Season 2 Slashed - Stargate SG-1 icons

[magnavox_23]

24 Stargate SG-1 icons slashed from Season 2.

Just so we don't have a repeat of the hate from last time, that means a celebration of the subtextual relationship between Jack O'Neill and Daniel Jackson...If you don't like that pairing, keep it to yourself. ;)



Check out the rest, here. <3

Comments

[veritas_poet]

Stating fact is not hate. There IS no homosexuality between these two characters.

[magnavox_23]

Sigh…



You’re stating opinion, not fact. I have already shared with you proof that the actors have explicitly stated that they injected this subtext into their performance. This has been covered many many times from multiple primary sources. I have witnessed this stated by Rick in person myself, and I have taught subtextual and intersectional understandings of media using this show as a reference. But sure, there’s no homo in the show about going through a big ol’ wormhole (the biggest homoerotic allegory in television - Jack even calls it an ‘orifice’ mmm *subtext*).

Even if there was no textual or subtextual expression in the show, it doesn’t matter. Fandom is a space for exploration of all kinds of pairings, realities and actualities. It is not your job to police that.

By dismissing and denying representation you *are* expressing hate by erasure. It is almost caricaturesque with your geo-political positioning and religious beliefs…

If you don’t agree with me or the pairing that I, and many other fans choose to enjoy and engage with through fan art, just mind your own business. This isn’t for you. I don’t care that you don’t believe in the possibility of a relationship between these characters. I am going to be sharing a lot more of these posts, so go away and let the people who want to enjoy this pairing do so in peace. My posts are safe spaces, and I will not allow you to spread ignorance unanswered.

[eilidh17]

Well, aren't you just precious! This is a fandom (fan-dom) full of fandom writers, artists, vidders and, well, fans. If the actors can ham it up for the fans, and toss around innuendo and subtext with gay abandon, they surely you have the ability to keep scrolling.

[eilidh17]

We went through this shit 20 years ago! Narrow-mindedness is so very lasy century!

Love you work, as always ❤️

[veritas_poet]

There's no "subtext" in a situation where two characters hated each other for much of the first part of the show! Okay, "hate" is too strong a word. But they certainly had personality conflicts and very little patience with each other. If they hadn't been forced to work together in a profession that requires you to trust your team with your life, they would never have had anything in common. It was only through time and shared experiences (especially saving each other's lives again & again) that they grew to have mutual respect and eventually a genuine concern / care for each other.

I was a latecomer to the show, but this is one of my favorite friendships in all of fiction. People insist on cheapening that by injecting sexual deviancy into it. It's almost like they can't even imagine male friendships.

This is EVERYWHERE in fandom. Why not make up your own characters to play out your perverted sexual fantasies, instead of degrading other people's characters by inventing stuff that's not only not there, but not even consistent with who the characters are? This shows you don't even care about the story or the characters in the first place.

[magnavox_23]

Again, all you are expressing here is your interpretation of the canon. If you enjoy how their friendship was shown on screen, that is great, and entirely your prerogative to explore within the fandom.

BUT

Fandom is an exploration of EVERYONE’S interpretation of canon, not just how you see things. Especially when your opinion of slash is completely skewed and a horrible misrepresentation of the complexity and long standing history of what it is to celebrate the idea of two male characters in a romantic, or sexual, or all of the above relationship. If you see that as ‘deviant’, then that is your issue and doesn’t reflect upon the amazing people I have found in this space, and the great friendships, the creativity and the genuine care that it brings.

Now, I have asked nicely, and not so nicely a number of times now - go away. I don’t want you sullying my posts with hate, or have any queer fan see your words and second guess themselves about belonging in this space, or that it’s shameful for them to enjoy something harmless and oh so fun. I am not going to debate you on the legitimacy of Jack/Daniel because there is no need for anyone to justify their OTP or any of their fandom preferences.

Go make your own Jack and Daniel friendship icons, (I have made friendship stuff too, it’s a great space to play in also) do something useful and give, participate in fandom instead of shitting on everyone else’s fun. If you’re a latecomer to the show, then you have very little idea of the prevalence of this pairing in fandom, nor the contribution to fan works made by thousands of amazing, talented fans who have contributed to this fandom for the last 20+ years, out of LOVE. Which is what fandom boils down to - our love of the canon. The canon is what it is. It isn’t perfect, but we all found connection through it, and it gave us the blueprints to build our own worlds and realities within. Don’t come in here with a narrow minded view of the possibilities and disrespect that.

