I find your perspective unnecessarily dismissive on the basis of your taking my comments out of context due to your own predisposition to a misconception of this sort. So I guess, despite what would be my continued efforts, I can't help you either.

No, I don't. While I might like to see the show take its time getting to the point where his sexual interest becomes a displayed element of the narrative (I like shows that are relatively slow-moving and don't "give everything away" regarding personas/perceptions/etc. to begin with), that's more down to personal…

It is shoehorned in. You've taken things I've said out of context a lot. I speak in relation to the narrative and you appear to take it to mean that I'm speaking in relation to society at large. Within the context of the narrative, it is shoehorned in. That's the context I spoke within, that's the notion put…

I think you're being unnecessarily contentious. I feel like you're not actually commenting in relation to the point I made in either comment - as I clarified heterosexuality is shoehorned in and I wouldn't wish for bisexual elements to be either. Just because one thing is commonly shoehorned in does not mean that…

As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuality is "shoehorned in" all the f#cking time. I see tons of movies where the love interest or some one-liner or whatever seems utterly unrelated to the material/characterization/etc. other than to go, "LOOK AT THIS." in some cheap, stupid manner ("Just so they'll think he's cool."…

When I say, "I'm not saying, 'No one says he's not bisexual.'" I mean that in reference to the quotes rather than the erroneous conclusion of the article (which is what the other quote you put there was said in reference to). Because, in fact, the article, title, commenters, etc. here seem to be saying, "He's not…

You replied to someone asking why people were outraged with a justification which seemed like it was full of your personal views, so it seemed you were suggesting you were aligned with those of that perspective, at least. If you indeed aren't "outraged" or similar, I apologize for painting you with that brush. …

You're on AV Club and you can't recognize that the number is facetious rather than evading the question entirely? If he said, "We might actually get into that around…uh…season three or so?" when he knows NBC might go, "Wait, wait wait. No. Not now. Or not like this, at least." or the storyline might shift somewhat…

I'm sure it can be taken that way but, I feel, largely falsely so. He never says the character isn't bisexual - he even implies, with that very comment, that the character actually is but, partially because he's so seldomly involved with men anyway (and, likely - although this is reading into it - there are so many…

It's AV Club and you don't have a sense of humor? You should take what was said in the context it was stated. 20 years is clearly a facetious example used so that people don't say, "You said, 'Maybe in season three or something, we'll actually feature that.' and it's season four now! YOU'RE BACKING DOWN!" He's…

But if he was rarely ever seen with men sexually as a character to begin with, how is it stripping him of his bisexuality to seldomly show him with men? The "outrage" seems more to do with the culture "looking" for a bisexual character than the notion that they're not following the characterization. …Which, from all…

They have a flag? It must be real then.

Is that what we're calling it now? I thought it was Big Gay. Or is it Big Bi? …Best Bi?

100% agreed. But hey, "Your favorite bisexual character is no longer bisexual!" or similar headlines draw more clicks, cause more controversy and generate more ad revenue!

You'll have to wait until at least season 5 for that. And, knowing NBC, you won't even get to the halfway point (2.5 seasons in) I suggested.

Why does this keep being reported as, "He won't be bisexual."? They essentially explain, directly in the quotes, that he wasn't seen that often with men and therefore they're not really dealing with that subject right now. As in, he's bisexual but appears to have a strong preference for women and so they could get…

That you think any song could replace Batdance as the song of the summer proves that you never understood Batdance to begin with.

So you're a big proponent of negating meaning at any level beyond the superficial and saying that those who refer to any such meaning are being pedantic (or should have their views dismissed out of hand)? Even within the context of those who are reviewing films and searching for themes and underlying constructs?

It's not being hopelessly pedantic. It's holding to the tenets of the series. Just because general audiences might go, "Apes? That's those furry animals, right?" doesn't make human beings not apes. They are, regardless of the marketing/superficial/etc. notions surrounding people's perceptions and the series.

To answer your question, yes.