Wikia

Once Upon a Time Wiki

LGBT Character

    • The show is about true love and finding each other; a MUST be

        Loading editor
    • Please folks, keep all replies respectful. This is a hot button topic that can get nasty quickly.

        Loading editor
    • No I can't watch any shows that have LGBT characters.

        Loading editor
    • OUATFan wrote: No I can't watch any shows that have LGBT characters.

      Good thing TVs have off buttons...

        Loading editor
    • OUATFan wrote:
      No I can't watch any shows that have LGBT characters.

      And LGBT characters can't watch you ;)

        Loading editor
    • Really. I think they could do this with Mulan. Technically, she is dressed up as a man. This could just be what they are referenceing. Also, they have said might so it might not even happen.

        Loading editor
    • Still rooting for Archie....

        Loading editor
    • I would love for them to have an LGBT character eventually considering that is a group that I am proud to be a part of. However, like Jane Espenson says, they need to be able to make it work somehow, so it's better to have a couple that they can fit into the show and make sense or no couple at all :/

        Loading editor
    • Archie if they just idly mention that he came back from a date with [insert male name here], I think would work, as would a character named Jill that was shown to have a thing with Jack if they were to expand on Jack's backstory. :3

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't say no to a same-sex couple at all, however, I do NOT want it to be an already well-established character that suddenly turns bi or gay.

      IE: Swan Queen. That cannot happen for many, many reasons.

        Loading editor
    • Fluteline24 wrote:

      IE: Swan Queen. That cannot happen for many, many reasons.

      I will eat my shoes if Swan Queen happens...

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      Fluteline24 wrote:

      IE: Swan Queen. That cannot happen for many, many reasons.

      I will eat my shoes if Swan Queen happens...

      Wait I thought I was the only one who nearly facepalmed themselves to death at SwanQueen

      I'm not alone <3

        Loading editor
    • Well, so much for "respectful".

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:
      Well, so much for "respectful".

      It's not showing disrespect towards the LGBT in the posts you saw Flute, Utter and that spy write in response. It's showing their disdain towards a fan made shipping pairing that probably has 0.1% chance of actually happening on the show because that's not how the characters' relationship has been. Do not confuse it with they are hating on the LGBT community just because SwanQueen is a popular fanbase pairing. The problem is it's fanbased, so basically it's not even an official couple on the show. I get that there's a lot of imagination and what-ifs involved in people wanting SwanQueen to happen, but that's also another issue. I hear about the "sexual tension" people want to believe is there on the in-show scenes between Emma and Regina, and I don't understand that. That's what I mean when I say imagination. The intention of having Emma and Regina interact has never implied anything romantic in-show, and I have no inkling why people want them together so badly if it's not logical or even makes sense (or at least to me).

        Loading editor
    • ^^^^^

      Dude I couldn't tell you how many LGBT friends I have and how much I support them.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote: Well, so much for "respectful".

      So, because I wrote a post where I voice my dislike of Swan Queen, you're going to throw out all my earlier posts? Nice.

      Disagreeing is not disrespecting.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:
      Well, so much for "respectful".


      My hatred of Swan Queen has nothing to do with the fact that it would be two women in a relationship and everything to do with the fact that Regina has repeatedly tried to kill Emma and her family (and actually wound up clinically killing Emma's son), was the reason that she wasn't raised by her parents, framed her mother for a murder she didn't commit, ripped the heart out of an innocent man and forced him to have sex with her or else she'd kill him, actually DID kill him when he told her he wanted nothing to do with her, cast the damn curse because a child was trying to help her be with her true love, and God only knows what else at this point.


      Why the hell would Emma want anything to do with Regina?

        Loading editor
    • I never said that mocking Swan Queen is disrespectful to LGBT people. It is, however, disrespectful to those fans of the show who do.

      That's not to say you can't disagree with the ship, but there's a big difference between saying, for example, "I don't ship these characters" or "I don't see any chemistry between them" vs "I will eat my shoes if Swan Queen happens..." and "Wait I thought I was the only one who nearly facepalmed themselves to death at SwanQueen." I love the show, but shippers who fling unnecessary venom at other shippers really take the fun out of being a part of this fandom (And, yes, I'm perfectly aware that this includes some SQ shippers).

        Loading editor
    • Applegirl wrote: The problem is it's fanbased, so basically it's not even an official couple on the show. I get that there's a lot of imagination and what-ifs involved in people wanting SwanQueen to happen, but that's also another issue. I hear about the "sexual tension" people want to believe is there on the in-show scenes between Emma and Regina, and I don't understand that. That's what I mean when I say imagination. The intention of having Emma and Regina interact has never implied anything romantic in-show, and I have no inkling why people want them together so badly if it's not logical or even makes sense (or at least to me).

      Why should it matter if the ship has a low chance of occurring in canon? What precisely is wrong with using one's imagination? Isn't that the whole point of shipping? To use one's imagination to enhance your enjoyment of the show? I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to ship SQ. I'm just telling you to stop making excuses for people who want to bully their fellow OUAT fans over their favorite ship.

      The tone in your post, Applegirl, was respectful and rational even if I disagree with its content. The tone in the posts of those you are defending is not. I'm just asking everyone to watch their tone.

        Loading editor
    • Fluteline24 wrote:
      Dragonmouth wrote:
      Well, so much for "respectful".

      My hatred of Swan Queen has nothing to do with the fact that it would be two women in a relationship and everything to do with the fact that Regina has repeatedly tried to kill Emma and her family (and actually wound up clinically killing Emma's son), was the reason that she wasn't raised by her parents, framed her mother for a murder she didn't commit, ripped the heart out of an innocent man and forced him to have sex with her or else she'd kill him, actually DID kill him when he told her he wanted nothing to do with her, cast the damn curse because a child was trying to help her be with her true love, and God only knows what else at this point.


      Why the hell would Emma want anything to do with Regina?

      Well, ask yourself what Emma did after all those events happened. She defended Regina against a murder accusation, saved her life several times, and even invited her to a party. The party might seem insignificant, but I think it's actually the most significant event. Defending Regina and saving her life are just examples of Emma being a decent person. By inviting Regina to the party, Emma shows genuine concern over her happiness and a desire to keep Regina within her social circle. I'm not saying that this proves romantic feelings currently exist between them. I'm just saying that their relationship is not completely negative as you seem to think. In fact, Regina's relationship with Emma is perhaps the most positive relationship she has with any adult in Storybrooke and any positive relationship has the potential to blossom into a romance. This is a show where a murderous dark sorcerer and his indentured servant fall in love. If Rumple and Belle can be a couple in canon, I don't see how SwanQueen is any less reasonable.

      And again, for the enjoyment of your fellow fans, please watch the tone of your post. Using words like "hell" and "hatred" only worsen divisions between OUAT fans.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:
      Applegirl wrote: The problem is it's fanbased, so basically it's not even an official couple on the show. I get that there's a lot of imagination and what-ifs involved in people wanting SwanQueen to happen, but that's also another issue. I hear about the "sexual tension" people want to believe is there on the in-show scenes between Emma and Regina, and I don't understand that. That's what I mean when I say imagination. The intention of having Emma and Regina interact has never implied anything romantic in-show, and I have no inkling why people want them together so badly if it's not logical or even makes sense (or at least to me).
      Why should it matter if the ship has a low chance of occurring in canon? What precisely is wrong with using one's imagination? Isn't that the whole point of shipping? To use one's imagination to enhance your enjoyment of the show? I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to ship SQ. I'm just telling you to stop making excuses for people who want to bully their fellow OUAT fans over their favorite ship.

      The tone in your post, Applegirl, was respectful and rational even if I disagree with its content. The tone in the posts of those you are defending is not. I'm just asking everyone to watch their tone.

      I never said there was anything wrong with using one's imagination in pairing people together. What I have an issue with is when fans think using imagination to make a what-if pairing automatically translates to "it's going to happen on the show". My frustration stems from watching on Adam Horowitz's twitter feed all the time of some fans constantly asking him if SwanQueen is going to happen on the show. And some of them have been blalant and rude about it and questioning Adam in the aspect of just because SwanQueen isn't happening now or isn't going in that direction on the show it means he's against LGBT. Where is the logic in that? I doubt all SwanQueen fans are this aggressive, but mostly I've seen this on twitter.

      I can understand it if a fan likes SwanQueen as just an exclusive shipping or pairing outside of the show, but when a person takes it so seriously to the point of demanding to Adam Horowitz on twitter to make them a real couple on the show, I really don't know what to think. I especially do not appreciate the ones I've seen on twitter literally use SwanQueen as an excuse to blame Adam for being anti-gay, which is really just wrong. To think about it honestly, if hypothetically SwanQueen *did* happen, I would want it to be based on the creative input of Adam and Eddy if they feel like it would fit with the show and not because they have tons of fans constantly asking them for the two characters to get together.

      I actually don't ship anyone on the show, so I don't know what that's like to pair two characters together and create a possible romance between them. When I say ship, I mean pairings between characters who aren't already paired together officially on the show.

        Loading editor
    • Nothing I said was disrespectful.

        Loading editor
    • Applegirl wrote: I never said there was anything wrong with using one's imagination in pairing people together. What I have an issue with is when fans think using imagination to make a what-if pairing automatically translates to "it's going to happen on the show". My frustration stems from watching on Adam Horowitz's twitter feed all the time of some fans constantly asking him if SwanQueen is going to happen on the show. And some of them have been blalant and rude about it and questioning Adam in the aspect of just because SwanQueen isn't happening now or isn't going in that direction on the show it means he's against LGBT. Where is the logic in that? I doubt all SwanQueen fans are this aggressive, but mostly I've seen this on twitter.

      I can understand it if a fan likes SwanQueen as just an exclusive shipping or pairing outside of the show, but when a person takes it so seriously to the point of demanding to Adam Horowitz on twitter to make them a real couple on the show, I really don't know what to think. I especially do not appreciate the ones I've seen on twitter literally use SwanQueen as an excuse to blame Adam for being anti-gay, which is really just wrong. To think about it honestly, if hypothetically SwanQueen *did* happen, I would want it to be based on the creative input of Adam and Eddy if they feel like it would fit with the show and not because they have tons of fans constantly asking them for the two characters to get together.

      The producers, writers, and actors on this show deliberately solicit questions from their fans on Twitter. The whole reason for this is to hear from fans. Some will be rude and some won't be but from what I've seen, neither politeness nor rudeness are exclusive to SQ shippers.

      I do wish that those SQ shippers wouldn't be so quick to accuse Adam or others of being anti-LGBT. That said, I understand where they're coming from. If you look at TV and film as a whole, there's still a significant lack of same-sex pairings between lead characters. It's hard to deny that there's some kind of real or perceived pressure against adding in same-sex pairings to a show. It's likely that networks fear that a same-sex romance will alienate some viewers, a fear that has some validity, so they bend to that pressure. This is not a malicious decision and can't be blamed on any one individual. However, it does imply that networks would rather appease homophobes than deny them. For LGBT people, that must be a scary message as it implies that homophobia is still a large part of the population. A show with a prominent same-sex pairing that does well in the ratings would show that networks can completely alienate homophobes without compromising their show's success, indicating that homophobia has shrunk. This is why so many LGBT people and their allies are so passionate about getting a show that features a same-sex pairing in the lead.

        Loading editor
    • I would like to think it's more of a "Is this the right time? Can we do this well, without creating a token couple?" kind of vibe, as well. I, like many other's I've talked to/seen, would be more offended if there's a gay couple that feels forced than I would be if it never happens.

      But there's always going to be that vocal sect of people, on BOTH sides, who will never be satisfied. The people who find something to be upset about with anything and everything.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      I would like to think it's more of a "Is this the right time? Can we do this well, without creating a token couple?" kind of vibe, as well. I, like many other's I've talked to/seen, would be more offended if there's a gay couple that feels forced than I would be if it never happens.

      I think this is why SQ is so popular with those who want to see a same-sex romance on the show. Emma and Regina are both prominent characters, which would avoid any charges of tokenism. And it would feel less forced because they already have a relationship that could, over time, evolve into a romance. Regina is a vulnerable person who is starved for love and is trying to become a better person. Emma is one of the few people who believes in her ability to change. They both share a love for their son Henry. And pairing them together wouldn't interfere with any of the established couples.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, I find the idea insulting to Emma. The fact that she would ever get over the fact that Regina has wronged not only her parents, but her, their entire world, and further, her son, just seems impossible to me. It's stretching too far for me.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think it's insulting to assume Emma has the ability to forgive Regina's past crimes.

      I don't know if you read my response to Fluteline24, but I'm saying something similar here. Emma defended Regina against a murder accusation, saved her life multiple times, and even invited her to a party. And all that took place after Regina wronged Emma, her parents, her son, and their world. Inviting Regina to a party shows that Emma is not only willing to forgive her actions but that she cares about Regina's happiness. Emma wants Regina to be a part of her life and her community.

        Loading editor
    • Can't it be myself and Graham? I'd ship that to death. (Just joking of course, it was to cheer things up).

      Honestly I'd love if they did “The Little Merman”, if you will. It'd have no need to screw established character up, and would be 100% consistent with the fairytale.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote: I don't know if you read my response to Fluteline24, but I'm saying something similar here.

      Yes, I did. But wanting to accept someone and move on in a better way is not the same as finding romantic ground.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      Dragonmouth wrote: I don't know if you read my response to Fluteline24, but I'm saying something similar here.

      Yes, I did. But wanting to accept someone and move on in a better way is not the same as finding romantic ground.


      True, they are not the same but neither are they mutually exclusive.

        Loading editor
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:
      Can't it be myself and Graham? I'd ship that to death. (Just joking of course, it was to cheer things up).

      Honestly I'd love if they did “The Little Merman”, if you will. It'd have no need to screw established character up, and would be 100% consistent with the fairytale.

      Fun fact: "The Little Mermaid" was inspired by Hans Christian Andersen's unrequited love for another man.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:


      True, they are not the same but neither are they mutually exclusive.

      Also true. I just don't see it. It's not something that I, in my own head, can see happening. I'm still of the opinion that Archie would be GREAT as our gay character. Neil Patrick Harris can guest star as Jack Spratt, his date.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:

      Utter solitude wrote:
      I would like to think it's more of a "Is this the right time? Can we do this well, without creating a token couple?" kind of vibe, as well. I, like many other's I've talked to/seen, would be more offended if there's a gay couple that feels forced than I would be if it never happens.
      I think this is why SQ is so popular with those who want to see a same-sex romance on the show. Emma and Regina are both prominent characters, which would avoid any charges of tokenism. And it would feel less forced because they already have a relationship that could, over time, evolve into a romance. Regina is a vulnerable person who is starved for love and is trying to become a better person. Emma is one of the few people who believes in her ability to change. They both share a love for their son Henry. And pairing them together wouldn't interfere with any of the established couples.

      EDIT (Like, I came back and wrote this after I finished the below, I know you can't literally "edit"): You know what, writing this, I came to realize, SwanQueen is the best thing ever and it HAS to happen. So sorry. Read on anyways.

      Ooh, look, it's three in the morning, I'm bored out of my mind, and you've offered me the opportunity to tear something apart.

      I'm beginning to like you.


      "Emma and Regina are both prominent characters, which would avoid any charges of tokenism." In a way, yes, but in a much more important way, *insert buzzer noise* WRONG. The characters themselves would not technically be token, no, but their relationship would be. SwanQueen would be entirely forced (as for why I'll get to later), alienating from other relationships on the show, and it would only be there for the sake of having an LGBT relationship on the show. BAM! Tokenism. Now let's take a look at your next sentence:

      "And it would feel less forced because they already have a relationship that could, over time, evolve into a romance." Again, to the contrary, it would be very, VERY forced. Every single relationship on the show has proven to be, in essence, rather basic, or simple. That is to say-what truly brings two characters together has been compatability-them complementing each other. The show has stressed that and only that in relationships. In other words, a relationship will only happen on the show if the two pieces of the puzzle fit together PERFECTLY. Fortunately, that makes it rather easy to find compatible relationships and ones that aren't compatible, that would never work. This also relates to many characters' innate traits-traits they have that will never fully change, which is, in essence, what makes these characters feel so real and so like the characters we know and love that are 100+ years old. Again, with those innate traits being complementary, it's very easy to see what could and couldn't happen.

      "Regina is a vulnerable person who is starved for love and is trying to become a better person. Emma is one of the few people who believes in her ability to change. They both share a love for their son Henry." Funny you should just graze over the exact point that contradicts your first point. "They both share a love for their son, Henry", "Emma is one of the few people who believes in her ability to change"-Emma believes in her ability to change for Henry. Everything Emma does for Regina she does with Henry in mind, first and foremost. Not Regina herself. That's not to say she doesn't believe in her ability to change, but more to say that you're making Emma's belief in Regina out to be a bigger deal than it is. For another, Snow, for years and years, believed in her ability to change-Does that put her and Regina together in the end? No. 

      Furthermore, the only reason Emma defended Regina when she did and invited her to that party when she did was because she is righteous. Emma's core, innate quality is justice. She puts it above everything. And when she knew that Regina was innocent, she wasn't going to let anyone blame her. When she knew Regina was trying to change, she wasn't going to let others deny her the chance. She was going to help her as much as she can. That's not because Emma has any sort of a thing for Regina, it's the same reason she defended Mary Margaret in the "murder" of Kathryn Nolan back in Season 1. Hell, it's the same reason she stuck around at the end of the second episode of Season 1. She acts for righteousness, for justice. Not because she has a secret crush on Regina, lul. There's no evidence pointing to that, and all evidence pointing towards it being because of Emma's cause to get justice. Plus, remember, all the times Regina has done something, Emma ain't let her off. Same as always.

      I'll cover this last quick point before I get to my analyses of their characters and why they don't complement each other and therefore would never be romantically involved: "And pairing them together wouldn't interfere with any of the established couples." Uhm. Swanfire? Nuff said.

      Now. Why aren't they compatible ever in all the holy lights of the lord savior that I don't actually believe in regardless of all the knocks I've gotten on my front door at 10AM on a Sunday morning by well-dressed, nametag-clad men wielding books and pamphlets? Well, to first understand why Emma and Regina aren't compatible, we have to understand what has made every other couple on the show compatible. What they all have in common that Emma and Regina don't have.

      I'll try this with three examples. I figure that'd be enough to prove my point, it's not like I'm going to go through every single relationship on the show ever. 

      I'll start this with Regina and Daniel, which not only will help show what makes the pieces of the puzzle fit together so well with their couple and the other two, but also later serve to show what Regina needs from a partner. Regina, in her youth, when lovestruck with Daniel, was trapped. Trapped in a cage whose lock was her status and whose key was her mother. Cora was very, very controlling of her daughter, and, as we can see at least to a certain extent, of her husband as well (I think it fair to say that she is the dominant one in the relationship). She wanted things for Regina that she herself didn't want. And she wanted these things because she was never truly happy. Regina could see that-she could see that her mother wasn't truly happy, and that's why she was controlling her life-because power was her drug, Cora's drug, and now that she had a way to get more power-Regina-she had to use it. It can also be assumed that Regina knew her parents were never truly in love, because their marriage was arranged. From this, we can deduce that Regina knew that, were she not to seek for and fight for love, she may end up like her mother-which, I shouldn't have to say, was the last thing we wanted. Furthermore, Regina also saw her father, and how controlled he was by Cora as well. Regina being controlled herself, not being able to make any choices for herself, could therefore not only relate to her father, but also make the connection that because she didn't want to be controlled, she wanted freedom, freedom of choice, and for that, she would need someone who wouldn't take that away from her. And Daniel has that-he has that exactly. Because he knows exactly what it's like not to have many choices-and that's because of his status. He needs someone who can understand that-understand not having many choices, and being held down to what you are, in his case, a lowly peasant (I say that because it would make no difference if he quit his job as a stable boy and became something else in his class), and in her case, the pawn of a power-hungry megalomaniac. Also, on the flipside, due to his status, if she were to marry him, she'd be free of her mother's control and decisions, she'd have the freedom of choice with no status-related bonds chaining her down. He is exactly what she needs in someone, and she is exactly what he needs in someone.

      Now, let's analyze Emma and Baelfire's relationship, also for the benefit of later on proving what Emma needs that Regina doesn't have, but also proving my point that all relationships in OUaT exaggerate this one quality-complementation. Emma and Baelfire have both always been, essentially, free spirits. They've both been matched up against the odds and beaten them. They both survive, in their core. They've both, therefore, been through a lot, and, in the end, come out loners, because they've always had trust issues due to their odds they were matched up against being those they once trusted (in many cases. Because you'll demand examples, Bae trusted his father, Rumple, to come with him, and needless to say, he didn't, and Emma trusted her fist adoptive parents to keep her, but they spit her back out once they had their own kid). Their being the way they are makes them both desparately need someone they can trust, and have not break that trust. Someone they can confide in, someone they can say everything to, and have them still be around. They're both carrying around gargantuan amounts of baggage, and that has to be shared. They both need someone they can trust, and they've each never broken others' trust but they have had their trust broken before, and they know what the consequences are, so they're unlikely to do it to someone else (admittedly, without good reason, considering Neal and August...yeah. But that's not relevant here as that was, in the end, an act Bae believed to be for the greater good, and that August influenced it). They're both survivalists, so they both need someone who isn't going to hold their ability to survive back. 

      Finally, let's look at Rumple and Belle. Rumple needs someone who will support him. Someone who will give him a reason for what he is doing beyond just his own pure, selfish goals. Someone who will believe in him and his strength. Milah was that to him before Bae was born. We can see that from the little we know of that time-we can see that they were fairly happy together, and at least that she worked for him. We see that because it's mentioned that Rumple's father was a coward, and how he didn't want to end up like him because everyone said he would. Milah responds by telling him he's not, and she believes it, and she wants to show it to the world when he gets drafted. He needs that, he always needs that. Someone who believes in him, and believes in his strength, and not in his cowardice. As long as we can see, he has had an arguably sick need to prove that he is not a coward, that is his most innate quality. It defines pretty much all of his actions. Now, Belle was that to him because she saw the good in him, and she believed in his good. She gives him strength, the strength to do the harder things, what isn't so easy, what truly makes him not a coward. Lacey also complements him-his darker side, however. She encourages all the things her alter-ego, Belle, is against. She sees, in his dark side, a man who takes what he wants, does what he wants, and she's very much so turned on by it. She doesn't see him as a coward and believes in him because she sees him as a bold, strong man. In the end, both of Belle's personas' working with both of Rumple's sides/dimensions boil down to her not seeing him as a coward, and him doing the things that makes him strong in someone else's eyes, that assures his strength in another person's eyes. Belle, in contrast, needs someone who will let her show her strength, someone who will let her bring out the good in them. Someone who isn't going to hold her back, someone who will let her be the hero, who will work together with her. We see this based on the fact that her father is very, VERY controlling of her, much like Cora was to Regina, and doesn't let her off her leash. The difference, however, is that his control is very protective, while Cora's was very...well, controlling. This made Belle need to prove herself capable on her own, someone who will believe in her, let her be the Hero, let her be involved and do things to help. Rumple is that to Belle because he will bring her along to things, he will involve her, keep her in the loop, and let her help where possible. Furthermore, he lets her bring out the good in him, and in others. He lets her try things, take risks, and prove herself. He encourages it, helps her, and gives her the opportunities. Her father, being protective of her, did none of these things, making it what she most needs. 

      Now that we've seen what it is exactly that OUaT ships ALL have, what exactly that puzzle-fitting and complementing and compatability is all about, let's see why Emma and Regina won't have it. 

      They would, in theory, need something just as perfectly fitting, right? Their puzzle pieces would have to fit together just as well as Rumple and Belle's, or Regina and Daniel's, or Emma and Neal's. Well, that would mean that they would each get things from one another. That they each have things the other needs. And they don't. As stated, Emma has tons of baggage she needs help carrying and bearing with. At the same time, she can't have the entire world knowing, as she's got serious trust issues and it would tear her apart. She needs someone who will discretely carry all this with her, but also be able to relate to it. Regina is not that because not only is she always in a position of leadership-Queen, Mayor-which takes away a LOT of privacy, but she wouldn't be able to relate to it, because not only has her shit always been very public, but she hasn't exactly come out of it unscathed. She wouldn't be able to relate to Emma's survivalistic attitude, and she'd hold it back within Emma. Regina has many times come to the brink of death and barely escaped. Emma, aside from the Ogre incident which is irrelevant considering she didn't know what she was doing, would never allow herself to get anything short of pure survival. And she does that by often boxing in her feelings, and not letting them affect her actions. Regina is very much so the opposite-she lets her feelings get to her, and in the end they turn her into someone who is very naive and ignorant, and she doesn't weigh the consequences of her actions the way Emma does in her calculating-for-survival manner. Emma can't have that, can't have someone that holds her back. Furthermore, Regina needs someone who will give her pure freedom of choice and decision in her life, like she could get from Daniel. Emma can't give her that. Giving Regina the freedom to choose whatever she wants to do would hurt Emma, because again, Regina is not someone who calculates consequences, and in the end it would hold Emma's survivalistic nature back. Additionally, Emma couldn't give her that because Regina's aspirations will always be high, and Emma can't relate to that at all. Emma's never cared for high aspirations, nothing like that, because she never could. She could never ask for luxuries or anything like that, she always had to put surviving first. And it became who she is-in always being a survivor, Emma has learned not to care about most other things. She sees no value in power or position, for example, which Regina will always seek (and not necessarily always in a bad way, think about when Regina tried to gain Henry's favor by putting down magic, that's still in a way seeking position, seeking power), and she couldn't relate to that. Regina, additionally, also probably couldn't relate to Emma's overpoweringly strong sense of survival. 

      None of the niches of their puzzle pieces fit together. Swanqueen is impossible and will never happen. Now stfu about it.

      It's been two hours, whew. Thank you, going to bed. Never doing that again.


      LOL YOU BELIEVED ME DIDN'T YOU. Had to pull that one. SwanQueen will never happen. 

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:

      Applegirl wrote: I never said there was anything wrong with using one's imagination in pairing people together. What I have an issue with is when fans think using imagination to make a what-if pairing automatically translates to "it's going to happen on the show". My frustration stems from watching on Adam Horowitz's twitter feed all the time of some fans constantly asking him if SwanQueen is going to happen on the show. And some of them have been blalant and rude about it and questioning Adam in the aspect of just because SwanQueen isn't happening now or isn't going in that direction on the show it means he's against LGBT. Where is the logic in that? I doubt all SwanQueen fans are this aggressive, but mostly I've seen this on twitter.

      I can understand it if a fan likes SwanQueen as just an exclusive shipping or pairing outside of the show, but when a person takes it so seriously to the point of demanding to Adam Horowitz on twitter to make them a real couple on the show, I really don't know what to think. I especially do not appreciate the ones I've seen on twitter literally use SwanQueen as an excuse to blame Adam for being anti-gay, which is really just wrong. To think about it honestly, if hypothetically SwanQueen *did* happen, I would want it to be based on the creative input of Adam and Eddy if they feel like it would fit with the show and not because they have tons of fans constantly asking them for the two characters to get together.

      The producers, writers, and actors on this show deliberately solicit questions from their fans on Twitter. The whole reason for this is to hear from fans. Some will be rude and some won't be but from what I've seen, neither politeness nor rudeness are exclusive to SQ shippers.

      I do wish that those SQ shippers wouldn't be so quick to accuse Adam or others of being anti-LGBT. That said, I understand where they're coming from. If you look at TV and film as a whole, there's still a significant lack of same-sex pairings between lead characters. It's hard to deny that there's some kind of real or perceived pressure against adding in same-sex pairings to a show. It's likely that networks fear that a same-sex romance will alienate some viewers, a fear that has some validity, so they bend to that pressure. This is not a malicious decision and can't be blamed on any one individual. However, it does imply that networks would rather appease homophobes than deny them. For LGBT people, that must be a scary message as it implies that homophobia is still a large part of the population. A show with a prominent same-sex pairing that does well in the ratings would show that networks can completely alienate homophobes without compromising their show's success, indicating that homophobia has shrunk. This is why so many LGBT people and their allies are so passionate about getting a show that features a same-sex pairing in the lead.

      Also, you make it sound like everything HAS TO HAVE a same-sex couple...it's OK to have things with no homosexuality, in them, you know. Same as it's OK to have things with no romance, or no comedy, or no drama, or no heterosexuality. In the end, it's just an element to a story, and the story is what matters most. That's what everything's all about, and that's how things should be looked at. If it adds to the story, add it in. If it takes away from it, don't. And that doens't just go for homosexuality, but anything. Drama, comedy, romance of any kind, whatever.

      'Cuz yeah, like I said, in the end, it's just about the story, really. That's what matters most.

        Loading editor
    • Applegirl wrote:

      I actually don't ship anyone on the show, so I don't know what that's like to pair two characters together and create a possible romance between them. When I say ship, I mean pairings between characters who aren't already paired together officially on the show.

      Same as me. I don't see the sense in it. I relate shipping to fanfiction and vice versa-the way I see it, the point of fanfiction is to add to the dimensions of characters that are already there, that are already in the original story. Fanfictions and their events should be supported by the content of the original stories. And there's a fine line between adding to the stories and adding to characters in a way that's supported by what's already in the original stories, and disrespecting the original characters, books, and author by taking them and writing your own stories with them that don't add anything to the original story whatsoever, and are purely written for your selfish desires to use those characters. The way I see it, if you're going to do that, write your own story with your own characters that are similar to the ones they are based off of but that actually fit together and have characteristics and traits that bring them together. That way, you can even publish it to boot. Ships are the same-some work, and some are crossin that line and, frankly, are disrespectful. What's worse though is that, in 95% of the cases with fanmade ships...they don't work, because if they did, they'd probably be in the original story somehow, or be supported at least, or evidenced at some point. It's why you will almost never see me, like Applegirl, ship non-canon ships. It's just not the way it works, the way I see it.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:
      Applegirl wrote: The problem is it's fanbased, so basically it's not even an official couple on the show. I get that there's a lot of imagination and what-ifs involved in people wanting SwanQueen to happen, but that's also another issue. I hear about the "sexual tension" people want to believe is there on the in-show scenes between Emma and Regina, and I don't understand that. That's what I mean when I say imagination. The intention of having Emma and Regina interact has never implied anything romantic in-show, and I have no inkling why people want them together so badly if it's not logical or even makes sense (or at least to me).
      Why should it matter if the ship has a low chance of occurring in canon? What precisely is wrong with using one's imagination? Isn't that the whole point of shipping? To use one's imagination to enhance your enjoyment of the show? I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to ship SQ. I'm just telling you to stop making excuses for people who want to bully their fellow OUAT fans over their favorite ship.

      Read my above post. No, I disagree, the point of shipping should be to add to the story, not to take away from it. If you're "using your imagination to enhance your enjoyment of the show", and you're not sticking to the original content, to what's in the story, and you're not using that to evidence what you're shipping, and instead changing the story to fit some random ship you think would be cool, you're enjoying the show for the wrong reasons because you're not receiving the story that's being told, you're receiving some random variant you made up that has no respect for the writers' message. You're taking away from the quality of the show.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      Dragonmouth wrote:


      True, they are not the same but neither are they mutually exclusive.

      Also true. I just don't see it. It's not something that I, in my own head, can see happening. I'm still of the opinion that Archie would be GREAT as our gay character. Neil Patrick Harris can guest star as Jack Spratt, his date.


      Okay, we'll agree to disagree on SQ. However, I think what you suggest would better fit the definition of tokenism. First off, Archie is no longer a major character. Secondly, they'd be introducing a new minor character for the sole purpose of being his love interest.

        Loading editor
    • 108.49.79.202 wrote:

      Now that we've seen what it is exactly that OUaT ships ALL have, what exactly that puzzle-fitting and complementing and compatability is all about, let's see why Emma and Regina won't have it. 

      They would, in theory, need something just as perfectly fitting, right? Their puzzle pieces would have to fit together just as well as Rumple and Belle's, or Regina and Daniel's, or Emma and Neal's. Well, that would mean that they would each get things from one another. That they each have things the other needs. And they don't. As stated, Emma has tons of baggage she needs help carrying and bearing with. At the same time, she can't have the entire world knowing, as she's got serious trust issues and it would tear her apart. She needs someone who will discretely carry all this with her, but also be able to relate to it. Regina is not that because not only is she always in a position of leadership-Queen, Mayor-which takes away a LOT of privacy, but she wouldn't be able to relate to it, because not only has her shit always been very public, but she hasn't exactly come out of it unscathed. She wouldn't be able to relate to Emma's survivalistic attitude, and she'd hold it back within Emma. Regina has many times come to the brink of death and barely escaped. Emma, aside from the Ogre incident which is irrelevant considering she didn't know what she was doing, would never allow herself to get anything short of pure survival. And she does that by often boxing in her feelings, and not letting them affect her actions. Regina is very much so the opposite-she lets her feelings get to her, and in the end they turn her into someone who is very naive and ignorant, and she doesn't weigh the consequences of her actions the way Emma does in her calculating-for-survival manner. Emma can't have that, can't have someone that holds her back. Furthermore, Regina needs someone who will give her pure freedom of choice and decision in her life, like she could get from Daniel. Emma can't give her that. Giving Regina the freedom to choose whatever she wants to do would hurt Emma, because again, Regina is not someone who calculates consequences, and in the end it would hold Emma's survivalistic nature back. Additionally, Emma couldn't give her that because Regina's aspirations will always be high, and Emma can't relate to that at all. Emma's never cared for high aspirations, nothing like that, because she never could. She could never ask for luxuries or anything like that, she always had to put surviving first. And it became who she is-in always being a survivor, Emma has learned not to care about most other things. She sees no value in power or position, for example, which Regina will always seek (and not necessarily always in a bad way, think about when Regina tried to gain Henry's favor by putting down magic, that's still in a way seeking position, seeking power), and she couldn't relate to that. Regina, additionally, also probably couldn't relate to Emma's overpoweringly strong sense of survival. 

      Your argument has one significant flaw: you assume that certain character traits are fixed. You say that Regina will "always" seek position and power, that she isn't someone who "calculates consequences", and that she "lets her feelings get to her, and in the end they turn her into someone who is very naive and ignorant." You also say that Emma "has tons of baggage she needs help carrying and bearing with", a "survivalistic attitude", and "serious trust issues." These are character flaws. They are things to be overcome. And the past two seasons show that both characters are working at overcoming them. That's what "character development" means.

      You say that Regina "didn't want to be controlled, she wanted freedom, freedom of choice, and for that, she would need someone who wouldn't take that away from her" which is why she was with Daniel. Keep in mind that you're referring to pre-Evil Queen Regina. The last thing that the present-day Regina needs is a doormat. Again, character traits are not fixed. If Regina is truly on the road to redemption, she'll realize the importance of reigning in her anger. And she needs someone to help her do that.

      You've actually written some pretty good analyses on these characters but they only show me why SQ would be a good idea. Emma and Regina are, as you say, opposites. Emma starts off with her emotions being too tightly controlled while Regina's aren't controlled enough. Emma has trouble trusting others while Regina is too trusting, as shown when she is easily manipulated by Cora. Over the past two seasons, Emma has been slowly overcoming her closed-off personality and her inability to trust. She is reaching a healthy middle ground and she could guide Regina there too.

      Just because I'd like to see a certain ship happen eventually doesn't mean I disregard the importance of good storytelling. SQ would feel forced if it happened in the very next episode. I don't think putting Emma and Regina in a romantic relationship is a good idea now. And I honestly doubt that it will happen in-canon due to external pressures. But that doesn't mean that it is, as you say, "impossible."

      //I'll cover this last quick point before I get to my analyses of their characters and why they don't complement each other and therefore would never be romantically involved: "And pairing them together wouldn't interfere with any of the established couples." Uhm. Swanfire? Nuff said//

      They had a romance 10 years before the present and they still have an affection for each other due to their shared child. However, I don't sense any romantic feelings between them. When Emma told Neal that she loved him, I was reminded of the countless conversations between TV exes saying that they still had feelings for each other but that their relationship was over. Remember that Neal was ready to get married before Emma showed back up in his life.

      //(Like, I came back and wrote this after I finished the below, I know you can't literally "edit"): You know what, writing this, I came to realize, SwanQueen is the best thing ever and it HAS to happen. So sorry. Read on anyways.

      Ooh, look, it's three in the morning, I'm bored out of my mind, and you've offered me the opportunity to tear something apart.

      I'm beginning to like you.//

      //None of the niches of their puzzle pieces fit together. Swanqueen is impossible and will never happen. Now stfu about it.//

      //LOL YOU BELIEVED ME DIDN'T YOU. Had to pull that one. SwanQueen will never happen.//

      Please explain why you felt the need to be so snarky and snooty when I have been nothing but courteous towards everyone else in this thread.

        Loading editor
    • May I also point out that Regina is Emma's STEP-GRANDMOTHER? Killing Emma and her family aside, that is the #1 reaso nwhy I find SQ icky. I know there's no biological relation between them, but still. Regina helped raise Emma's mother.

        Loading editor
    • Regina killed her husband, which annulls their familial relationship as far as I'm concerned.

      If SQ is incest, then any romance with Ruby is bestiality while Grumpy/Nova is pedophilia. Swanfire might count as statutory rape too, depending on how old Emma was when she met Neal.

        Loading editor
    • Fluteline24 wrote:
      May I also point out that Regina is Emma's STEP-GRANDMOTHER? Killing Emma and her family aside, that is the #1 reaso nwhy I find SQ icky. I know there's no biological relation between them, but still. Regina helped raise Emma's mother.

      I don't see the big deal with pointing out Regina is Emma's step grandmother. Nowadays step relatives are counted as family, too, but for myself, I like to just ignore that aspect since Regina and Snow's family counts (on this wiki, at least) that they stopped being actual family members at the death of Leopold and the hunt to kill Snow White herself. That excludes further family generations down the line from being included as step relatives as well, including Henry, but because Regina is his mom, Henry has that familial connection to her.

      And spy #108.49.79.202, you blocked for a week for your rude behavior. Despite that I don't agree with SwanQueen, telling someone outright to "stfu" is wrong. I did not notice your post since it was so early on in the thread, so you actually should have been blocked sooner. Please come back with a more respectful attitude. We can talk about SwanQueen without having to literally tear apart another one's opinion about the fandom through intimidation.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonmouth wrote:
      Regina killed her husband, which annulls their familial relationship as far as I'm concerned.

      Just because a familial relationship is anulled, doesn't mean that a relationship between former family members is appropriate.

        Loading editor
    • I honestly feel like a guest starring character would be better than a starring one. That's just my opinion, of course. Besides, I wasn't even serious about NPH, just trying to lighten the mood, but nothing about Archie being gay feels "token" to me.

        Loading editor
    • It just occourred to me, it would be funny as hell if we found out that womanizer Dr. Whale's counterpart was actually gay. If they ever were to pick up Dorian Gray (which would be another perfect character for the "cause", without even having to twist him up), Victor might perfectly fill in Adam Campbell's role.

        Loading editor
    • "What's wrong, Whale?"

      "I can't believe... I slept with... so many women..."

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      "What's wrong, Whale?"

      "I can't believe... I slept with... so many women..."

      ROFL. That storyline would actually make sense, because the Curse was designed to punish. 

        Loading editor
    • Dorian Grey. Oh, my, I'm already shipping it... Dracula + Dorian. Or Dorian and Jack the Reaper. Victorian era rules!

      I want a LGTB character because this is the perfect show to do it. There's a lot of characters (at least 10 "heros" and more than 30 secondaries...)

        Loading editor
    • And when I call you/Will you walk gently through my shadow?/The ones who sing at night/The ones who sing at night. . .--Stevie Nicks, "Night Bird"

      You don't even have to introduce a gay couple, just a gay character.  They could have Adam Lambert guest star in one or two episodes as the Nightingale, who, in Storybrooke, has been given (or regiven, as the case may be) human form (best name:  Nick Byrd) and works as a singer at the Rabbit Hole.  Their version of "The Emperor's Nightingale" could reflect this.

        Loading editor
    • 71.12.20.41 wrote: You don't even have to introduce a gay couple, just a gay character.  They could have Adam Lambert guest star in one or two episodes as the Nightingale, who, in Storybrooke, has been given (or regiven, as the case may be) human form (best name:  Nick Byrd) and works as a singer at the Rabbit Hole.  Their version of "The Emperor's Nightingale" could reflect this.

      That is like... the very definition of a stereotype, token character. If they did this or something similar, it would, personally, piss me off. XD

        Loading editor
    • 71.12.20.41 wrote:
      And when I call you/Will you walk gently through my shadow?/The ones who sing at night/The ones who sing at night. . .--Stevie Nicks, "Night Bird"

      You don't even have to introduce a gay couple, just a gay character.  They could have Adam Lambert guest star in one or two episodes as the Nightingale, who, in Storybrooke, has been given (or regiven, as the case may be) human form (best name:  Nick Byrd) and works as a singer at the Rabbit Hole.  Their version of "The Emperor's Nightingale" could reflect this.

      I'm sorry Adam Lambert reminds me too much of Jefferson [who is one of my favorites] for me to want him on the show. 

        Loading editor
    • For a possible transgender character, I've heard a lot of people suggest Princess Ozma from the "Land of Oz" series. Ozma was born a girl, but as a baby she was transformed into a boy by a witch to keep her from getting the throne.

      Here is a Tumblr post on why Ozma would make a good transgender character.

        Loading editor
    • With the post on Archie being gay, the fact that many viewers of the kid friendly show are expecting Archie to be the morality character (as he is a conscience) seeing him as something that many people consider immoral would probably be a bad idea. I mean this taking no stand on LGBT, just that many people view it as a bad thing.

        Loading editor
    • This isn't a "kid friendly" show.... and you're the first person I've ever seen call Archie the "morality character" (although, I admit, that makes sense XD )

      However, I have seen tons of people calling for/agreeing with Archie being "believable" as a homosexual. I mean, it fits, imo. The actor can pull it off, and he's not so popular/well known a character (meaning, Jiminy Cricket in general, not necessarily Archie in particular) that it would upset the cart too much, so to speak. Besides, the people who have trouble with gay characters are gonna have trouble with anyone, ya know? XD

        Loading editor
    • I just feel, without any personal opinion, that a LGBT character could turn the anti-LGBT viewers against the show and possibly greatly lower the shows ratings.

        Loading editor
    • I doubt it would be greatly, although your concern is understandable. Honestly, if people dislike one character and decide to stop watching, that's crazy. It would be like quitting your job because the guy who works on the other side of the room is gay.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Utter solitude. Besides, fandom has approved lesbian couples... Look at SwanQueen, BeautyRed, WarriorPrincess...

        Loading editor
    • SlayerNina wrote: I agree with Utter solitude. Besides, fandom has approved lesbian couples... Look at SwanQueen, BeautyRed, WarriorPrincess...

      I haven't approved those couples :P

      Fact: For any show, there's people out there shipping every possible couple... XD

        Loading editor
    • Budloopy4 wrote:
      I just feel, without any personal opinion, that a LGBT character could turn the anti-LGBT viewers against the show and possibly greatly lower the shows ratings.

      Well, it'd be a pity for the ratings, but wouldn't be such a loss for the fanbase imo.

      On a side note, I know it's very silly of me, but I have huge difficulties at picturing Archie as gay, and the reason is I don't find him attractive. Beside that, if it has to be one of the established characters, I think it'd be a bit "out of the blue" if it were one whose sexuality has never been mentioned even marginally in the show. I still think Whale would do better.

        Loading editor
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:

      On a side note, I know it's very silly of me, but I have huge difficulties at picturing Archie as gay, and the reason is I don't find him attractive. Beside that, if it has to be one of the established characters, I think it'd be a bit "out of the blue" if it were one whose sexuality has never been mentioned even marginally in the show. I still think Whale would do better.

      I think it kind of helps that Archie's "romantic" side has never been mentioned. XD

      But Whale? Oh yes, I could see that. :D

        Loading editor
    • Now I could see whale, especially since the only people he ever had the slightest bit of romance was with Mary Margaret (when he was cursed, could be part of his individual curse) and ruby (who is no longer going to be on the show anymore). And his tragedy never involved a true love (as far as we know of). Now an idea just popped into my mind... Jefferson and Whale. Maybe the reason grace lost her mother was that when Jefferson used the hat to travel back and forth to the land without color, and they sparked a romance. When Jefferson got back his wife had ran away or killed herself or something out of losing her husband or something. Then he was stranded in wonderland and lost his hat and would never see Whale again (but then the curse happened).

        Loading editor
    • Budloopy4 wrote: Now I could see whale, especially since the only people he ever had the slightest bit of romance was with Mary Margaret (when he was cursed, could be part of his individual curse) and ruby (who is no longer going to be on the show anymore). And his tragedy never involved a true love (as far as we know of). Now an idea just popped into my mind... Jefferson and Whale. Maybe the reason grace lost her mother was that when Jefferson used the hat to travel back and forth to the land without color, and they sparked a romance. When Jefferson got back his wife had ran away or killed herself or something out of losing her husband or something. Then he was stranded in wonderland and lost his hat and would never see Whale again (but then the curse happened).

      Considering your post about how people may react to Archie being gay, I say this: You don't think people would have trouble with a family man having a homosexual relationship? XD I mean, he has a daughter, likely had a wife. I feel like there'd be more people upset about the Hatter than Archie XD

        Loading editor
    • It's bisexual time! :D

        Loading editor
    • Budloopy4 wrote:
      Now I could see whale, especially since the only people he ever had the slightest bit of romance was with Mary Margaret (when he was cursed, could be part of his individual curse) and ruby (who is no longer going to be on the show anymore). And his tragedy never involved a true love (as far as we know of). Now an idea just popped into my mind... Jefferson and Whale. Maybe the reason grace lost her mother was that when Jefferson used the hat to travel back and forth to the land without color, and they sparked a romance. When Jefferson got back his wife had ran away or killed herself or something out of losing her husband or something. Then he was stranded in wonderland and lost his hat and would never see Whale again (but then the curse happened).

      While I don't mind Jefferson cheating on his wife with another man, I don't want it to be dr. Whale. 

        Loading editor
    • I just think its more realistic than someone who did something bad, regretted it, spent all of gipeto's life as a cricket who acted as a conscience to not only him, but Pinocchio, snow, and PC, and then spent 28 years as a human in a haze with a dog and a PHD in psychiatry, then just becomes gay. Like Jefferson and whale have all the emotion and the pain of their live and it would be more realistic and a better story than if it was Archie, the bug-conscience-human-morality character.

        Loading editor
    • For some reason I really don't know why, I think Archie would be good in a same sex relationship.

        Loading editor
    • "just becomes gay"? What the hell does that mean? In my theory, he's always been gay. What, do you expect it to be shouted from the rooftops from the start, or him to be some stereotype? I think that's a LOT more realistic than "his wife ran away or killed herself because her world-hopping husband had an affair with a man living in another world". That sounds terribly soap-opera cliche, imo, and I felt it was obvious that Jefferson missed his wife, leaving no room for him philandering.

      Besides, once again, I've never heard anyone else call Archie a "morality" character. He's not one, imo. He's a coward. (Getting better, but still a coward) If anyone is a morality character, it's Henry.

      I think we would be better served if it was just a mention, a passing mention, rather than a huge plot point.

        Loading editor
    • No no no I think he is gay but I want him to come out

        Loading editor
    • Dream catcher101 wrote: For some reason I really don't know why, I think Archie would be good in a same sex relationship.

      It's something about the actor, for me. I think Raphael Sbarge would do it justice. :D

        Loading editor
    • Oops I thought you were talking to me, don't pay attention to the last post

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      It's something about the actor, for me. I think Raphael Sbarge would do it justice. :D

      Ikr!

        Loading editor
    • What about Achilles? Isn't he sort of "possible" (as Horowitz himself said). I mean if a character is to be gay then it should be Achilles. Also he has magical powers with a great price (Achilles' Heel anyone?) so he could also be "Snow's friend" that teached her.

        Loading editor
    • True

        Loading editor
    • I think it's really interesting if they explore this options, I don't really know what to expect, the show producers are really good twisting the classic sotries and they have done an amazing job with characters. I would like to see a LGBT character, but I honestly don't know which one, there are many options. I'm a fan of Arthur-Lancelot, even before Lancelot was used on the show, but I don't think that couple is a possibility. Maybe Mulan? there are small hints that she might be bisexual, she seemed to have a strong feeling for Phillip (It can be loyalty and respecto too, but it seemed a bit romantic, like a starting crush) and definetely she really seemed to care a lot for Aurora in a platonic way, I don't know, I've read some point for Achilles, that's interesting too...Any other options?

        Loading editor
    • 108.49.79.202 wrote:
      Utter solitude wrote:

      Fluteline24 wrote:

      IE: Swan Queen. That cannot happen for many, many reasons.

      I will eat my shoes if Swan Queen happens...
      Wait I thought I was the only one who nearly facepalmed themselves to death at SwanQueen

      I'm not alone <3

      me too!!!

        Loading editor
    • Alec Diggory wrote:
      Maybe Mulan? there are small hints that she might be bisexual, she seemed to have a strong feeling for Phillip (It can be loyalty and respecto too, but it seemed a bit romantic, like a starting crush) and definetely she really seemed to care a lot for Aurora in a platonic way, I don't know, I've read some point for Achilles, that's interesting too...Any other options?

      I ship Mulan and Aurora rather hard, they would make an amazing couple and it wouldn't even be out of the blue, just their growing friendship going a step furter. But alas, Phillip's back, standing in the way.

      Another serious option would be, as I think I already wrote at some point, a gay twist added into The Little Mermaid. Maybe the Mermen turning a woman. It would totally do Andersen justice.

      (As for Jefferson, I personally ship him against all hope and sense with Regina. But I wouldn't miss a men-snogging Sebastian Stan for anything, so I think I'm totally going to watch Political Animals after I'm done with my exams).

        Loading editor
    • ^ yeah I think Milan could be good as a bisexual

        Loading editor
    • Alec Diggory wrote:
      I think it's really interesting if they explore this options, I don't really know what to expect, the show producers are really good twisting the classic sotries and they have done an amazing job with characters. I would like to see a LGBT character, but I honestly don't know which one, there are many options. I'm a fan of Arthur-Lancelot, even before Lancelot was used on the show, but I don't think that couple is a possibility. Maybe Mulan? there are small hints that she might be bisexual, she seemed to have a strong feeling for Phillip (It can be loyalty and respecto too, but it seemed a bit romantic, like a starting crush) and definetely she really seemed to care a lot for Aurora in a platonic way, I don't know, I've read some point for Achilles, that's interesting too...Any other options?

      Clearly that is not good enough evidence to show a possibility of Mulan and Aurora having more than a friendship. Do you know what the word "platonic" means? It means love that is non sexual and not based on romantic attraction. That doesn't prove anything about Mulan supposedly being a theorized bisexual.

        Loading editor
    • Not every show needs a LGBT character, I like the show the way it is. No political or social stances. Just a good story every week. Adding a LGBT character seems forced.

        Loading editor
    • YayMona wrote: Not every show needs a LGBT character, I like the show the way it is. No political or social stances. Just a good story every week. Adding a LGBT character seems forced.

      It doesn't have to be forced, if they do it properly, it can still be just as great as it is. This is why I think it'd be best to just do a passing reference, rather than a big plot point.

        Loading editor
    • For me, is more forced Mulan's "love" for Phillip than Warrior Princess...

        Loading editor
    • SlayerNina wrote: For me, is more forced Mulan's "love" for Phillip than Warrior Princess...

      What "love" for Phillip? Cuz all I've seen is the love one would share with a friend or comrade...

        Loading editor
    • I don't think it's forced again if done properly. Iran if Disney channel can do it do can abc right? Then again maybe if should be later because the topic is very hot right now.

        Loading editor
    • SlayerNina wrote:
      For me, is more forced Mulan's "love" for Phillip than Warrior Princess...


      Personally, I don't think Warrior Princess can happen either... because if Phillip and Aurora weren't true loves, his kiss wouldn't have woken her up.

        Loading editor
    • Fluteline24 wrote:

      Personally, I don't think Warrior Princess can happen either... because if Phillip and Aurora weren't true loves, his kiss wouldn't have woken her up.

      Well, there is a theory floating around, that the creators have been ambiguous about addressing, that one can have multiple true loves. So people take that and build it into a theory about Phillip/Aurora/Mulan all being together, or any combination of the three.

      However, we also know that "true love" isn't just romantic... so, for me, Phillip and Mulan may have True Love, but it is not the same as the true love Phillip and Aurora have.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      Fluteline24 wrote:

      Personally, I don't think Warrior Princess can happen either... because if Phillip and Aurora weren't true loves, his kiss wouldn't have woken her up.

      Well, there is a theory floating around, that the creators have been ambiguous about addressing, that one can have multiple true loves. So people take that and build it into a theory about Phillip/Aurora/Mulan all being together, or any combination of the three.

      However, we also know that "true love" isn't just romantic... so, for me, Phillip and Mulan may have True Love, but it is not the same as the true love Phillip and Aurora have.


      As long as they don't mess with Snowing, I don't care what they do.


      Oh, and Rumbelle too. THey're not my favorite couple, but I know that fanbase can be SCARY when they get pissed off. ;)

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to see Tiny come out as gay. 

        Loading editor
    • Ruby ridinghood wrote: I'd like to see Tiny come out as gay. 

      You know.... never occurred to me, but I kind of like it!!!

      Or any of the dwarves. I mean, would we be that surprised?

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      Ruby ridinghood wrote: I'd like to see Tiny come out as gay. 

      You know.... never occurred to me, but I kind of like it!!!

      Or any of the dwarves. I mean, would we be that surprised?

      Hahaha.... which is why OUaT would never actually show it, it is too obvious ;)

        Loading editor
    • Some of the dwarves will be fun. Agree with Snowing and Rumbelle (but Red Beauty... mmm... I always see Meghan with more chemistry with girls than boys, excepting Whale, maybe)

      Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

        Loading editor
    • SlayerNina wrote:

      Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

      As funny as that would be, I doubt Aurora even knows what a menage a trois is.... she seems incredibly sheltered.

        Loading editor
    • More funny, then:

      Philip: Look, Aurora, we're gonna teach you something new...

      Aurora: What? I always wanted to ride a horse...

      Mulan: Yeah... sort of

      LOL

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      SlayerNina wrote:

      Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

      As funny as that would be, I doubt Aurora even knows what a menage a trois is.... she seems incredibly sheltered.

      I don't even know what a menage a trois is.

        Loading editor
    • Threesome? I'm not sure about the English word

        Loading editor
    • SlayerNina wrote: Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

      Yeah I doubt the enchanted forest characters know what that is :P. Also I don't think they would do that on a tv show ;)

        Loading editor
    • I know. It was a joke. The worst thing they do was Snowing adultery XD.

      As we said in the dark side, we'll always have fanfics...

        Loading editor
    • I apologize. Just wanting to state what I thought about the main topic.

      I think it would be a good idea for an LGBT character. And from what I've seen, OUAT has really good plotlines and such. If they can handle it, why not?

        Loading editor
    • Dream catcher101 wrote:
      SlayerNina wrote:

      Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

      Yeah I doubt the enchanted forest characters know what that is :P. Also I don't think they would do that on a tv show ;)

      I bet some of them [Hook,Jefferson, Dr. Whale] would know what it is.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:

      SlayerNina wrote:

      Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

      As funny as that would be, I doubt Aurora even knows what a menage a trois is.... she seems incredibly sheltered.

      Even sheltered people know what a threesome is... XD

        Loading editor
    • Bot of Solitude wrote:

      ChocolatEyes613 wrote:

      SlayerNina wrote:

      Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

      As funny as that would be, I doubt Aurora even knows what a menage a trois is.... she seems incredibly sheltered.

      Even sheltered people know what a threesome is... XD


      I dunno. She *was* asleep for 29 years...

        Loading editor
    • Bot of Solitude wrote:

      ChocolatEyes613 wrote:

      SlayerNina wrote:

      Phillip/Aurora/Mulan. Ménage à trois in the Enchanted Forest! LOL

      As funny as that would be, I doubt Aurora even knows what a menage a trois is.... she seems incredibly sheltered.

      Even sheltered people know what a threesome is... XD

      Guess Aurora was spending some "quality time" with the kitchen and stable boys, while Phillip was missing ;)

        Loading editor
    • I really don't think that Aurora and Mulan will end up together because Phillip's soul has been restored. Also, it was Phillip's kiss of true love that awoke Aurora from her slumber.The LGBT characters will probably be new people.

        Loading editor
    • Rangerscout wrote:
      I really don't think that Aurora and Mulan will end up together because Phillip's soul has been restored. Also, it was Phillip's kiss of true love that awoke Aurora from her slumber.The LGBT characters will probably be new people.

      While Aurora and Mulan will never end up together, as it is just unrealistic; Prince Phillip's kiss of true love, is hardly "proof". Aurora did not meet Mulan, until after she was awakened.

        Loading editor
    • I think Mulan and Aurora should be the LGBT couple, think about it.

      During the time Phillip's soul was trapped, they grew closer not only as allies but as friends. They exchange looks at eachother and and during the course of Season 2 Mulan became more and more concerned about Aurora's safety. And during the time they went to retrieve Phillip's soul they could have developed a spark and grew closer even more. Granted I don't know how that probably took but Phillip could have stayed with them as a traveling companion.

        Loading editor
    • MegaWicked wrote:
      I think Mulan and Aurora should be the LGBT couple, think about it.

      During the time Phillip's soul was trapped, they grew closer not only as allies but as friends. They exchange looks at eachother and and during the course of Season 2 Mulan became more and more concerned about Aurora's safety. And during the time they went to retrieve Phillip's soul they could have developed a spark and grew closer even more. Granted I don't know how that probably took but Phillip could have stayed with them as a traveling companion.

      I agree. I loved it when they did a storyline like that on guiding light, and I think it might work on this show also.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      Rangerscout wrote:
      I really don't think that Aurora and Mulan will end up together because Phillip's soul has been restored. Also, it was Phillip's kiss of true love that awoke Aurora from her slumber.The LGBT characters will probably be new people.
      While Aurora and Mulan will never end up together, as it is just unrealistic; Prince Phillip's kiss of true love, is hardly "proof". Aurora did not meet Mulan, until after she was awakened.


      In the Disney movie, Enchanted, it was revelaed that in order for someone to wake up from a slumber, they must be kissed by the ONE THEY LOVE. Clearly, Aurora loves Phillip. Plus, in the episode, 'Into the Deep', Aurora said to Cora, "Phillip is in my heart every day even though he's gone and if there was any way to bring him back I would do it." And in the episode, 'The Outsider, Phillip told Belle that Aurora was his ture love. Also, the creators did not kill off Phillip in the first episode of season 2, so he could eventually reunite with Aurora.  

        Loading editor
    • Rangerscout wrote: In the Disney movie, Enchanted, it was revelaed that in order for someone to wake up from a slumber, they must be kissed by the ONE THEY LOVE. Clearly, Aurora loves Phillip. Plus, in the episode, 'Into the Deep', Aurora said to Cora, "Phillip is in my heart every day even though he's gone and if there was any way to bring him back I would do it." And in the episode, 'The Outsider, Phillip tole Belle that Aurora was his ture love. Also, the creators did not kill off Phillip in the first episode of season 2, so he could eventually reunite with Aurora.  

      I must have missed the part in which Enchanted was part of the OUAT canon.

        Loading editor
    • I've read that Kitz said in the Comicon that if they do a homosexual character they want to make it belieave to honor all kinds of love. I would love to see a gay character, I might like if the producers kind of mix the story of the Ugly duck and the Swan Lake male version and give their twist (Bourne), at first I wasn't sure if Swan Lake was a potential story to be considered, but after they included Lancelot on season 2, I have my fingers crossed. But as we are traveling to Neverland, maybe we can see a bit of bromance between the lost boys?

        Loading editor
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:
      Rangerscout wrote: In the Disney movie, Enchanted, it was revelaed that in order for someone to wake up from a slumber, they must be kissed by the ONE THEY LOVE. Clearly, Aurora loves Phillip. Plus, in the episode, 'Into the Deep', Aurora said to Cora, "Phillip is in my heart every day even though he's gone and if there was any way to bring him back I would do it." And in the episode, 'The Outsider, Phillip tole Belle that Aurora was his ture love. Also, the creators did not kill off Phillip in the first episode of season 2, so he could eventually reunite with Aurora.  
      I must have missed the part in which Enchanted was part of the OUAT canon.

      Well, here is something that is OUAT cannon. After Belle lost her memories Rumple kissed her, but it did not work because Belle did not love him since she had no recollection of him. Aurora could only wake up from her slumber if the one she loved kissed her. And Phillip IS her true love.

        Loading editor
    • True Love isn't always romantic, and the creators have hinted in the past that they may want to explore the possibility of having more than one true love.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      Rangerscout wrote:
      I really don't think that Aurora and Mulan will end up together because Phillip's soul has been restored. Also, it was Phillip's kiss of true love that awoke Aurora from her slumber.The LGBT characters will probably be new people.
      While Aurora and Mulan will never end up together, as it is just unrealistic; Prince Phillip's kiss of true love, is hardly "proof". Aurora did not meet Mulan, until after she was awakened.

      I find that post a little funny. Aurora would not have been able to wake up from her slumber if she was not kissed by her true love. As I mentioned earlier, true love's kiss only works if the person is kissed by the one THEY LOVE. And Phillip IS her true love. Phillip also gave Aurora a long kiss goodbye before leaving to have his soul consumed by the wrath.    That kind of kiss will not work if the person does not love the other. Here is an example: Belle lost her memories and Rumple kissed her, but it did not work because Belle did not love him since she had no recollection of him. 

        Loading editor
    • My vote is on the Knave of Hearts from the Wonderland spinoff. They said it could be that, too. Besides, Regina, Emma, Mulan, Aurora, none of them are gay. For the writers to do that and indicate sexually it a choice would be insulting. But I really think it's the Knave. That would be so cute!

        Loading editor
    • AppleTree23 wrote:
       Besides, Regina, Emma, Mulan, Aurora, none of them are gay. 

      How do you know?

        Loading editor
    • Because they all have loved men. You can't just change a character from straight to gay. Just like they wouldn't have a gay character just falling for the opposite sex out of nowhere. And they say LGBT but they really mean a gay man. It's ABC. They aren't going to have a bi character, it's definitely not going to be a transgender, and I'd put money on it that a lesbian relationship is too "racy" for them. Most shows/movies are just like that. I bet it'll be a gay man and it will be done tastefully and very very delicately.

        Loading editor
    • Um... you know Grey's Anatomy has a lesbian couple right? On top of that one of them is actually bi, as she use to only have relationships with men. So it could be anything, except posibably transgender, because that is hard to show and explain, at least correctly, and would probably be considered to much of a hot button issue for OUAT or a spin-off of it. I do agree I think the character that is LGBT will be in Wonderland though, and that the knave would be a good choice.

        Loading editor
    • AppleTree23 wrote:
      Because they all have loved men. You can't just change a character from straight to gay. Just like they wouldn't have a gay character just falling for the opposite sex out of nowhere. And they say LGBT but they really mean a gay man. It's ABC. They aren't going to have a bi character, it's definitely not going to be a transgender, and I'd put money on it that a lesbian relationship is too "racy" for them. Most shows/movies are just like that. I bet it'll be a gay man and it will be done tastefully and very very delicately.

      You're assuming quite a bit, there. ;)

        Loading editor
    • It just rrreeeaaalllyyy doesn't seem like something the writers would do. I think it'll be someone who hasn't been introduced yet. Achilles is a good one! I hadn't thought of him. Although, I kind hope it's Micheal Socha. I don't know why, but I want it to be him.

        Loading editor
    • But the arugment "They've loved men, they can never be in a same sex couple!" is just as bad as the crazy shipper SwanQueen argument, imo.

      Michael Socha and Naveen Andrews would be delicious....

        Loading editor
    • Technically, Mulan is a sort of Transexual,vshe dressed up as a man, so I'm hoping that it is just her backstory

        Loading editor
    • Uhm, sorry, but there's more to being transsexual than wearing some sort of uniform...

        Loading editor
    • Gusey1397 wrote:
      Technically, Mulan is a sort of Transexual,vshe dressed up as a man, so I'm hoping that it is just her backstory

      I had pants on yesterday....

      ...omg, am I a transsexual!?

        Loading editor
    • Gusey1397 wrote:
      Technically, Mulan is a sort of Transexual,vshe dressed up as a man, so I'm hoping that it is just her backstory

      So, men who wear kilts are transexual?

        Loading editor
    • Not saying that. I'm saying that Mulan dressed up and posed as a man. I'm not saying that just wearing clothing associated with men makes said person a transexual. It's the fact that everybody thought Mulan was a man.

        Loading editor
    • Gusey1397 wrote:
      Not saying that. I'm saying that Mulan dressed up and posed as a man. I'm not saying that just wearing clothing associated with men makes said person a transexual. It's the fact that everybody thought Mulan was a man.

      Armor is neither masculine, nor feminine.

      You are associating Mulan's armor with masculinity. She has a very feminine walk, if you paid attention. 

        Loading editor
    • I'm not intentially. Mulan poses as a man as in Ancient China, women weren't allowed to join the army. Therefore, she poses as a man.

        Loading editor
    • Mulan wasn't posing as a man for shits and giggles, she was saving her elderly father.

      Nothing about that makes her transgendered, and to try to make such a connection makes you look like you have no idea what a transgendered person is.

        Loading editor
    • Gusey1397 wrote:
      I'm not intentially. Mulan poses as a man as in Ancient China, women weren't allowed to join the army. Therefore, she poses as a man.

      Yes.... in the original legend.

      While it is a running gag, for people to think Mulan is a man. It was never stated, on the show, if she hid her gender while serving in the Army. OUaT is imfamous for twisting the tale, and that would be a pretty cool twist.

        Loading editor
    • @Chocolat

      I'm hoping that they just do the Mulan story justice. Some of the twists are very twisted. (Evil Peter Pan :O)

        Loading editor
    • I think your associating cross dressing for being transgender. Cross dressing could be done for many reasons, maybe as a joke, a halloween costume, or even for a play because you are playing a character of the other gender (think the ugly stepsisters in Cinderella, they are useally played by men in plays, to emphasize their uglyness, but in the context of the play are supposted to be just very ugly women). Being transgender means you mentally and emotionally associate your self with the oppisite gender of your biological sex. While dressing as the gender you associate is one of the things done, many transgender also take hormones of the gender they want to be to give them the machuline or feminine traits they are missing. Many also have surgery to alter the parts of the body that simple hormone treatment will not reverse (i.e. the parts of the body that are only are male or female only). So while you could say everyone (or almost everyone) who is transgender "cross dresses" (although they are doing it because they mentally associate with the sex they would be dressing as), everyone who cross dresses is not transgender.

        Loading editor
    • Sorry for any offence caused. CoolDudeAl is correct. I made a mistake.

        Loading editor
    • Not a problem, I just thought I'd explain it, and why Mulan wouldn't be a transgender character. I also don't think they will do a transgender character on any of the Once shows, due to the strong feelings people have about it, as well as the difficulty explaining it, on a show that is primaily fantasy.

        Loading editor
    • CoolDudeAl wrote:
      Not a problem, I just thought I'd explain it, and why Mulan wouldn't be a transgender character. I also don't think they will do a transgender character on any of the Once shows, due to the strong feelings people have about it, as well as the difficulty explaining it, on a show that is primaily fantasy.

      ^^ Agree. It's exremely easy to show that someone is homosexual, but a lot more difficult to capture that someone is transgender.

        Loading editor
    • It should come as a surprise to no one that after tonight's episode, Aurora and Mulan are not LGBT characters. Aurora and Phillip have reunited and are now ruling over their kingdom, plus I think I noticed Mulan has a little bit of a crush on both Neal and Robin Hood.

        Loading editor
    • Rangerscout wrote:
      It should come as a surprise to no one that after tonight's episode, Aurora and Mulan are not LGBT characters. Aurora and Phillip have reunited and are now ruling over their kingdom, plus I think I noticed Mulan has a little bit of a crush on both Neal and Robin Hood.

      Do not tell that, to the hard-core SleepingWarrior shippers. They probably think Mulan was referring to Aurora, not Phillip, when she was talking to Neal.

      Mulan does not have a crush on Neal nor Robin Hood.... she is, clearly, still in love with Prince Phillip.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      Still rooting for Archie....

      yesyes

      Or Ruby, who I've always read as bi

      Or I'm still holding out for Mulan/Aurora/Phillip. *quietly waves OT3 flag*

      It's a pity they killed Jack. They could have explored how gender dynamics and trans* people are treated in the FTR and whether they differ from our own. I mean—biologically Jack is female, but xe's filling a traditionally male role (that of the adventurer/monster slayer) and identifies xirself by a traditionally male name. Even if xe wasn't outright transgender but just didn't identify in the gender binary? Would be awesome. 

      I think it'd be cool if xe showed up in the Wonderland spinoff—xe does reference killing the Jabberwock, after all (I don't care what the writers say, it's the goddamn Jabberwock and anyone who refers to it as the/a Jabberwocky deserves my undying childhood nerdrage. yep, I'm still mad about that one interview where they did that).

        Loading editor
    • Now, I know what you're all going to say – that Hook is a ladies' man and stuff. But rewatching all Season 2 in a raw I got the vague impression that, while they showed him only going after women, he would basically do anything that breathes. Like seriously, you're up to flirting while you're all bruised in a hospital bed and when you're being threatened by a woman whose husband is right beside her (and whose daughter you flirted with a few hours earlier)? Okay, he often tries to flirt his way in or out what he needs, and that might just be an attempt to bury his pain for Milah's death, but he seems so obsessed with sex that I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he is pansexual (which would be a pun on his "Peter Pan" tale, too).

        Loading editor
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:
      Now, I know what you're all going to say – that Hook is a ladies' man and stuff. But rewatching all Season 2 in a raw I got the vague impression that, while they showed him only going after women, he would basically do anything that breathes.

      While I see where you are coming from, I have to disagree.

      We also saw that Hook hates mermaids.... I guess, he has some restraint.

        Loading editor
    • Important to bear in mind is that promiscuous behavior ≠ pan- or bisexuality. Hook's flirting, while certainly flamboyant, does not automatically mean he isn't heterosexual—and considering that said flirting is aimed entirely at women? My guess is he's heterosexual and either just enjoys flirting without intent or has a high libido.

      Which of course doesn't preclude him being heterosexual and bi- or panromantic, of course, or closeted and stepping up the flirting with women specifically as a means to maintain the closet, or being bi/pan but not feeling the need to flirt with both genders or any number of things.

      But just the fact that he's an outrages flirt does not, by any means, suggest pan/bisexuality by itself. Uberpromiscuous bi and pansexuals is a terrible, terrible stereotype that needs to be eradicated.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      GothicNarcissus wrote:
      Now, I know what you're all going to say – that Hook is a ladies' man and stuff. But rewatching all Season 2 in a raw I got the vague impression that, while they showed him only going after women, he would basically do anything that breathes.
      While I see where you are coming from, I have to disagree.

      We also saw that Hook hates mermaids.... I guess, he has some restraint.

      That was supposed to be a hyperbole actually. :P

      TNOandXadric, I totally get your point, which makes sense. Maybe he'd just basically do any woman who breathe (always a hyperbole) and leave the rest alone. Either way he really needs to contain his hormones. XD

        Loading editor
    • I kind of hope they make Mulan a transgender character, like that she never felt that she was a girl and a guy form the inside and was trying to hide it and goes to storybrooke to be herself or shit. 

      I kind of hope if they make a lgbt relationship/characters they make the relationship already accepted or gay relationships in general and have Emma like o.o i didnt know that you guys accept that or already have gay marriege and the fairlytale characters/people reply like we dont care we support love lor something not only (white) straight love ;p i just dont want them to make a big deal about the sexuality part like its something diffrend. for all i care they could have made ariel the transgender character who's a boy mermaid who wants to be a girl with legs and meets the openminded eric who accepts him or idk. x'D

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote:
      for all i care they could have made ariel the transgender character who's a boy mermaid who wants to be a girl with legs and meets the openminded eric who accepts him or idk. x'D

      Yeah.... because Ariel and Eric do not have weird relationship, as it is. She is a fish, for goodness sake!

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote:
      I kind of hope if they make a lgbt relationship/characters they make the relationship already accepted or gay relationships in general and have Emma like o.o i didnt know that you guys accept that or already have gay marriege and the fairlytale characters/people reply like we dont care we support love lor something not only (white) straight love ;p i just dont want them to make a big deal about the sexuality part like its something diffrend.

      It would be pretty awesome if the show used the multiverse format to explore sexism/homophobia/heterocentrism and how it's treated in various wherevers, contrasted against the reality of our world via Emma. Like, if the Land Without Color had Victorianesque attitudes, the FTR's general opinion on the subject fell in line with the kind of feudalist medieval-ish cultures it's been riffing on thus far, Wonderlanders did whatever the hell they want because it's a dreamworld where math and logical fallacies are much more important than sex, our world is what it is, et cetera. Neverland would either be pretty relaxed or else really disturbing, depending on what they chose to do with the way belief works there, and if they managed to get the rights to Oz they could examine what happens when you put people from feudal systems and our world in a place where women hold most of the power and nonheteronormative sexuality and gender identity are nonissues and completely normalized.

      And before anyone says that would be too political or "inappropriate", this is a show that (a) deals very heavily in morality (warped though it may become at times), murder, child abuse, and rape, and (b) has a central conceit that is explicitly about love and how it effects people. Using the show to play with LGBTQIA people and how different fantasy cultures respond to them would not make it any less "family-friendly" than it already is.

      ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      Yeah.... because Ariel and Eric do not have weird relationship, as it is. She is a fish, for goodness sake!
      1. There is nothing "weird" about a transgender person entering a relationship with another person, nor is there anything "weird" about xir partner having zero problem with the fact that xe is transgender.

      2. Interspecies romance is okay, but romances with trans* people aren't?

      Though, regarding transgender Ariel: I think it might be equally effective the other way around, where Ariel is a cisgender female mermaid who wants to become human and Eric is transgendered and part of how they bond/fall in love is over their mutual understanding of how it is to identify as something they were not biologically born as.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      Levi.goodliff wrote:
      for all i care they could have made ariel the transgender character who's a boy mermaid who wants to be a girl with legs and meets the openminded eric who accepts him or idk. x'D
      Yeah.... because Ariel and Eric do not have weird relationship, as it is. She is a fish, for goodness sake!

      Well, it would be true and consistent to the original fairytale, since Andersen was a closeted homosexual and many scholars see the Little Mermaid as an allegory of that part of his life.

        Loading editor
    • I guess we all missed Choc's joke....

        Loading editor
    • ...what joke? Xe implied that interspecies romances were more acceptable/less weird than a trans* person having a relationship.

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:
      ...what joke? Xe implied that interspecies romances were more acceptable/less weird than a trans* person having a relationship.

      No, she didn't. XD She was making light of the fact that a fish/human relationship is already weird (which, as we all know, is how the mainstream unfortunately views a trans relationship)

      Perhaps we're all a little too sensitive in light of the topic?

        Loading editor
    • If Ariel were actually a fish, that would be weird. But Ariel's a sapient being, and by the time she has her relationship with Eric, she's biologically as well as mentally human. I don't think there's anything weird with two sapient people who happen to be different species falling in love and finding a way to make it work.

      I don't think any of us are being oversensitive; it is, as you pointed out, a legitimate problem in our society and something that needs to be talked about.

        Loading editor
    • It was a joke. One you obviously don't find funny, but one that does not necessitate getting on Choc about.

      And we are certainly talking about the subject, as we should, but I think we all need to remember that this a TV show, it's not that serious.

        Loading editor
    • Getting back to topic: While a transgender character would be great, I personally feel it wouldn't translate well on the show. There's almost always a deep, very personal struggle in a transgendered person's life, and that kind of thing needs to handled properly, and the chance for screwing it up would be high. It would likely come off as just someone cross dressing, at least to the main stream, and I feel that's something we need to avoid.

      Using Mulan feels... cliche, to me. She dressed up as a man in the legend, yes, but to save her father and her family's honor. I feel like it's a cop out to kind of, tack on making her want to be male.

        Loading editor
    • I don't, at all, believe that Choc made the comment with malicious intent. That does not change the fact that it did cause me significant discomfort (because trans* people=fish) and I think it was a problematic comment (the term is "microaggression"). My intent in my original response was to point this out; I concede that I could have been less abrasive about it and for that I apologize.

      The "it's just fiction, it isn't that serious" argument doesn't fly with me because fiction does not exist in a vacuum: it's a reflection of us, and there is significant evidence to suggest that we're a lot more influenced by our intake of fictional media than we realize. Fiction is very, very serious, and it makes statements about the world whether we like it or not. Quite apart from the question of problematic fiction, to say that anything is "just" fiction trivializes what fiction is; you would not, for example, respond to someone's argument that Harry Potter is excellent because it values nonromantic love with "it's just fiction, it doesn't matter." Yes?

      I agree about Mulan not being transgender; her reasons for crossdressing are practical ones, not about personal identity and gender expression. Making it because she is transgendered cheapens the point of her story, which is about patriotic responsibility and family honor. 

      On the other hand, I think it is completely possible to deal with trans* characters in visual media. It's been done before (google it), albeit often not well; OUaT would be better able to than most, I think, because they already spend greater-than-average amounts of screen time talking about love and relationships and people. In the event that they introduce a trans* character, they already have an audience that is open to watching interpersonal discussions of feelings and opinions, so that character explaining themselves to whoever would feel less forced than it might in a less talk-y show.

      That, and taking big risks is what fiction is for: you might crash and burn, but you might also be wildly successful. 

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:

      The "it's just fiction, it isn't that serious" argument doesn't fly with me because fiction does not exist in a vacuum: it's a reflection of us, and there is significant evidence to suggest that we're a lot more influenced by our intake of fictional media than we realize. Fiction is very, very serious, and it makes statements about the world whether we like it or not. Quite apart from the question of problematic fiction, to say that anything is "just" fiction trivializes what fiction is; you would not, for example, respond to someone's argument that Harry Potter is excellent because it values nonromantic love with "it's just fiction, it doesn't matter." Yes?

      And yet, if I turn the TV off, the show, and whatever values it is/isn't pushing, disappear, along with everything else on TV, which, again, is not as serious as the things going on in real life, which was my entire point. Not trying to upset anyone, but there are worse things going on in the world than a group being underrepesented on TV. Not trying to argue that what happens with/on the show is insignificant, only that maybe some of us get too worked up over it. It's a story to be enjoyed, ideas to be discussed, not something to spend every moment over, or something to scrutinize to the point you crush it. (Not saying that's being done by anyone in this discussion, but that is a thing that happens)

        Loading editor
    • Oh. To be honest, I didn't realise it was a joke or could be in anyway offending for anyone because I didn't even know that specific meaning of the term "fish" to begin with. Sorry. XD

      I agree with Utter Solitude about the transgender character subject being perhaps too complex to be developed on the sideways. I'd rather not have it at all than have it jammed in and treated with superficiality just for the sake of it. But that applies to the whole LGBT subject.

      One example I recall was in Charmed. It was 2004, so okay, ten years ago, but I remember one episode in which a witch went missing and while the Halliwell sister were investigating, they came across her roommate and she reluctantly told them they were partners and the police didn't do much beause they thought it was some kind of quarrel of sort. It felt awkward and the superficiality with which they just jammed a lesbian couple in for no practical reason and treted it in such a soap-opera-ish way left me just bewildered.

      So, unless it is properly handled, it can be nice. But other than that, I don't feel the need to be "represented" at all costs in the OUAT universe.

        Loading editor
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:
      Oh. To be honest, I didn't realise it was a joke or could be in anyway offending for anyone because I didn't even know that specific meaning of the term "fish" to begin with. Sorry. XD

      No no no, Choc was just making a joke, not saying that fish and transgendered people are the same. That came later, from someone who either didn't get/didn't like the joke, and tried to make it out to be that Choc was saying an interspecies relationship is more acceptable than a transgendered person, which she wasn't. (And isn't even the case, mermaids in the Disney canon are basically humans with fins)

        Loading editor
    • Re: "Just fiction": But let's assume you're right and fiction has no impact on anything, at all, ever. If that's the case, why bother? Why devote hours of our time and thought to something that doesn't matter and is only a way to fill up time? Why bother making something that couldn't make an impact? It's a really sad way to look at fiction, don't you think?

      And, regarding analysis/overanalysis: It comes down to personal preference, but enjoy subjecting my fiction to intense scrutiny. Two of my favorite musicals ever (I use musicals because I'm a theatre student with a special interest in musicals, so that's what I know best) are the ones I can watch and read and listen to over and over again, think about, analyze, discuss, argue about, and continually find new facets that I didn't notice before (they are, if you're curious, Anyone Can Whistle and Wildhorn's Wonderland). Yeah, they both have fantastic music and snappy dialogue, but the really good stuff is what you can find if you dig.

      On trans* people: Fish isn't a slang term or anything like that (that I know of, at least), it's the (unintentional but unfortunate) implication that fish (i.e., an animal) are equivalent to trans* people. (Now, if Choc had said "she's already a mermaid, for goodness sake!" that would have been still a little uncomfortable for me—it works on the idea that people only ever have One Big Issue—but less problematic because mermaids, unlike fish, are sapient and therefore people. Does that make sense?)

      I don't think the writers—or anyone else, for that matter—should put in LGBTQIA characters for the sake of putting in LGBTQIA characters. What I do think is that OUaT has a really great opportunity to explore nonheteronormativity and, so far, they haven't taken it, although I hope they do in the future.

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:

      On trans* people: Fish isn't a slang term or anything like that (that I know of, at least), it's the (unintentional but unfortunate) implication that fish (i.e., an animal) are equivalent to trans* people. (Now, if Choc had said "she's already a mermaid, for goodness sake!" that would have been still a little uncomfortable for me—it works on the idea that people only ever have One Big Issue—but less problematic because mermaids, unlike fish, are sapient and therefore people. Does that make sense?)

      I believe, the term you are looking for is sentient. 

      It was a joke, I was not looking to offend anyone. So, can you please drop it? This getting ridiculous, already. 

      Another thing.... the "mermaid scene" in the premiere, showed that most humans in the Enchanted Forest do not view mermaids as people. They view them as vicious animals, who cannot be trusted. David even referred to the mermaids, as fish.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      TNOandXadric wrote:

      On trans* people: Fish isn't a slang term or anything like that (that I know of, at least), it's the (unintentional but unfortunate) implication that fish (i.e., an animal) are equivalent to trans* people. (Now, if Choc had said "she's already a mermaid, for goodness sake!" that would have been still a little uncomfortable for me—it works on the idea that people only ever have One Big Issue—but less problematic because mermaids, unlike fish, are sapient and therefore people. Does that make sense?)

      I believe, the term you are looking for is sentient. 

      It was a joke, I was not looking to offend anyone. So, can you please drop it? This getting ridiculous, already. 

      Another thing.... the "mermaid scene" in the premiere, showed that most humans in the Enchanted Forest do not view mermaids as people. They view them as vicious animals, who cannot be trusted. 

      Actually, sapient is the correct word for what I want to describe, which is a humanlike ability to think and reason. It's a very common confusion because the words sound very similar and are often swapped, but sentience merely describes awareness, or an ability to perceive; dogs, for example, are sentient: they are aware of what is happening around them. Humans are the only real species that we know of who also have sapience, which is the ability to reason and be self-aware. (A good way to remember, if you will forgive the dog latin: It's homo sapiens, not homo sentiens.) (:

      Whether or not it was your intent (and I do, absolutely, believe that you didn't intend it; you seem like a very nice person), you did cause offense. Something to be aware of in the future? I am sorry for jumping on you and that it escalated into the debate that it did, but I'm not going to apologize for the emotional reaction I had to what you said.

      That's a very good point, about the mermaids! I didn't think of it (although it doesn't change the fact that mermaids are sapient); I wonder how the writers will choose to deal with that? It could be a cool inversal of Triton's insistence that humans are Complete Monsters—and if the bigotry goes both ways (which'd explain the mermaids' apparently unprovoked attack on Hook's ship), Ariel/Eric could be the first step to bridging the rift between the species and forging a more peaceful relationship.

      (And if they went the trans* route, they could make it a blatant metaphor for how the vitriolically transphobic people talk about the subject. Win-win, right?)

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:
      Re: "Just fiction": But let's assume you're right and fiction has no impact on anything, at all, ever. If that's the case, why bother? Why devote hours of our time and thought to something that doesn't matter and is only a way to fill up time? Why bother making something that couldn't make an impact? It's a really sad way to look at fiction, don't you think?

      I didn't say anything like that in the slightest, please, don't put words in my mouth.

      Can we drop the whole "Joke/I didn't like your joke" stuff now? Choc is going to herself, everyone is going to be theirself, no need for anyone to apologize or continue to try to insult others or make others look less intelligent. I have no trouble closing this thread and starting a new one if we can't behave ourselves.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
       

      Another thing.... the "mermaid scene" in the premiere, showed that most humans in the Enchanted Forest do not view mermaids as people. They view them as vicious animals, who cannot be trusted. David even referred to the mermaids, as fish.


      Well, I mean, when you have a reputation like most mermaids seem to have (not only David, but Hook seemed weary of them as well), I wouldn't really consider them 'human' either...

        Loading editor
    • I didn't mean to put words in your mouth; "if I turn the TV off, the show, and whatever values it is/isn't pushing, disappear, along with everything else on TV" sounded to me like saying that fiction exists in a vacuum and cannot have a real impact on the real world. Reading over your comment in its entirety again, I can see that's not what you meant and it's my mistake for misunderstanding. 

      Nor am I trying to make Choc look unintelligent (I certainly don't think she is!). What I am trying to do is point out that her joke could be construed as hurtful, because if I said something that accidentally hurt someone (and I have, far too many times), I'd want to know so as not to do it again. But she's apologized and I've apologized for being hurtful myself, so I'm happy to say no more on the subject, except to add that, Choc, if I made you feel dumb or like I was dismissing or undervaluing your intelligence, I'm sorry.

      Back on mermaids:

      Mermaids aren't human—they're mermaids, they're a different species, and just by dint of where they live, they have a very, very different culture from any humans (they live underwater, after all—no fire-based technology for them, and technology is a huge defining factor in cultural development). That makes it all the more likely for mermaid-human interactions to go badly, which feeds into prejudices, which makes the next time they interact go even worse, and so on and so on until both groups loathe each other even if the original reasons have been lost to time. 

      (I wonder what the mermaid->human equivalent of "fish" as a slur is. Apes? Something that invokes dirtiness, since we're largely landbound?)

      Leaving aside all hypothetical discussions of gender identity, I'm excited to see how the human->mermaid bigotry will play into Ariel/Eric, since it wasn't present (or at the very least, not nearly to the degree we saw in the premiere) in the Disney version of things or, from what I remember, the original story.

        Loading editor
    • Lol that escalted quickly. 

      I agree if they get lgbt characters on the show they should do it good. Like CInderella who's story arc (for me personally) have just fcked up. 

      Saying that there are far more things important than being underrepresented in the media means shit to me. The problem for me is just on a wide scale all the characters are white and straight. I just want them to make/write the characters as if anyone (colour/race/gender) could play them like they did with Jacklyn from the Beanstalk and incorporate core details that connect with the essense of the character. (i hope this makes sense). 

      I also completely agree that fiction is a reflection of us, ofcourse you can say that we have to look inside the characters but to find what connects/identificates and makes you wanna follow them. But we all know thats not the first thing we see; were drawn to Ariel cause of how  Joanna Garcia looks or because of Hooks sexy emo glam look; and after that like their characters. Its not that i want those people to be easily replace able from the outside, but idk where this is going anymore tho, just ugh. xD

      Its just they make it so hard for them selfes to write a gay character when its actually not, just write them as people and customize the etenicy and sexuality afterwards . -.- shouldnt be that hard? 

        Loading editor
    • I don't think it is wrong for the writers to have an idea on what they want for characters in their show. They should be able to cast who they want to cast to fill the characters role that they have in mind. So far the cast is mostly white, and all straight. Having a problem with that is just like having a problem with gay people. They shouldn't have to write in characters that aren't in their vision for the show just because people don't think its fair or equal. That's really not fair to them.

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote:
      Lol that escalted quickly. 

      I agree if they get lgbt characters on the show they should do it good. Like CInderella who's story arc (for me personally) have just fcked up. 

      Saying that there are far more things important than being underrepresented in the media means shit to me. The problem for me is just on a wide scale all the characters are white and straight. I just want them to make/write the characters as if anyone (colour/race/gender) could play them like they did with Jacklyn from the Beanstalk and incorporate core details that connect with the essense of the character. (i hope this makes sense). 

      I also completely agree that fiction is a reflection of us, ofcourse you can say that we have to look inside the characters but to find what connects/identificates and makes you wanna follow them. But we all know thats not the first thing we see; were drawn to Ariel cause of how  Joanna Garcia looks or because of Hooks sexy emo glam look; and after that like their characters. Its not that i want those people to be easily replace able from the outside, but idk where this is going anymore tho, just ugh. xD

      Its just they make it so hard for them selfes to write a gay character when its actually not, just write them as people and customize the etenicy and sexuality afterwards . -.- shouldnt be that hard? 

      Well, I'm not a supporter or having to jam characters of other ethnicities than caucasian, or in this case LGBT, into things just because otherwise that's not politically correct. I see it as some form of discrimination in reverse. Beneficial rather than detrimental, but still discrimination, because it is still a different treatment based on that particular thing (making a character aptly gay, as opposed to having a character who happens to be straight).

      Yes, I would love to see a gay character in the show, possibly a gay man (because let's face it, it's easier to put a lesbian woman in, 'cause even the most omophobic straight men secretly like them for a whole host of ancestral biological reasons), possibly not stereotypical. But not at all costs. Not if that means to just mention it for no particular reason. If they can take a fairytale, twist it so it would be fresh and interesting with two men, or if that would provide more depth to the character (for instance, as I mentioned some months ago, what if curse-womanizer Dr. Whale turned out to have been gay as Dr. Frankestein, with all the "oh god, now what" situation that might come out of that), then fine, but not just "this is him, he does that, oh, and by the way he's gay".

        Loading editor
    • But why is it that they always have to put the oh god what now situation with gay characters. It just puts more and more focus on the sexuality part, they dont do that with the straight characters cause we already assume everything. 

        Loading editor
    • ‘Cause otherwise there's no point in saying they're gay, to begin with, like there isn't with saying that straight characters are straight. The thing would just go unnoticed, most people would assume they're straight, other will assume they're not, end of the story.

      The only thing that shows a character is gay is a romantic/sexual/name-it interaction with a chacacter of the same sex, 'cause the rest of gay people's lives is pretty much the same as straight people's. And hosnestly, in a story of whatever kind, a romantic/sexual/name-it interaction between two character must always be somewhat functional to the plot, otherwise it's a useless digression.

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote:
      But why is it that they always have to put the oh god what now situation with gay characters. It just puts more and more focus on the sexuality part, they dont do that with the straight characters cause we already assume everything. 

      This is an extension of the "general" audience being a lil uncomfortable with gay couples. (Or, at least, writers and producers feel this is necessary) that is part of why a lot of shows have those odd moments where, once a character is outed, someone on the show is uncomfortable, but later comes to accept them. It's a way of telling the uncomfortable in the audience that it's okay, it's jus a gay/lesbian couple, which is no big deal, and, unfortunately, this is still somewhat necessary, at least until the American audience gets more comfortable.

        Loading editor
    • If OUAT were to intro an LGBT character? I feel maybe its best to do it like how Capn. Jack Harkness was intro'd in Dr. Who. A new character. I'm not hateful of LGBT but I feel it's like ..

      These are old beloved fairy tail characters. I'd hate to see any major character become LGBT

      like for example, Mulan. Because as a huge fan, i'm waiting for her to find Le Shang. 

      Her true love from her story. If they made a character like her become gay, I'd personally be like wait. Wheres Le Shang? I know OUAT has several plot twists but when it comes to the true loves from their 300+ years old stories?  As a fan? I'd like to see it kept to that.


      P.S. I saw a quote on having multiple "true loves" How so? Rumple?

      Your true love is your soulmate. Others like Milah & Cora are more like loves.

      But your true love is one whome your destined to be with. The one who if you stood at the alter? And stared at that person and was asked " Do you take thee to be your aweful wedded

      wife? You look into that woman's/man's eyes and without a single doubt in your mind You say YES! And they back.

      Cora and Milah didn't appear to adore Rumple as much as Belle. Other things were more important. I.E. Cora's rise to power and Milahs thinking about her own need.

      Beauty was always putting Rumple or others before herself.

        Loading editor
    • XxBadWolfxX wrote:


      P.S. I saw a quote on having multiple "true loves" How so? Rumple?

      IIRC, and I might not, it's from a quote from one of the creators during an interview. Pretty sure they hinted at Phillip.

      However, "true love" might not mean ONE person. It might just mean "love that is true". That doesn't have to be just romantic. Emma has true love for Henry. You can have true love for a friend.

        Loading editor
    • XxBadWolfxX wrote:

      These are old beloved fairy tail characters. I'd hate to see any major character become LGBT

      Need I remind that most of those old beloved fairytales were actually about sexuality, puberty, menstrual cycle, teenage pregnancy, rape, up to various degrees of necrophilia and so on including closeted homosexuality before Disney added rainbow kisses and unicorn stickers to them?

      (Whoa, did I really quote Regina twice in the same sentence?)

        Loading editor
    • Once Upon a Time doesn't need a gay character, I'm not against them bringing a gay character in, but its not gonna tank just because theres no gay character. Its been doing just fine without a gay character for two seasons. If they do bring in a gay character then they better do it right. You can tell when having a gay character feels forced because they're not written well and are often times overly flamboyant. My point is if a gay character fits into the storyline then do it, if the people in charge of OUAT are writing in a gay character to pre-emptively fight off any complaints the gay community might have against the show then don't even bother.

        Loading editor
    • How so? I had a book of fairy tales. Oh well. Perhaps its not true to the originals.

      But I reckon that both old fairy tales and Disney crap still had Beauty to Beast and Mulan to Li Shang.

      P.P.S.I wanted to add that It's not only that I don't want to see any of the major Characters turned LGBT its seeing them find true love with even another Character as in the Snow and Whale thing as an example. I'd truly like IMO to see Mulan with Le Shang. And Beauty with Beast. Everyone else? Go 4 it. 



      @ Utter Solitude. You have a good point with Emma and Henry.But I still feel their love is life-time love. A love so true? That it will last 4 ever. Unless one died. Then maybe.

      But yeah, I guess Emma can have multi-true love if you count her beloved Henry and Bae.

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote:

      Saying that there are far more things important than being underrepresented in the media means shit to me. The problem for me is just on a wide scale all the characters are white and straight. I just want them to make/write the characters as if anyone (colour/race/gender) could play them like they did with Jacklyn from the Beanstalk and incorporate core details that connect with the essense of the character. (i hope this makes sense). 

      ...

      Its just they make it so hard for them selfes to write a gay character when its actually not, just write them as people and customize the etenicy and sexuality afterwards . -.- shouldnt be that hard? 

      The problem is, in our culture, the subconscious default is cis/straight/white/male, so if you write a character as completely neutral in every possible way, then most consumers are going to read that character as a cisgendered, straight, caucasian man. This phenomenon is also why genderbending Jack the Giant Killer is a surprise.

      It's screwed up, yes, but that's how it is, so writers who want to subvert that have to make it clear that THIS character is not this subconcsious default (and even when they do, it doesn't always get picked up on by everyone; consider the backlash the Hunger Games movie got for casting Rue and Thresh as POC, even though they were described that way in the book).

      So the way to do it, in my opinion, is not from a neutral template, but from the foundation of, for example, "person whose identity includes being gay and Latin@" and write them that way.

      GothicNarcissus wrote:

      Well, I'm not a supporter or having to jam characters of other ethnicities than caucasian, or in this case LGBT, into things just because otherwise that's not politically correct. I see it as some form of discrimination in reverse. Beneficial rather than detrimental, but still discrimination, because it is still a different treatment based on that particular thing (making a character aptly gay, as opposed to having a character who happens to be straight).

      Yes, I would love to see a gay character in the show, possibly a gay man (because let's face it, it's easier to put a lesbian woman in, 'cause even the most omophobic straight men secretly like them for a whole host of ancestral biological reasons), possibly not stereotypical. But not at all costs. Not if that means to just mention it for no particular reason. If they can take a fairytale, twist it so it would be fresh and interesting with two men, or if that would provide more depth to the character (for instance, as I mentioned some months ago, what if curse-womanizer Dr. Whale turned out to have been gay as Dr. Frankestein, with all the "oh god, now what" situation that might come out of that), then fine, but not just "this is him, he does that, oh, and by the way he's gay".

      Having a cast with diverse races and sexualities isn't reverse raceism/heterosexism, it's accurately representing the human race.

      On Whale being forced into heterosexuality by the curse: Why would it be an "oh god, now what?" situation, though? Being gay does not being unable to enjoy sex with a person of the opposite gender (it's all about nerve endings and friction) anymore than being asexual automatically translates to virgin. I imagine it would be weird, but not a revulsion response unless Whale were outright repulsed to heterosexual sex (and I used repulsed here not as a synonym for disgusted, but as the term used to distinguish an asexual who is uninterested in sex from a repulsed asexual who actively doesn't want sex). 

      (Though, in terms of OUaT!Frankenstein, it would be super easy to read gay (and, uh, maybe incest?) subtext into his arc, because Elizabeth? Elizabeth who?)

        Loading editor
    • XxBadWolfxX wrote:
      How so? I had a book of fairy tales. Oh well. Perhaps its not true to the originals.

      But I reckon that both old fairy tales and Disney crap still had Beauty to Beast and Mulan to Li Shang.

      That's because today's children value-teaching tales were yesterday's cautionary tales. So, fat chance we were ever going to be told that some random king found a sleeping beauty lying on a bed, raped her in her sleep, she got pregnant, mysteriously gave birth to twins while still asleep and one of them, while searching for he breast, sucked the speck of wood out of her finger so she woke up. We need true love's kiss, they needed to make young girls responsible about what happens when they have menarche (picking her finger on the spinning wheel) and do not ponder the consequences of letting men in (sleep as escape from responsibility until she becomes a mother, which forces her to become an adult).

      Farytale characters are archetypes and what happens to them are metaphores. OUAT turns them into actual people with a history and a real character, so in a way they become totally different things. So, as long as it is consistent with the show and not just thrown in, why not twisting them into having a gay protagonist (and, as I said, in some tales you don't even have to twist so much, see the the Little Mermaid)? I mean, if you want to stick to the originals, how come that a prince who just wants to take the corpse of a (seemingly) dead woman to his castle without even thinking it possible for her to wake up (it happened as an accident in the original Snow White) is any less disturbing than a gay character?

      Besides, I am not an expert of Mulan, but I recall she just retired to live a quiet life back home after the 12 years she served in the army, with no mention of Li Shang whatsoever – anyone correct me if I am mistaken.

        Loading editor
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:

      Farytale characters are archetypes and what happens to them are metaphores. OUAT turns them into actual people with a history and a real character, so in a way they become totally different things. So, as long as it is consistent with the show and not just thrown in, why not twisting them into having a gay protagonist (and, as I said, in some tales you don't even have to twist so much, see the the Little Mermaid)?

      Besides, I am not an expert of Mulan, but I recall she just retired to live a quiet life back home after the 12 years she served in the army, with no mention of Li Shang whatsoever – anyone correct me if I am mistaken.

      There was a small group of fans, who were hoping Prince Eric would be turned into Princess Erica. The major problem with that, is in folklore, mermaids can only seduce men.... their siren's song, has no affect on women. Plus, I doubt there are mermen, in the OUaT universe. Mermaids probably mate with human males, and then eat them.

      Oh, and you are correct about the Mulan legend. 

        Loading editor
    • GothicNarcissus wrote:

      Besides, I am not an expert of Mulan, but I recall she just retired to live a quiet life back home after the 12 years she served in the army, with no mention of Li Shang whatsoever – anyone correct me if I am mistaken.

      If I recall correctly, Hua Mulan served in the army for twelve years to protect her aging father. She was not found out during this time as she was in the Disney movie, and at the end she earned enough merit that she wasn't punished for her deceit (of pretending to be male when she wasn't) and refused any reward beyond a strong horse to take her back to her family. After which she retired quietly, yes.

      Li Shang is a Disney addition to their version of the story, because all Disney princesses need a love interest. (Which I've been grumpy about my entire life and will stay grumpy abount no matter what anyone else says. *grumpy*)

      ETA because Choc replied before I could and brought up a really interesting point:

      I would argue that, if the writers of OUaT choose to go the traditional mermaid route rather than the Disney route, then it would be a good thing for Eric to be Erica (or Erin, which I like the sound of better), because that avoids the really unfortunate implications of "Eric falls in love with Ariel because she has a magical ability to seduce men" and would also be an excellent story about the value of choice and free will in that it would mean Ariel pursues a relationship with someone her siren song has no effect on (and whose love is therefore 100% genuine) over the easy route of seducing a guy by singing at him.

      ...Then again, they could make a point of examining the trials of a relationship where one partner has the ability to magically compell the other to extreme devotion, and chooses not to, which would also be an excellent storyline.

      And this all assumes that the writers won't take the Disney route like they did with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, etc. And considering that they're using Disney names, my guess is they're taking the Disney route (unless the huge emphasis placed on Ariel's voice in the movie was because it was a siren call that did capture Eric, in which case Ursula accidentally did her a favor by taking it away, because it meant Eric and Ariel fell in love for real instead of just magically-induced infatuation. and I might have to write fic about just that). 

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:

      And this all assumes that the writers won't take the Disney route like they did with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, etc. And considering that they're using Disney names, my guess is they're taking the Disney route (unless the huge emphasis placed on Ariel's voice in the movie was because it was a siren call that did capture Eric, in which case Ursula accidentally did her a favor by taking it away, because it meant Eric and Ariel fell in love for real instead of just magically-induced infatuation. and I might have to write fic about just that). 

      That was actually the point, of putting emphasis on Ariel's voice. It was a siren's song, that originally captured Eric's affections. Which is why, when Disney adapted The Little Mermaid for Broadway, they changed the ending.

        Loading editor
    • It depends on whether they mean siren song as a metaphorical "she has a pretty voice and he likes her voice because he has a thing about voices" kind of thing or siren song as literally "her voice has a compulsion effect that seduces men supernaturally" — both are valid explanations. I was talking about the latter specifically, where Eric is magically forced to be infatuated with Ariel/obsessed with her voice; the former is a perfectly normal reason to have an initial attraction to somebody.

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      GothicNarcissus wrote:

      Farytale characters are archetypes and what happens to them are metaphores. OUAT turns them into actual people with a history and a real character, so in a way they become totally different things. So, as long as it is consistent with the show and not just thrown in, why not twisting them into having a gay protagonist (and, as I said, in some tales you don't even have to twist so much, see the the Little Mermaid)?

      Besides, I am not an expert of Mulan, but I recall she just retired to live a quiet life back home after the 12 years she served in the army, with no mention of Li Shang whatsoever – anyone correct me if I am mistaken.

      There was a small group of fans, who were hoping Prince Eric would be turned into Princess Erica. The major problem with that, is in folklore, mermaids can only seduce men.... their siren's song, has no affect on women. Plus, I doubt there are mermen, in the OUaT universe. Mermaids probably mate with human males, and then eat them.

      Oh, and you are correct about the Mulan legend. 

      Oh sorry. My Bad :D I would still like to see Li Shang tho.

      He looks like he'd be pretty  hot <,<

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff
      Levi.goodliff removed this reply because:
      spam
      21:23, October 4, 2013
      This reply has been removed

      lol

        Loading editor
    • But is lesbian girls (or bi girls) and straight men have the same interest in real life...shouldnt the siren call thingy work on girls who are interested in girls? o_o 

      By the way i think mermaids should be lgbt friendly, since i read somewhere if you have two male fish in a tank they "mate" (idk if you call that too with fish?) with each other cause theres no one elso to do, like they dont discriminate. Also because mermaids dont have genitalia their relationship is probrably like two 9 year olds adopting a cat and caring for it. Though they'll probrably have that spawning season...when the female fish have layed their unvertilized eggs, male fish fertilze them which ...Its probrably common to have around 8 kids....(ugh my brain hurts so much thinking this through how mermaid society works and stuff) :P

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote:
      But is lesbian girls (or bi girls) and straight men have the same interest in real life...shouldnt the siren call thingy work on girls who are interested in girls? o_o 

      By the way i think mermaids should be lgbt friendly, since i read somewhere if you have two male fish in a tank they "mate" (idk if you call that too with fish?) with each other cause theres no one elso to do, like they dont discriminate. Also because mermaids dont have genitalia their relationship is probrably like two 9 year olds adopting a cat and caring for it. Though they'll probrably have that spawning season...when the female fish have layed their unvertilized eggs, male fish fertilze them which ...Its probrably common to have around 8 kids....(ugh my brain hurts so much thinking this through how mermaid society works and stuff) :P

      The whole thing about a siren's song, is pure lust. It does not create love, and is the way mermaids attract their prey. It only seduced men, because women were too intelligent go to their doom.

      Mermaids in folklore, were notorious for drowning sailors. They are soulless creatures, devoid of emotions. One of the first depictions of a "friendly" mermaid, was Hans Christian Andersen's fairytale.... even then it is debatable. 

      The creators repeatedly said, that Ariel is different from the rest of her kind. That is probably, because she will be capable of human emotion. However, she will probably still retain some animalistic instinct. Similar to Syrena, from Pirates of the Caribbean, who was an Ariel-archetype.

      PS: Mermaids are actually mammals, in folklore. 

        Loading editor
    • I think as Neverland is considered dark, it has bad mermaids, but the enchanted forest probably not. I say Regina sent Ariel to Neverland as a part of the deal that was mentioned about a mermaid with rumplestiltskin in "skin deep".

        Loading editor
    • 108.49.79.202 wrote:
      Archie if they just idly mention that he came back from a date with [insert male name here], I think would work, as would a character named Jill that was shown to have a thing with Jack if they were to expand on Jack's backstory. :3

      i think theyd have to explore jacks backstory more before they could do that. i feel like it cant be a throw away character, or a fling. it would have to be presented as real, so an established character would be better to do this.

        Loading editor
    • Drpinkky wrote:

      i think theyd have to explore jacks backstory more before they could do that. i feel like it cant be a throw away character, or a fling. it would have to be presented as real, so an established character would be better to do this.

      This is why I keep coming back to Archie. It would just be so perfect, at least in my head. The actor would be great, and it's a character we love enough that doesn't have a "preset" love interest. It could be big, like an episode (maybe his date goes missing!? A nice side plot in Storybrooke) or even the shout out could be great.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      This is why I keep coming back to Archie. It would just be so perfect, at least in my head. The actor would be great, and it's a character we love enough that doesn't have a "preset" love interest. It could be big, like an episode (maybe his date goes missing!? A nice side plot in Storybrooke) or even the shout out could be great.

      who could it be,though? oh, the speculation!!!

        Loading editor
    • Drpinkky wrote:

      who could it be,though? oh, the speculation!!!

      I wouldn't be opposed to a new or existing character. Whale, perhaps? ;) or the servant from the White Snake. (if you're unfamiliar, here ya go. The servant sneaks a taste of a certain white snake and gains the ability to communicate with animals) Kind of fits with the cricket business.

        Loading editor
    • I ship him with the physician from Godfather Death, in my own fic at least. Mostly because the modern day problems with the physician's deal with Death would lead to some really fascinating discussions with Archie-the-therapist, I think. (And if the physician's gay, that nicely sidesteps the whole "killed because he saved the pretty princess" ending)

      Plus Godfather Death is an awesome fairytale.

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:
      I ship him with the physician from Godfather Death, in my own fic at least. Mostly because the modern day problems with the physician's deal with Death would lead to some really fascinating discussions with Archie-the-therapist, I think. (And if the physician's gay, that nicely sidesteps the whole "killed because he saved the pretty princess" ending)

      Plus Godfather Death is an awesome fairytale.

      ^^^THIS TOO

        Loading editor
    • My response as a gay man would be an automatic YES, but I want them to do it when the time is right and when the story is right, not just have an LGBT character for a one episode one off just for the sake of having one. 

        Loading editor
    • NBDJSBNFJNDBJGSBDNGJNFJGNFJGNJFNGIFDGIDNFG IM FANGIRLING SO MUCH did anyone watch the last episode 

      Robin was like comee be in my army and Mulan was like i cant i have to talk to someone and he was like a loved one ? o.o and i was like omg shes going to tell phillip nooo she was going to tell aurora *fangirls* but than aurora says shes preggers :c i soooo hope she meets a cute girl in robins army nawww 

        Loading editor
    • Mulan totally has a thing for Aurora! But I hate how they threw it out the window! The only straight forward LGBT reference in the show and they completely dismiss it. WTF! And I totally saw it coming. I knew some shit was about to go down. I was estatic for a split second before I knew where it was going >.<

        Loading editor
    • SkyCloud24 wrote:
      Mulan totally has a thing for Aurora! But I hate how they threw it out the window! The only straight forward LGBT reference in the show and they completely dismiss it. WTF! And I totally saw it coming. I knew some shit was about to go down. I was estatic for a split second before I knew where it was going >.<

      I thought it fit both the characters and the situation. I was screaming at Mulan to tell her anyway, though it was just like her and her sense of honor to not want to rock the boat.

