quickly). The thing is, most media are so relentlessly heterosexual that Doctor Who used to be a nice respite from it. And when Who didn't have blatant reminders every five minutes that the Doctor and all his friends are straight, oh yes, then it was much easier to see queer subtext in the show, and I found that perfectly satisfying and interesting when it wasn't drowned out by 10 references an hour to all the characters' heterosexuality.
I don't realistically expect that we'll get a male version of River Song anytime soon, or even a lesbian, gay, or bi companion*, although I think there would be nothing wrong
( ... )
The truth of your observation may be evidenced by the fact that with the dialogue along the lines of 'You're my boyfriend!' 'OK, I'm a bit rusty of some parts but I'll read a manual!' my instinctive reaction was 'How? How are you rusty? You are flirting (and, it is sometimes heavily implied, getting your Timelord rocks off) all the time!'
My issue with it all, as much as anything, is that I don't love happy flirty confident characters half as much as nervous, scarred, unable-to-connect and/or shy characters. Nine had that lovely 'I cannot like anyone or I will be hurt' thing going on. I like the Doctor more when he's withdrawn and hard to get at.
I'm pretty sure I've seen other people use the phrase "heterosexual agenda," so you wouldn't really be quoting! I do like it as an answer to the ridiculous nonsense one used to hear about RTD's "gay agenda," though. RTD had something like ten LGB characters, almost all pretty minor, over several seasons, while even in the RTD era heterosexuality was omnipresent in Who. But most people don't notice heterosexuality.
I've wondered if classic who feels more open to queer interpretation because it was or because we live in a time where the western mainstream culture loves to stuff everything with (often regressive) references to sex/gender norms... of course, "classic who" is no one thing anyway so probably a bit of both... also Moffat seems especially fond of driving the heterosexual agenda, as established.
Be that as it may, self and gf have discussed often how refreshing the relationships in sixties who are. For example, Ian and Barbara who are/become close and most people take as given that they're in love... but they never say that outright, or have them kiss or something. So, they could be in love, or they could just be good friends, one or both could be asexuals/aromantics... all these options open up because it's left ambiguous in canon.
I think this weird thing has happened where, because queer people are much more visible in real life now, and a little bit more visible in the media (to the point where it's at least possible to have queer characters on television, sometimes), there's been a simultaneous increase in heteronormativity on TV. It used to be possible to just not give characters romantic relationships, but nowadays showrunners and broadcasters are very aware that if a character isn't given a heterosexual relationship, there'll be speculation that she or he is queer, and this sends them into a panic. So every character is now forced to be textually heterosexual except in the rare cases where they're textually lesbian, gay, or bi. No ambiguity in canon anymore, as you said.
That's one part of the problem. The other part, I think, is that TV makers are now aware of women as an audience and consciously seek women viewers. But most of them have no clue how to do that. They think all women want to see (heterosexual) romance, which isn't true, and they have no
( ... )
Comments 7
Reply
I don't realistically expect that we'll get a male version of River Song anytime soon, or even a lesbian, gay, or bi companion*, although I think there would be nothing wrong ( ... )
Reply
My issue with it all, as much as anything, is that I don't love happy flirty confident characters half as much as nervous, scarred, unable-to-connect and/or shy characters. Nine had that lovely 'I cannot like anyone or I will be hurt' thing going on. I like the Doctor more when he's withdrawn and hard to get at.
Reply
I just saw this episode and... wow. Is it just me or was it actually quite incomprehensible as a whole?
Reply
Reply
Be that as it may, self and gf have discussed often how refreshing the relationships in sixties who are. For example, Ian and Barbara who are/become close and most people take as given that they're in love... but they never say that outright, or have them kiss or something. So, they could be in love, or they could just be good friends, one or both could be asexuals/aromantics... all these options open up because it's left ambiguous in canon.
Reply
That's one part of the problem. The other part, I think, is that TV makers are now aware of women as an audience and consciously seek women viewers. But most of them have no clue how to do that. They think all women want to see (heterosexual) romance, which isn't true, and they have no ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment