she’s evolved from a waifish tagalong character into the dynamic, witty, and playful young woman she was always supposed to be.

JOANNE TUCKER?!?!

David Cage is crappy with women and black people. His black men are always goofy and disposable or thuggish villains (I’m surprised he has Jessie Williams as a main character, but considering Cage I wouldn’t be surprised if he had no idea Jessie’s black despite his political activism). His women are hyper-sexualized…

More like Lars von Trier; someone who was once seen as a rising star, but has now been reduced to an asshole provocateur whose films are irritating when they aren’t outright boring.

This is a subject that comes up a LOT for those of us who love the horror genre. Imperiling women, particularly young women, is such a deeply embedded trope that it’s hard to know when someone is doing it because they’re a creep or when they’re doing it to honor the genre. And of course you have to ask why that’s a…

Giving these moments strong, purposeful contexts. Plenty of stories tackle abuse or sexual trauma in ways that are both shocking but nevertheless empathetic. I don’t think Cage’s stories manage that, unfortunately.

That’s a really good summation. I agree - it feels like it comes down to some ingrained gender bias, where men tend to end up in situations where they have greater agency over what happens to them, whereas women tend to have things done to them, with the player acting more as spectator.

Madison in Heavy Rain is treated like absolute shit. If I remember, her introductory scene in the game includes her half naked being assaulted by a burglar with her being “killed” no matter *what* you do...only to learn it’s a dream sequence followed by a shower scene.

I'm mature enough to not trivialize every relationship as sexual, but fun enough to sometimes do it anyway.

Yes, but I think Little China (with the 'beyond sexual' reference) is actually referring to this Fuller quote:

The old Gods and Heroes were NOT Platonic in any way Their passionate regard was meant to be an example of enduring passion. Even Platonic love is originally meant to be an example of perfect love in a perfect world - not brotherly love (which it gets confused with)

From the time they first met, with their first words, they were literally declaring intentions even:

According to an interview that Fuller did with Van der Wolff (posted on Vox this morning) they did survive the drop. Let's face it, this show isn't about reality in any measure.

He also said that who knows what would happen if they shared a six pack. The idea that physical affection would somehow cheapen a deep emotional connection is very limiting in my opinion. I'm not directly targeting you; I've seen variations on this argument in many fandoms that had ambiguously gay pairings. It seems…

I belong to the part of the fandom who's mature enough to not trivialize every relationship as sexual.

One of the things I noticed - and loved - was that Alana made a big deal about Hannibal wanting to hear Will say please. And, yet, that please was said as an afterthought because Will knew what Hannibal really wanted to hear. And he gave it to him.

You're definitely right about that; the romantic coding in their relationship has been present since the first episodes, and by this point I'd say it's pretty definitively canon, kissing or not.

I don't quite understand why they didn't just have them kiss - seriously, it's not like they seem straight at this point - but at the same time I think gay couples are held to a much higher standard of 'proof'. If a man and a woman were behaving the way Hannibal and Will did, no one would argue whether their fucked up…

You say that like there's a quota on gay people. "Well, we had lesbian sex, so the two guys have to stay at gentle caresses."

Well, what was someone from America doing in Lithuania? For that matter, what was someone from Lithuania doing in America? Japanese people can ride airplanes too, you know. It's not some special secret known only to white people.