[(Anonymous)]

I can't entirely tell if you're a troll, or if you're being genuine.

Interpreting two characters as being in a romantic relationship, when they are not in one in canon, is never "cheapening" the relationship, or "injecting sexual deviancy." Doesn't matter what the genders of the characters involved are - but I suspect that even this was a non-canon romantic ship between a man and a woman, you wouldn't bat an eye.

Canon is not affected by fandom interpretations. No matter how people interpret the canon, it doesn't change your own experience of the canon. That being the case, there is literally no reason to shit on people for having a different interpretation from yours. It isn't affecting you. It isn't changing your own interpretations of canon. Haven't you ever heard, "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"?

Based upon the public posts on your account, you seem to have an incredibly rigid view of morality and its place in fiction, as you cite a situation in which two characters had sex outside of marriage as "casual immorality," even though you admit that nothing explicit was written about their sexual encounter.

Fiction is not meant to portray a perfect view of morality. It's mean to capture and evoke elements of the human experience, and be interpreted by the reader. There are people in the world who are different from you, and that's fine. Their experiences will show up in fiction. If you can't handle that, you really have no place engaging with fiction at all, because you misunderstand it on a fundamental level.

You need to accept, too, that "morality" is not black and white, in general. It is not OBJECTIVELY immoral for homosexual relationships to take place, or for people to have sex before they're married. These things are immoral in your OPINION, and your opinion has been informed by your religious practices and the way that you were raised. But that does not make it objectively true.

The only objective truth about morality is that acts which harm other people are immoral.

Consenting relationships between adults are not immoral, no matter the genders or marital status of the people involved, because they do not HARM anyone. The entire point of moral codes and ethics is to PREVENT HARM. Wrong actions are wrong because they cause harm to others - not because they disagree with your religion or personal opinions. Can you explain, objectively, without using your religious beliefs as a crutch, why a homosexual relationship would be wrong, within the framework that an action is only "wrong" if it harms others? If not, can you explain why you believe morality and rightness should be defined by something other than whether or not the action causes harm? I would bet actual money that you can't do either.

[(Anonymous)]

In a word: beautiful. Your manips capture perfectly the chemistry between them, the love. Looking forward to seeing more of your work😍

[lisuni]

Hey!! You don't agree with those two beautiful male characteres being in love?!? Then... don't look... it's THAT simple... Just because YOU don't agree with someone else's point of view doesnt' mean YOU are right... people have been shipping these two (I came a little later, btw) so your comments won't change anyone's mind... BUT be careful... they can change yours, like they did with mine... and there's no comming back.
And about being canon or not... the last time the cast came together to read the script written by an IA, it suggested they were together and NONE of the actors or the producer/writer of the show say anything against it... soooooooo...

[solstice0612]

Hi Veritas, I just saw your comments. I think you took an unexpected turn into the word of slash. Slash fan fiction (and fan art) is a queer safe space that has been active and growing since the original Star Trek. Yes, for more than 60 years. In the US and several other countries, actors know this, most script writers know it too, and most fans who read fan fiction are aware of it. Nobody seems to mind. In fact, TV shows and movies sometimes play with slash ideas to please the slash-oriented fanfic writers/readers. If you don't like this type of fiction, don't read it. It is that simple. The very point of fan fiction and fan art is to borrow characters and play with them in your imagination, and create for them a universe that makes you happy. It is poor form to come into our well-established safe space to pontificate about your moral views, and use insulting terms like "cheapening" and "degrade" and "sexual deviancy." That is not at all welcomed in our space.

[magnavox_23]

I'd argue that slash fiction goes way further back in history, and there is a particular prevalence within Christian teachings. The disciple whom Jesus loved is mentioned numerous times within the gospel of John. There are a few arguments who whom this could be, including John himself. There is also recorded numerous forms of same sex marriage performed within the church before the a unified persecution towards homosexuality arose in the dark ages. There are even gay saints within their ranks, such as Sergius and Bacchus.

Just imagine the trajectory of Christian teachings had it not been for the vilification of love by men with power and agenda...

Also, have you seen how much some of that Kirk/Spock fan art is worth nowadays!? There is a resurgence in that stuff from the 60's & 70's. very collectable.