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote: i soooo hope she meets a cute girl in robins army nawww 

      That'd be nice, but all things considered, it seems unlikely. Robin expressly stated that Mulan is the first woman ever been allowed in the band, and to me it seems like poor writing for him to suddenly allow a second woman in for the sole purpose (story wise) of giving the happens-to-be-a-lesbian first ever woman a love interest. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for either things to work out for her and Aurora or for her to find a new woman, but I personally think it would be bad story telling if that happens by allowing a second woman into Robin's band...

        Loading editor
    • It offical its Mulan

        Loading editor
    • What if Mulan and Jack had an affaire at the army? It would be great! Warrior Slayer!

        Loading editor
    • It makes sense that it is Mulan, I just wish they would have alluded to it instead of alluding to her loving Phillip in season 2.

        Loading editor
    • It actually annoys me that they alluded to Mulan being in love with Phillip in Season 2. Don't get me wrong, I love that she has feelings for Aurora but I can see why people have decided that they 'turned' Mulan lesbian (or bi) because they had been bullied to feature a LGBT couple. There was such an uproar that both women loved the same man but it made for good storyline. Now, Aurora? Perhaps Mulan is just easy?? 

      Plus, Phillip, even if she did not love him, they have been comrades for a long time. Mulan was just going to potentially snatch his True Love. Very selfish, not very noble...or Mulan-like. The only reason she left to join the Merry Men was because Aurora was pregnant.

      Like I said, I loved it, but just wish they hadn't bothered with the whole Mulan loves Phillip storyline from last year, it was unnecessary and cheapens this new, charming development slightly in my opinion.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Alessandra wrote:
      It actually annoys me that they alluded to Mulan being in love with Phillip in Season 2. Don't get me wrong, I love that she has feelings for Aurora but I can see why people have decided that they 'turned' Mulan lesbian (or bi) because they had been bullied to feature a LGBT couple. There was such an uproar that both women loved the same man but it made for good storyline. Now, Aurora? Perhaps Mulan is just easy?? 

      Plus, Phillip, even if she did not love him, they have been comrades for a long time. Mulan was just going to potentially snatch his True Love. Very selfish, not very noble...or Mulan-like. The only reason she left to join the Merry Men was because Aurora was pregnant.

      Like I said, I loved it, but just wish they hadn't bothered with the whole Mulan loves Phillip storyline from last year, it was unnecessary and cheapens this new, charming development slightly in my opinion.

      Exactly. I don't understand why so many people are happy about MulanxAurora. It doesn't work, what with MulanxPhillip in S2. I'm pro-LGBT but I'm not happy it was there.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Alessandra wrote:
      It actually annoys me that they alluded to Mulan being in love with Phillip in Season 2. Don't get me wrong, I love that she has feelings for Aurora but I can see why people have decided that they 'turned' Mulan lesbian (or bi) because they had been bullied to feature a LGBT couple. There was such an uproar that both women loved the same man but it made for good storyline. Now, Aurora? Perhaps Mulan is just easy?? 

      Plus, Phillip, even if she did not love him, they have been comrades for a long time. Mulan was just going to potentially snatch his True Love. Very selfish, not very noble...or Mulan-like. The only reason she left to join the Merry Men was because Aurora was pregnant.

      Like I said, I loved it, but just wish they hadn't bothered with the whole Mulan loves Phillip storyline from last year, it was unnecessary and cheapens this new, charming development slightly in my opinion.

      The whole "arc" cheapened everthing, about Mulan. Perhaps, you are correct about her just being easy and promiscuous.

      It does not matter if Mulan has feeling for Phillip, Aurora, or both.... she was still willing to steal someone else's True Love, instead of just waiting for hers to finally come. Like you said, it is selfish and dishonorable. Plus, why must everyone need a love interest? Mulan should have just been a strong female character, who cares deeply for her friends.

      However, I do like that Mulan joined the Merry Men. She is not cut out for palace life.... she needs adventure, and friends she can trust.

        Loading editor
    • I'm Sleeping Warrior, because MulanxPhillip didn't have any chemistry at all. I see them just like good friends, I think Mulan was more concern about Aurora than Phillip did.

      Anyway, I'll be happy if they don't do MulanxRobin, because is really random and out of place...

        Loading editor
    • SlayerNina wrote:

      Anyway, I'll be happy if they don't do MulanxRobin, because is really random and out of place...

      If they do go there, that will be the death of OUaT.... literally, the final nail in the coffin.

      Robin Hood is Regina's new True Love. Then again, Mulan seems to like stealing people's true loves. 

        Loading editor
    • ugh cant we not get political for once -_- i meant that Mulan could save a cute girl idk....

      Tho i could see a Mulan/Tinkerbell ship sailing...Tinkerbell would be sooo cute with Mulan :O

        Loading editor
    • Guys, let's not all get wound up with it. I personally like this storyline, having personal experince, it's very common for a gay person to fall for a straight person, I mean what one hasn't one point or another? It's also an interesting concept, because now there's so much that we don't know that the writers could delve into, and create such a cultural storyline with. We don't really know much about Mulan's past, just bits and pieces, and so anything about it could be possible. We just have to wait and see, and I know that we all know the Mulan story; but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be like the original, I mean look at Cinderella's, it was very different. The same for the crocodile and Rumplestiltskin also being the beast. Now I'm ranting, so I'll just stop here, lol.

        Loading editor
    • This is my take. You can disagree with me if you want - I'm not gonna get into a debate. This has nothing to do with the gay/straight issue, this has nothing to do with shipping wars. I am extraordinarily frustrated by this "twist" because it was absolutely, one hundred percent -fan dictated-.

      You can try to tell me this was the "plan" from the beginning, but if that's the case, why have Phillip at all? Why indicate in season 2 that Mulan was in love with him? And once he was out of the picture, why go rescue him? Why? Because up until a slew of irrate "fans" attacked the writers on Twitter, accusing them of being homophobic, they were -clearly- going for a Mulan/Aurora - PHILLIP arc.

      Aside from the fact that it just perpetuates the stereotype that lesbians are tomboys who dress and act like men, Mulan being a lesbian would have been perfectly acceptable, if that's what the original intentions for her had been, but they were incredibly clear in the subtext when she first appeared that her heart belonged to Phillip. Now suddenly we're supposed to believe her true love is Aurora?

      Are we now going to be subject to Mulan, pining over Aurora all season long? Are they gonna introduce another lesbian character to take Mulan's mind off Aurora? If that's the case, why? So they can say they have a LGBT character on the show, now? Because that's sure what it felt like to me. And as someone else just pointed out - are we supposed to be rooting for Mulan, now? She was about to essentially try and snake Aurora away from Phillip... and the only reason she didn't was because Aurora was pregnant. Her -best friend- Phillip... and she was just gonna walk up and declare her love for his wife ? Yeah... that's super honorable.

      This "twist" was a way to appease a loud, volatile fanbase and it was, quite frankly, insulting. It was exactly what I didn't want to see, and that was the suddden transition of a character into homosexuality, for the sake of fulfilling a quota. It's poor writing, has nothing to do with advancing the storyline and cheapened Mulan to the point of making her unlikeable, dishonorable and quite frankly, fickle. Who's she gonna "fall for" next week? Robin Hood? Little John? Emma?

      Am I gonna walk away from Once because of this? No. The rest of the show was great last night... but I am extremely sad and disappointed that the writers allowed flack from a fan base to dictate where their storyline went, instead of having confidence in their own ability and directing it where they intended for it to go in the beginning. They said in an article months ago that they wouldn't introduce any form of a love story into the series without having a good reason for it... well, so much for that.

      If this keeps up and they continue to allow the fans to determine where the story should go, I don't see much of a future for the series, at all.

        Loading editor
    • ^Also very well said. It just felt so token, so fake, so unnecessary. Up until that point, I could honestly say I had no big issue with OUaT, even Tamara's tazer I didn't mind enough for it to really bother me. The show was practically perfect, it was great. And then that happened, and just..ugh. Honestly it ruined everything for me, my respects for the writers and their abilities, everything. I HATE it.

        Loading editor
    • Not to mention if it was planned from the beginning why would Jamie Chung, as of Sept 11th, be making suggests the have Harry Shum Jr. play her love interest? Wouldn't they have told her her character was a lesbian??

        Loading editor
    • Why does it have to be planned from the very beginning to not be fan-catering? 

      Plans and storylines change.

      Frankly, I enjoyed it. It felt real to me and my experience.

        Loading editor
    • Fractuared Fairytales wrote:
      Not to mention if it was planned from the beginning why would Jamie Chung, as of Sept 11th, be making suggests the have Harry Shum Jr. play her love interest? Wouldn't they have told her her character was a lesbian??

      3.03 was filmed long before Sept. 11th.... so, maybe the scene was ambiguous?

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      Why does it have to be planned from the very beginning to not be fan-catering? 

      Plans and storylines change.

      Frankly, I enjoyed it. It felt real to me and my experience.

      It came out of nowhere, there was no clearly defined transitional period from Phillip to Aurora, the past contradicts it, she even had shown some resentment towards Aurora before, up until that moment there was no romantic chemistry between the two, and without all of that there's no way for it to be believable. 

      It's absolute junk. Token. I feel like I could shit a better nod to the LGBT fanbase.

        Loading editor
    • What about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Willow was a lesbian. Yet for three seasons she showed pure interest in Xander and Oz. Who were men, of course. Yet, she changed to a lesbian in season four. There are what we call late bloomers. Some people aren't always ready to come out, and we don't know how LGBT were treated in the Enchanted Forest, she's the first gay character, as of now. I have no problem with it, because it fits easily. The actress isn't told everything about her character the second she gets the role. Also, why don't we just wait and see how the outcome is. We had one little scene, and everyone's being objective to the idea.

        Loading editor
    • Arctucrus wrote:

      It came out of nowhere, there was no clearly defined transitional period from Phillip to Aurora, the past contradicts it, she even had shown some resentment towards Aurora before, up until that moment there was no romantic chemistry between the two, and without all of that there's no way for it to be believable. 

      It's absolute junk. Token. I feel like I could shit a better nod to the LGBT fanbase.

      Perhaps you misread her feelings toward Aurora as being for Phillip. Besides, since when does showing resentment toward someone mean you can't have feelings for them? (In fact, a lot of SwanQueeners base their ship on that)

      I can understand where people disliking are coming from. But, truly, no matter what they do, there will still be people upset.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      Arctucrus wrote:

      It came out of nowhere, there was no clearly defined transitional period from Phillip to Aurora, the past contradicts it, she even had shown some resentment towards Aurora before, up until that moment there was no romantic chemistry between the two, and without all of that there's no way for it to be believable. 

      It's absolute junk. Token. I feel like I could shit a better nod to the LGBT fanbase.

      Perhaps you misread her feelings toward Aurora as being for Phillip. Besides, since when does showing resentment toward someone mean you can't have feelings for them? (In fact, a lot of SwanQueeners base their ship on that)

      I can understand where people disliking are coming from. But, truly, no matter what they do, there will still be people upset.

      Two things:

      One, that's a different kind of resentment.

      Two, bullshit! Don't tell me that you now think that the entirety of season two wasn't implicating Mulan as loving Phillip, and that this therefore didn't come out of nowhere. How about that scene where Aurora asks him about it? How about where Mulan bawls her eyes out with Aurora at Phillip being taken by the Wraith?

        Loading editor
    • Please don't presume what I think. 

      And why does it have to be a different kind of resentment? Are you so stuck in your opinion of season two's events that you can't see it a different way? XD

      Besides, if my friend, if my comrade-in-arms suffered Phillip's fate, I would sob uncontrollably too. You don't have to be in love with someone for that.

      Like I said, I get how it can be unsatisifying for you, I just disagree.

        Loading editor
    • By the entirety of season two do you mean the first 9 of 22 episodes? Yes, she did have feelings for Phillip. But she can have feelings for more than one person. Everyone saw the intimate moment between them when Mulan restored Aurora's heart. That is what set it up and precipitated Mulan's feelings in my mind.

        Loading editor
    • Prince of Hearts wrote:
      By the entirety of season two do you mean the first 9 of 22 episodes? Yes, she did have feelings for Phillip. But she can have feelings for more than one person. Everyone saw the intimate moment between them when Mulan restored Aurora's heart. That is what set it up and precipitated Mulan's feelings in my mind.

      I like this train of thought :D

        Loading editor
    • Arctucrus wrote:
      Utter solitude wrote:
      Why does it have to be planned from the very beginning to not be fan-catering? 

      Plans and storylines change.

      Frankly, I enjoyed it. It felt real to me and my experience.

      It came out of nowhere, there was no clearly defined transitional period from Phillip to Aurora, the past contradicts it, she even had shown some resentment towards Aurora before, up until that moment there was no romantic chemistry between the two, and without all of that there's no way for it to be believable. 

      It's absolute junk. Token. I feel like I could shit a better nod to the LGBT fanbase.

      Well, actually I saw it coming at very least since 2x08. That's when Mulan started showing a lot of concern for Aurora's safety, not only in strictly life-threatening situations (ie: her burnings), not only because she was loyal to the promise she made to Phillip (for such an honour-oriented person, cheating and stealing from her comrades must have been an awful decision to make). She went from passive-aggressive antagonism over Phillip to affection, and with all the time that went by off-screan between 2x09 and 2x22 that might have developed into a crush/love/name it.

      Honestly, I don't understand why people are getting so mad at that. First, I doubt it that regardless of gender and sexual orientation, nobody here but, apparently, me has gone through two crushes or love interests overlapping, until you find out that you love one of the two more romantically and the other more friendly/platonically. That's perfectly normal and does not mean one is a bad person, it's just how feelings work. Secondly, she wasn't really going to steal anything from anyone: she just wanted to take that off her chest. Of course I think she hoped Aurora would reciprocate, but her main intent was just not to shut the thing up anymore. Cracking the news on a woman who's just got pregnant was not probably the best thing to do, she just realised that and dropped it. AND, I don't see any interest towards Robin Hood on her part (not counting that no one knows that there might be a future together for him and Regina at this point, not even Regina herself and Tinkerbell). Please, read youselves before hitting the reply button.

      With this said, KYAAAAAAAAAAH! I've been shipping them since day one. Or Day eight, but that's beside the point.

        Loading editor
    • Maybe Mulan was crying just for Phillip, it's an ambiguous scene, I mean, the whole point will be something like this:

      Phillip: Mulan, what's up?

      Mulan: I love you. But I can't tell you because, you know, you're gonna be father. Bye.

      Anyways, I'm still shipping Sleeping Warrior. Frankly, Phillip is a really plain and boring character without any development. He was walking there. We need more flashbacks of the trio.

        Loading editor
    • MasteroftheHat
      MasteroftheHat removed this reply because:
      Annh I just don't feel like sharing my opinion...I could be wrong so I may have to watch this over again.
      20:01, October 14, 2013
      This reply has been removed

      I'm fine if they have an LGBT character so long as it's not a fairy tale character....or at least, not one we already know. I know this is supposed to be one of those "what really happened" kind of shows, but personally, and I mean this with the greatest possible respect, I think changing the orientation of a character that is already well known would be straying just a WEE bit TOO far from the source character material, particularly if they happen to borrow elements from the movies or the actual stories. 

      As per Mulan, I'm still a bit curious as to what was going on, but I think we still have a pretty good idea. They did exactly what I thought they would (an unfullfilled love from afar,) but with a character I did not expect. (A legend, I mean, or someone who was based off an actual person...allegedly.) No doubt I saw a chemistry between Mulan and Aurora, but I didn't see it as a romantic one. As of the season three premiere I thought she might have still had feelings for Philip. I wasn't necessarily surprised or shocked or anything. But I just can't help but feel that if she IS meant to be the LGBT character (and in her case, bi) then I can't help but feel like they've either thrown it out the window or used the wrong character....but that's just me. After all, the season has just started, so well see what happens. 

        Loading editor
    • SlayerNina wrote:
      Maybe Mulan was crying just for Phillip, it's an ambiguous scene, I mean, the whole point will be something like this:

      Phillip: Mulan, what's up?

      Mulan: I love you. But I can't tell you because, you know, you're gonna be father. Bye.

      Anyways, I'm still shipping Sleeping Warrior. Frankly, Phillip is a really plain and boring character without any development. He was walking there. We need more flashbacks of the trio.

      That would make sense, certainly. But thinking back to the "fear of rejection" quote from the s3 premiere mixed with the shots of Mulan in deep thought after Neal's advice and asking whether or not Philip was around tied with the end result of her crying after Aurora's news still leaves me just a BIT muddled. 

        Loading editor
    • MasteroftheHat wrote:

      That would make sense, certainly. But thinking back to the "fear of rejection" quote from the s3 premiere mixed with the shots of Mulan in deep thought after Neal's advice and asking whether or not Philip was around tied with the end result of her crying after Aurora's news still leaves me just a BIT muddled. 

      She asked if he was around because she didn't need him around. I mean, she was going to tell Aurora this news. If it was Phillip, she's not going to tell his fiancee that she's in love with him. That's just not Mulan. She wanted a private moment to speak to Aurora, then, hearing that she's pregnant made her cry, clearly. It cements the relationship betwixt the Prince and Princess, and even if Mulan didn't expect Aurora to run away with her, it's still the kind of thing that will hurt you.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:

      And why does it have to be a different kind of resentment? Are you so stuck in your opinion of season two's events that you can't see it a different way? XD

      They are different kinds of resentment. Resentment in a relationship with some level of romance in it is, when you get down to it, not resentment for the other person, but for the feelings they cause in you.

      The resentment Mulan first harbored for Aurora can be seen in many scenes not to be that kind of resentment, rather a resentment for her presence.

      Are you so stuck on your opinion of season two's events that you're blinded from seeing the differences that make different kinds of relationships between people different from one another? XD!

        Loading editor
    • So that resentment can't turn into romance? I think it can, and clearly, it did.

      I apologize, my earlier statement came out harsher than I intended. It's my opinion that we all get stuck on our theories, especially those that have been with us for a while, and that sometimes blocks us from seeing events in a different light, even when presented with evidence.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      MasteroftheHat wrote:

      That would make sense, certainly. But thinking back to the "fear of rejection" quote from the s3 premiere mixed with the shots of Mulan in deep thought after Neal's advice and asking whether or not Philip was around tied with the end result of her crying after Aurora's news still leaves me just a BIT muddled. 

