The all too fabulous zhinxy wrote this to me in an email after I expressed frustration with a vocal minority for being unwilling to see the subtle elements of the relationshp.
Kink, Conscious Depiction and Text vs Subtext
Before I get into some of this, I do want to say that as for references to their sex life, is there ANY OTHER COUPLE ON A SATURDAY MORNING CHILDREN'S SHOW WHO HAD SO MANY REFERENCES MADE TO THEIR SEX LIFE? AHEM, ANYBODY? AHEM? eheheheheheheheh. sorry always found that funny.
Well, that they're consciously a sadist and a masochist, a dominating personality and a servile one, that there's older-man and child-like-regressed elements there? Um, that's overt, that's not subtext.
Is there any sort of intention to make them any sort of formal or scene recognisable pairing or fetish? Oh, of course not, but those are just creations designed to be a framework over people's basic nature.
The basic nature is intended.
Not the fetishes, not the formalizations, not the terms, but J would likely think of those things as boring, anyway.
Is it a sadist and a masochist? Certainly, that's not subtext, that's not unintended.
Is it a D/s relationship? Well... no, but it's a more dominating personality and a more submissive one, certainly.
That's not subtext, that's not unintended.
If one wants to SEE it as subtext for the formal idea, one can, BECAUSE THE BASIC NATURE IS THERE. One does not have to agree that it's subtext for the idea, but the text is something else.
Is it a Daddy/girl fetish?
Well... No, but it's an older clown and a girl in pigtails who giggles and eats a lot of fucking candy and pouts.
That's not subtext, that's not unintended.
Do they particularly get off on the "daddy" thing? not necessarily, but they certainly are doing... Well, an ageplay thing. Although she's actually regressed psychologically, so it's not even really play.
And that's just there, and no, it's not subtext.
Again, same thing, if one wants to SEE it as subtext for the formal idea, one can, BECAUSE THE BASIC NATURE IS THERE. One does not have to agree that it's subtext for the idea, but the text is something else.
So yeah, all of it? It's only unintentional or subtext if you relate it to established fetishes, but the elements of sadism, masochism, control, submission, ageplay? Those are all there, and not seeing them is failing at reading comprehension. Not relating them to an existing and formalized idea of any of those things is forgivable, in other words, and even justifiable. Denying that it's all there, that's just wilfull blindness.
Oh, except for Coulrophilia. That's a completely applicable intended fetish. Definitely. ;)
I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Submissive or masochistic personalities, dominating and sadistic ones, etc etc, are rocks. People are basically BORN with those natures. They play them out in their lives no matter what, in SOME way.
SnMnDns all that stuff are just cuts, some people cut themselves that way and like, love, even need the way it makes them sparkle. And yey for that.
But the rock is the same rock, regardless, and people can deny whether a certain facet to the relationship dynamic is there, but not that the relationship dynamic is there. There's no reason to argue for the cut with people who can't even hit their head on the rock? But most people can see the rock, if not the facets, and it's the rock that's definitely intended, it's solid, and most people see it, even if they aren't causing grief to those who can read. :)
Or in other other words, yeah, they're DEFINITELY kinky on purpose.
And I really, truly do believe that many, if not most people of a certain age can see that they're getting that out of it, whether they like the ship or not, whether they care or not, whether they want to talk about it on the internet or not, or whether they know the first thing about actual formal kinky anything.
Because really, people can read, and while the more one knows about these things, or has those desires themselves, the more one can see in that dynamic, (and oh what fun that is!) the dynamic itself is just so basic, and so intentional.
And yeah, most people who aren't hardcore comics nerd wankers will just assume a couple that's been linked to each other for so long is having sex once in a while. The great struggle here is with hardcore internet fangeeks, not your average person who just likes Batverse characters. They, I think are far more numerous, while they may be silent.
Before I get into some of this, I do want to say that as for references to their sex life, is there ANY OTHER COUPLE ON A SATURDAY MORNING CHILDREN'S SHOW WHO HAD SO MANY REFERENCES MADE TO THEIR SEX LIFE? AHEM, ANYBODY? AHEM? eheheheheheheheh. sorry always found that funny.
Well, that they're consciously a sadist and a masochist, a dominating personality and a servile one, that there's older-man and child-like-regressed elements there? Um, that's overt, that's not subtext.
Is there any sort of intention to make them any sort of formal or scene recognisable pairing or fetish? Oh, of course not, but those are just creations designed to be a framework over people's basic nature.
The basic nature is intended.
Not the fetishes, not the formalizations, not the terms, but J would likely think of those things as boring, anyway.
Is it a sadist and a masochist? Certainly, that's not subtext, that's not unintended.
Is it a D/s relationship? Well... no, but it's a more dominating personality and a more submissive one, certainly.
That's not subtext, that's not unintended.
If one wants to SEE it as subtext for the formal idea, one can, BECAUSE THE BASIC NATURE IS THERE. One does not have to agree that it's subtext for the idea, but the text is something else.
Is it a Daddy/girl fetish?
Well... No, but it's an older clown and a girl in pigtails who giggles and eats a lot of fucking candy and pouts.
That's not subtext, that's not unintended.
Do they particularly get off on the "daddy" thing? not necessarily, but they certainly are doing... Well, an ageplay thing. Although she's actually regressed psychologically, so it's not even really play.
And that's just there, and no, it's not subtext.
Again, same thing, if one wants to SEE it as subtext for the formal idea, one can, BECAUSE THE BASIC NATURE IS THERE. One does not have to agree that it's subtext for the idea, but the text is something else.
So yeah, all of it? It's only unintentional or subtext if you relate it to established fetishes, but the elements of sadism, masochism, control, submission, ageplay? Those are all there, and not seeing them is failing at reading comprehension. Not relating them to an existing and formalized idea of any of those things is forgivable, in other words, and even justifiable. Denying that it's all there, that's just wilfull blindness.
Oh, except for Coulrophilia. That's a completely applicable intended fetish. Definitely. ;)
I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Submissive or masochistic personalities, dominating and sadistic ones, etc etc, are rocks. People are basically BORN with those natures. They play them out in their lives no matter what, in SOME way.
SnMnDns all that stuff are just cuts, some people cut themselves that way and like, love, even need the way it makes them sparkle. And yey for that.
But the rock is the same rock, regardless, and people can deny whether a certain facet to the relationship dynamic is there, but not that the relationship dynamic is there. There's no reason to argue for the cut with people who can't even hit their head on the rock? But most people can see the rock, if not the facets, and it's the rock that's definitely intended, it's solid, and most people see it, even if they aren't causing grief to those who can read. :)
Or in other other words, yeah, they're DEFINITELY kinky on purpose.
And I really, truly do believe that many, if not most people of a certain age can see that they're getting that out of it, whether they like the ship or not, whether they care or not, whether they want to talk about it on the internet or not, or whether they know the first thing about actual formal kinky anything.
Because really, people can read, and while the more one knows about these things, or has those desires themselves, the more one can see in that dynamic, (and oh what fun that is!) the dynamic itself is just so basic, and so intentional.
And yeah, most people who aren't hardcore comics nerd wankers will just assume a couple that's been linked to each other for so long is having sex once in a while. The great struggle here is with hardcore internet fangeeks, not your average person who just likes Batverse characters. They, I think are far more numerous, while they may be silent.