(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

Hm...

In the course of a discussion complaining that Moffat!Who is overly heteronormative, the OP remarks that Fr. Octavian and River are implied to be in a relationship, though we later discover this is not true.

Were they? I mean, clearly it was implied that there was something they both knew that they were concerned to keep from the Doctor, but I never took it as sexual (the possibilities I considered most strongly before we got the reveal about her being on day-release were (a) that River was being blackmailed into co-operating with Octavian's order or (b), less likely, that River was voluntarily working for them to trap the Doctor - but Octavian seemed too decent for that*).

Did I miss something really obvious? I dunno - perhaps I am inclined to presume until other evidence offers that a religious is celibate unless other evidence offers, though I am perfectly well aware that, well, people screw up. Or, indeed, around. But I don't recall anything in the text which seemed to imply a sexual relationship, other than River's personality naturally being a bit flirtatious.

In any case, I'd have said Fr Octavian and his deacons went in the non-heteronormative canon: celibates may be gay or straight or bi or asexual, but they don't understand their lives in terms of the aspiration to marriage.

Unlike a lot of RTD's female characters.


* Outside candidate (c) (River had got religion and was actually a postulant or novice) never, alas, seemed plausible.

Comments

[biichan]

I don't see any relationship either. And the fact that the OP put that on their list makes me wonder if they're purposely trying to stir up shit. Or at least can't take off their het goggles.

[grlnamedlucifer]

>Or at least can't take off their het goggles.<

Yeah, I'm a bit confused how River/Octavian can be used as an example, but Amy/River was shot down in comments (to be fair: not by the OP), when it's really just a matter of goggles on both.

[biichan]

I call troll.

[tree_and_leaf]

That might be the most plausible explanation, yes.

[grlnamedlucifer]

I'm kinda thinking that too, yeah.

[tree_and_leaf]

There is a general flavour of "courting wank" about the whole thing.

Especially as "that won't last, he's gay and she's an alien" strikes me not so much as a matter of fact acceptance of homosexuality as a cheap joke (a funny cheap joke, but still a cheap joke).

[grlnamedlucifer]

Oh good, that wasn't just me then. I had to google that line just to remember what they were talking about, and then when I did I didn't really get how supposedly awesome it was.

[grlnamedlucifer]

If you missed something obvious, then so did I. The only thing I can think of is that they took them "being engaged in a matter of speaking" as gospel truth. Which I thought was fairly obvious to not be true, even as it was said, except to perhaps the Doctor, who looked a bit flustered (but then, basically everything River said in that episode flustered him). I can't say whether it was because I thought Father=celibate though, since I honestly didn't spend any time thinking of him or any of the clerics in relationships before now. *shrugs* But I do agree with your reasoning of them being in the "non-heteronormative canon," now that I have.

Then again, I don't understand why including a het pairing that canon specifically said didn't exist would be included in a list of heteronormative moments, so I'm possibly missing the point.

[tree_and_leaf]

Well, most of the Fathers I know are married (or civilly partnered), but it's implied that they are some sort of monastic or quasi-monastic order, which does imply celibacy.

I am inclined to think the OP is looking at it through her own bias.

I remember that bit now, and I agree: clearly a bad lie.

[sally_maria]

It never occurred to me that there was any hint of a relationship either, and I hadn't even thought religious=celibate, so I don't think it's just you. If anything, I'm one of fandom's natural shippers, so for me not to see a relationship is a fairly strong indication that it's not particularly obvious, if it's there at all.