      She asked if he was around because she didn't need him around. I mean, she was going to tell Aurora this news. If it was Phillip, she's not going to tell his fiancee that she's in love with him. That's just not Mulan. She wanted a private moment to speak to Aurora, then, hearing that she's pregnant made her cry, clearly. It cements the relationship betwixt the Prince and Princess, and even if Mulan didn't expect Aurora to run away with her, it's still the kind of thing that will hurt you.

      Okay good, so then I was interperiting things correctly then. I didn't think that would be the case. It'd be foolsh to tell someone that they're in love with their fiance...that would just get ugly. I sort of expected that kind of thing to happen with the elusive LGBT character...(the whole unfullfilled love from afar thing) but I didn't really expect it to be with Mulan of all people. I know some interpet their chemistry differently in Season 2 though, so I guess it doesn't surprise me. Although choice of character still seems to be a bit shaky to me.  

        Loading editor
    • MasteroftheHat wrote:

      I know some interpet their chemistry differently in Season 2 though, so I guess it doesn't surprise me. Although choice of character still seems to be a bit shaky to me.  

      Maybe a little. XD But if I take a step for a moment and pretend we didn't get any scoops or preconcieved notions from the Internet, I find that I kind of like it.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      MasteroftheHat wrote:

      I know some interpet their chemistry differently in Season 2 though, so I guess it doesn't surprise me. Although choice of character still seems to be a bit shaky to me.  

      Maybe a little. XD But if I take a step for a moment and pretend we didn't get any scoops or preconcieved notions from the Internet, I find that I kind of like it.

      I suppose, and I  guess I don't really mind it (for this show that is) Outside of ONCE though, I much prefer to see Mulan with Shang....call it "Disney Loyalist" acting up again....but even though she carried a torch for Philip (and apparently Aurora too) ONCE's Mulan seems like the kind of girl who do pretty well on her own. (Although a companion never hurts.) Now that I see it though, I like the chemistry between Mulan and Robin Hood, or the possibility if any.

        Loading editor
    • I think clearly Mulan is bi-sexual. She focused her love onto Phillip (Who wouldn't? They fought battles together, he's a nice, noble guy who would give his life for these 2 women) I believe she loved him and yes, even resented Aurora's awakening. Perhaps, Mulan saw him as her match.

      But, once Phillip was taken by the wraith, and Aurora and Mulan became a team, with Mulan serving as a protector, it could be very easy to fall in love in such close quarters. Aurora is fiesty, spirited, kind and beautiful. A good match for Phillip, and seeing him as her equal, a good match for Mulan too. Plus, regarding how they flipped from resentment to love can be explained by how much time they spent together while MM and Emma were in the EF and all the time after (the quest to retrieve Phillip) I liked the idea that the attraction and intimacy was spawned by Mulan restoring Aurora's heart, cute. It is my belief that although Mulan could be classed as bi-sexual, she could just be attracted to whatever beautiful soul she's drawn to and perhaps would not label herself gay or straight. Although, her 'fear of rejection' comment leads me to believe there is prejudice in the EF too, and she feels she needs to hide her sexuality. 

      I think impregnating Aurora though is the show's way of saying 'There, you got your LGBT character now but that's all your getting'  SleepingWarrior will never be a couple but I hope Mulan does find another love, I'm still holding out hope for Li Shang. Aurora should be her only girl.

        Loading editor
    • Princess Alessandra wrote:
      I think clearly Mulan is bi-sexual. She focused her love onto Phillip (Who wouldn't? They fought battles together, he's a nice, noble guy who would give his life for these 2 women) I believe she loved him and yes, even resented Aurora's awakening. Perhaps, Mulan saw him as her match.

      But, once Phillip was taken by the wraith, and Aurora and Mulan became a team, with Mulan serving as a protector, it could be very easy to fall in love in such close quarters. Aurora is fiesty, spirited, kind and beautiful. A good match for Phillip, and seeing him as her equal, a good match for Mulan too. Plus, regarding how they flipped from resentment to love can be explained by how much time they spent together while MM and Emma were in the EF and all the time after (the quest to retrieve Phillip) I liked the idea that the attraction and intimacy was spawned by Mulan restoring Aurora's heart, cute. It is my belief that although Mulan could be classed as bi-sexual, she could just be attracted to whatever beautiful soul she's drawn to and perhaps would not label herself gay or straight. Although, her 'fear of rejection' comment leads me to believe there is prejudice in the EF too, and she feels she needs to hide her sexuality. 

      I think impregnating Aurora though is the show's way of saying 'There, you got your LGBT character now but that's all your getting'  SleepingWarrior will never be a couple but I hope Mulan does find another love, I'm still holding out hope for Li Shang. Aurora should be her only girl.

      I agree entirely. Well said. :)

        Loading editor
    • I wouldn't be too hopeful about a homosexual relationship happening. These are characters closely associated with Disney. Homosexuality is depicted on ABC and other Disney owned companies, but as far as I know not in anything that can be associated with the Disney brand. I especially can't see them allowing a homosexual relationship between two Disney princesses (okay Mulan may or may not be a princess, but Aurora certainly is). Last night's scene strongly hinted at one but still left things somewhat ambigious. That might be as far as it ever goes. 

        Loading editor
    • I thought last night's twist for Mulan's love interest was really great.  It was great, "no way!" moment in a world where we have so many spoilers online and pretty much know what's going to happen before we watch our shows.  And it felt really natural.  I didn't view it as a forced plot. 

      Sadly for Mulan, she has to bury her love for now, out of respect for Aurora and Phillip having a baby.  I liked, then, that she decided to join the band of Merry Men.  That, too, felt natural.  Good writing.  Will be interesting to see how this story arc progresses.

        Loading editor
    • Mtensmey wrote:
      I wouldn't be too hopeful about a homosexual relationship happening. These are characters closely associated with Disney. Homosexuality is depicted on ABC and other Disney owned companies, but as far as I know not in anything that can be associated with the Disney brand. I especially can't see them allowing a homosexual relationship between two Disney princesses (okay Mulan may or may not be a princess, but Aurora certainly is). Last night's scene strongly hinted at one but still left things somewhat ambigious. That might be as far as it ever goes. 

      As much as I agree, I wouldn't be surprised if there was one that happened anyway. I too have wondered about the same issues though. But then again, this IS an ABC show. This isn't exactly Disney Channel material anyway. (Well, okay, maybe in anohter age, sure.) 

        Loading editor
    • If it wasn't the people who were on the chat room during the airing of last night episode I wouldn't have thought that there was never anything romantic going on between Aurora, and Mulan. Based on other fans reactions I decided to take another look at these scene, and pay close attention to characters.

      That being said the episode does indicate that Aurora and Mulan have a close relationship, and that there is feeling beyond friendship between the them. Those feelings don't have to be romantic, they can also be a familial or sisterly bond. Which both of these options can lead to the same result. The episode doesn't indicate what the exact nature of Mulan's feeling for Aurora are, since that aspect was left a bit more ambiguous. I need more evidence before making any kind of assumption. Besides if she she is going to end up with anyone it will be a male or female Shang.

      On a side note Mulan is a great role model, and her sexual orientation shouldn't change anyone opinion about the character. If it turns out she is gay all it would do is expand her fanbase, but it shouldn't change why she is someone we can admire and respect.

        Loading editor
    • I don't know, Disney Channel is taking the same route. A lesbian couple is or has appeared on Good Luck Charlie, I'm not sure if it's happened or not yet, I don't keep up with the show. So I think Disney might stand by it. Besides, they've already suggested homosexuality with Mulan now, so it wouldn't make sense to drop it.

        Loading editor
    • Lol im just hoping for Lilian Shang x'D but lol some of you guys all just seem like it has to be written on everyones forhead straigth or gay like there was straight written on Mulans forhead from her first appearence. xD 

        Loading editor
    • Levi.goodliff wrote:
      Lol im just hoping for Lilian Shang x'D 

      Lilian Shang?

      Shang was Captain Li Shang's given name, Li was his surname. 

        Loading editor
    • ChocolatEyes613 wrote:
      Levi.goodliff wrote:
      Lol im just hoping for Lilian Shang x'D 
      Lilian Shang?

      Shang was Captain Li Shang's given name, Li was his surname. 

      Joke killer.

        Loading editor
    • I do think this is as far as Mulan's interest in women is going to go. There's no way a relationship between her and Aurora's going to happen. There is no way Disney would allow them to have a character who is clearly based on a Disney Princess leave her prince baby-daddy for another female Disney character/Chinese folk-hero. The producers say Disney gives them a lot of latitude but I think that's pushing it.

      Mulan will move on and get with someone else who will probably be male. It was heavily implied that she had a thing for Phillip so she's probably bisexual. The show will have had its token LGBT character and the only scene (at least with that character) depicting homosexual interest will be left ambigious enough so that people who don't want to see won't, like so many have. The show might have another character who is more explicitly LGBT, but it probably won't be an established Disney character. 

      Like it or hate it, that's what I think is going to happen. 

        Loading editor
    • Maybe give Disney more credit? XD

        Loading editor
    • The point is, this show shouldn't be a platform for anyone's agendas. If it doesn't furthur the storyline in any way, it has no purpose being included. That includes -anyone's- relationship on the show. If it's there, there should be a reason for it... and I don't see any purpose for Mulan being into Aurora, except to say they did the "lesbian" thing. It adds nothing to the character and most definitely adds nothing to the storyline.

        Loading editor
    • I'm still holding out for Mulan/Aurora/Phillip. I mean, in all likelihood it won't happen because "family show" and all, but, seriously, they're my OT3.

        Loading editor
    • Fractuared Fairytales wrote:
      The point is, this show shouldn't be a platform for anyone's agendas. If it doesn't furthur the storyline in any way, it has no purpose being included. That includes -anyone's- relationship on the show. If it's there, there should be a reason for it... and I don't see any purpose for Mulan being into Aurora, except to say they did the "lesbian" thing. It adds nothing to the character and most definitely adds nothing to the storyline.

      I quite disagree. If that 20 seconds was so terrible, maybe you should find another show.

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:
      I'm still holding out for Mulan/Aurora/Phillip. I mean, in all likelihood it won't happen because "family show" and all, but, seriously, they're my OT3.


      I think it's wrong to rule out homosexuality just because it's a "family show". There were several sexual references on the show (like when Hook pinned Emma down when they were fighting and said that he usually does more enjoyable things to a woman on her back). There was even cussing on the show ("Filet the Bitch!" Classic!). I would hardly call OUAT a "family show" in the traditional sense. Anyway, the fact that most people think homosexuality isn't "family" material just shows how much society has influenced us, even subconsciously. The writer's may support the LGBT community, hell, even Disney may support it for all I know, but the fact that they never go that extra mile to actually portray it in any way speaks volumes. People always play the race card. But apparently, homosexuality is propaganda or some shit they either silently support it or they do nothing. Change will never happen if people don't step outside the box. How about challenging these notions people have about one another instead of always playing it safe just to please the masses.

        Loading editor
    • Don't forget polyamory. I mean, god forbid that happen on mainstream television, right?

      I'd love if OUaT were a more progressive show on this front than it is. I don't, however, realistically expect it to change (the whole "Mulan is in love with Aurora but ALAS THEY CANNOT BE TOGETHER because Aurora is STRAIGHT, and PREGNANT" thing, and all)—and they have already pulled the "family show" crap to attempt to handwave why it took them THREE SEASONS to have an LGBTQIA character even mentioned on a show about love.

      Hence the scare quotes on family show, yeah?

        Loading editor
    • ^^ THIS ^^

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:
      Don't forget polyamory. I mean, god forbid that happen on mainstream television, right?

      Because, OUaT will totally be able to pull that off.... they could barely pull off a simple sex scene between Mary Margaret and David, last season.

      There have been mainstream shows that have referenced  open marriages, and other similar relationships.... it is just that it is not usually central plot point. 

        Loading editor
    • Holy cow. Why can't you guys just chill and enjoy the show and not get all political or whatever. Enjoy the story.

      I'm not a homophobe however,

      I am part of a Christian organization that doesn't support homosexual acts or any

      "fornication" at all. But I'm not sitting here trying to please my tastes by even hinting that the show be more moral or "christian". and telling others to just accept it.

      I'm enjoying the darn show. And the story is FAR more important to me then seeing LGBT or a certain race or anything more "christian-ish" for that matter. The story is perfect.

      Can't you all just enjoy the story ;/

        Loading editor
    • In the case of Mulan/Aurora/Phillip, personally, it's not about *politics* so much as me watching the show and going "wow so Phillip and Aurora love each other BUT ALSO Phillip and Mulan are clearly in love too and Mulan/Aurora are adorable squeeeeee!, clearly the solution is a ménage à trois" 

      which is no different from how Captain Swan shippers are having collective squeefests over how hard the writers have been pushing it in this season

      that it would be a progressive and brave move on OUaT's part to make it canon is less the point and more a nice bonus.

      As far as politics goes—I'm a big believer in the importance of socially conscious writing, inclusiveness, et cetera, so I'm a proponent of diversity in all aspects in all of my fandoms; you don't care that OUaT is not doing so well on this front, but I notice and it effects the way I view the show.

      To use an example that isn't politically charged: I grew up in a ranching town and have been around working horses all my life—most fantasy fiction has chestnuts, bays, greys, and blacks, and it gets jarring after a while because I'll watch and be like "so do paints and pintos and roans and so on just... not exist in this world?" which is obviously ridiculous because they're horses and who cares, but in my head when I think "horse" solid coats are some of the last to enter my mind. So, when OUaT gave Henry a horse and that horse was a pinto, I was stupidly happy because, you know, pintos are awesome.

      People and the varieties thereof are exponentially more important to me than horse coloring—so much more that it's almost absurd to try to compare the two, but the basic principle of "yay visible diversity!" is still there, just magnified by thousands and thousands when it's about people and not animals.

      re: polyamory: is not actually as hard to pull off as you'd think, especially on a show like OUaT where talking about/examining feelings is an accepted mode of storytelling and not just filler between plot-y scenes. You don't actually have to show those involved rolling around in bed (and personally I'd prefer they didn't—sex just sort of makes me roll my eyes, generally, especially in fiction). More important is the relationship between the characters (see previous flailing about how Mulan and Aurora and Phillip are all head-over-heels for each other). There's not a need for anything more than the kissing we've already seen in-show.

      I mean there is something of a stereotype that poly relationships are just about sex (because... reasons?), but like SkyCloud was saying, that's zero reason for OUaT not to subvert that.

        Loading editor
    • Poly relationships? With 13 years or younger watching?

      Serizly, when it all comes down to it, its just a show. And a really good on too.

      Just enjoy it for peets sake ;D

        Loading editor
    • Bad, this is a discussion board, which is what people are doing. Some people find it fun to disect their favorite shows. Nobody's forcing you to read the threads, there's no need to try to get people to stop talking. This is exactly how a lot of people enjoy the show, especially the kinds of people who take to internet sites like this one. :D

      Besides, this is not a kids' show. Children really shouldn't be watching, considering all the murder and cursing and sexual innuendo and implied rape.

        Loading editor
    • Utter solitude wrote:
      Bad, this is a discussion board, which is what people are doing. Some people find it fun to disect their favorite shows. Nobody's forcing you to read the threads, there's no need to try to get people to stop talking. This is exactly how a lot of people enjoy the show, especially the kinds of people who take to internet sites like this one. :D

      Besides, this is not a kids' show. Children really shouldn't be watching, considering all the murder and cursing and sexual innuendo and implied rape.

      I know it's a discussion board. ^.^ Thats why I'm throwing in my own discussion on how I feel.

      As you guys are. with how you feel.

        Loading editor
    • What's wrong with poly relationships? Some people simply aren't monogamous, just like there are some people who are strictly monogamous and some people who aren't romantically inclined at all. And if everyone involved is an informed, consenting adult and there's open and clear communication between them, why force polyamorous people to be monogamous?

        Loading editor
    • TNOandXadric wrote:
      What's wrong with poly relationships? Some people simply aren't monogamous, just like there are some people who are strictly monogamous and some people who aren't romantically inclined at all. And if everyone involved is an informed, consenting adult and there's open and clear communication between them, why force polyamorous people to be monogamous?

      I suppose, one can make the argument, that Anita's werewolf pack was polyamorous.... depending on how one, interprets it.

        Loading editor
    • Nothing is wrong with poly relationships, different people have different preferences. But in Western civilization it is highly uncommon and it's even forbidden by law in many countries so that's why people have a hard time to accept it. But (there is always "but" lol), it is Enchanted Forest we are talking about so maybe it is not so strange there to have poly relationship.

        Loading editor
    • ...actually I would think the FTR would have big taboos against poly relationships on account of the whole "One True Love" thing or, at best "One True Love At A Time" in cases where the first OTL dies. Like a kind of "A's True Love is B, therefore she cannot also be in love with C" sort of thing, like A loving C somehow contradicts A also loving B.

      I mean, do we ever see any of the (real) pairings fall out of love with each other? the relationships that don't work for reasons other than death or external factors like imprisonment are (a) Graham/Regina, which failed because she was controlling him via heart [ick], (b) Milah/Rumpel, which the writers keep pushin was never True Love at all ("I never loved you!"), and (c) Cora/Rumpel, which ended because Cora took out her own heart and shut herself off emotionally so she couldn't love, and possibly other minor ones that I'm forgetting? Things like David/Kathryn don't count, because they were only together because of the curse.

      So there's definitely a theme in the show itself of people only ever having one True Love at a time, with any broken relationships getting put down to "not actually True Love" and death being, from what I gathered in the first two seasons, the only real way of ending a True Love (even with Emma/Neal, they haven't seen each other in ten years and they ended on really awful terms [he got her sent to jail for gods sake], and yet we have them declaring their love for each other all over again). In three, the writers have started exploring multiple True Loves, with Mulan/Aurora and the unrelenting Captain Swan and the Regina/Robin... thing, but in the case of the former it's (apparently, textually) unrequited, and in the latter two the former love interest is dead or presumed dead, so...

      Food for thought.

        Loading editor
    • Unless it's not "one" true love, and all we've seen is bad examples XD

        Loading editor
    • ^ I really hope it's that and not OTL actually being a thing. Maybe now that Neal is in Neverland it'll become more clear... (although I don't ship E