The official Animal Crossing: New Horizons guide revealed the relationship between Flick and C.J.

[jiojiop]

If they dislike queerbaiting so much then they should blame the people who write the characters that way, not the "delusional" lgbt fanbase that is only having fun with the little representation we get But no, it' s easier to pick a petty fight agaisnt gay ppl for "overreacting" and "ruining the friendship" of two fictional characters as if it was our fault the media loves to queerbait us

Absolutely. That's why I said people calling others delusional for shipping two characters is toxic. It's insulting and belittling and it doesn't create a good discussion.

But I can understand that some people might be annoyed at militant shippers. I haven't seen that on this site, but some people are a little too adamant about their headcanons (even to the point of demanding that creators make it official). When people 'push' their headcanons - same-sex or opposite-sex - on others or have it inadvertently pushed on others (thanks to Twitter's stupid algorithms) who don't ship them to the point of constant overexposure, this can cause irritation with the fandom. And that's not restricted to gay ships or even gay people with gay ships. I do see plenty of straight girls and guys with gay ships, so it's a bit more nuanced - and that can possibly be seen as... not positive representation in a ship but simply using gay people for straight people's fantasies.

Also there are already enough portrayals of friendship in media, specially between people of the same gender because that is all they are allowed to be in most media. Why you all acting as if there was a shortage of m/m or f/f friendships every time gay couples are mentioned? If there is a shortage of friendships in media its for friendships between men and women because those can't even breathe the same air without being made a couple.

There reallllly is a shortage of m/f friendships in media. I absolutely hate it that everyone has to be paired up into forced boy-girl romances. Man, don't get me started on Stranger Things... and It! But there is also a real shortage of f/f friendships portrayed. Look up the Bechdel Test.

 

[SheepMareep]

WEDDING SEASON IS A THING NOW TIME TO GET FLICK AND CJ MARRIED EVERYONE

 

[cottoncandylover]

i dont have a whole lot to add since ppl have pretty adequately said what i would have but it does upset me when lgbt people get lumped in with "rabid/militant/etc shippers" :/ I dont think there has been a single one of that kind of person in this thread, only lgbt people explaining why they might be upset with nintendo refusing to represent us (besides as dehumanizing caricatures) while still wanting our money, and how frustrating it is that people consistently meet this kind of discussion with "well its a kids game and i dont need romance in it!" despite the fact that animal crossing has always featured hetero romance... but lgbt always, always get lumped in with the same shippers who only like us for our ship appeal and dehumanize us just as much, just in a different way. Im sure somewhere out there, there are people who loved flick and cj purely as a ship and are just being weird about them "not being canon" even though i havent seen that kind of behaviour myself, but in this particular thread no one has done so so i dont really see why stuff like that is being brought up...
I also just wanna talk about the japanese translation of the game bc me and my friend were talking abt it the other day- i think sga relationships are coded differently in different cultures. In the eng localization its perfectly reasonable to suggest that cj calling flick his "partner" was a nod to the lgbt community because sga people very commonly use the word partner, both for our safety and also just as a cultural thing at this point. On the other hand japan doesnt appear 2 use this word the same way, and actually gay relationships are verrrrrry subdued in jpn media- nothing is ever really confirmed unless its bl/gl which is a genre specifically about gay people so is kind of necessary. The fact that the jpn version brings up that flick is excommunicated from his father can kind of imply that flick came out to his dad and wasnt accepted, which along with the fact that he and cj are roommates at all has the same implication in jpn culture that they could be a couple. I'm not saying theyre "canon" or anything, my point is that its interesting that the nature of cj and flicks relationship is different in the eng and jpn versions of the game and both have their own sort of hints specific to the cultures they are directed to that these 2 might be in a relationship

 

[Pickler]

They released an image that revealed the relationship between Flick and C.J.

Source

Whoa whoa whoa, it does not say they're not a couple. They are.

 

[Krissi2197]

Now that we can make a wedding venue I cant wait to make wedding photos between flick and CJ lol

 

[Solio]

Reading "gay-washing" made me age 50 years (talking about the original person, not the people quoting them) Maybe uhh dont rebrand a term with a long history of racism just to take a stab at gay people. Theres a whole lotta wrong there. Please just let people have the fun and representation they want, even if its vague. LGBT people are more than just "shippers". If shipping/headcanons/whatever truly bothers you, you need a serious break from the fandom. I'm not saying this to be rude, its genuinely concerning that people interpreting a game differently than you makes you make homophobic remarks. You need to reflect.

Seeing as this is referring to my original post I just wanted to apologize if my comment came off as offensive. That was most certainly not my intention. For me, love is love. Genders don't matter.
What I wanted to say is that I take issue with people immediately jumping to conclusions and immediately labelling a close relationship between two characters as romantic. This is a form of labelling which I am not a fan of. Sexuality is something personal which you can't just tell from looking at someone (well, unless it's explicit). I saw someone mention "queerbaiting" earlier. That's exactly where my issue lies. It means acting a certain way implies you're queer, which is a form of stereo-typing/labelling. As we all know, there's no correlation between character traits and sexuality. To me it just feels like people treat queerness as some kind of whacky character gimmick they can assign to anyone just for their amusement. I find that tasteless and it devalues actual same-sex relationships.

Not only that, but it also devalues close platonic relationships. Somebody mentioned earlier that there is a lack of platonic male/female-pairings in media and that's exactly why. Everybody who ever had a close friend of the opposite gender can probably relate. People like to jump to conclusions all too quickly when they see a man and a woman together.
If you ship someone simply because they're close to eachother you imply that people can only be close to eachother if they're romantically involved (or related), which is simply not true. THAT is what I'm taking issue with, not the gay relationship itself.
So when people insist on Flick and CJ being a gay couple, it kind of rubs me the wrong way because it implies they can't just be friends. "They're close to eachother, so they're obviously gay". I find it disrespectful and shallow because it's labelling based purely on a surface level. I realize we're only talking about characters in a video-game, but this happens in reality too.

I hope that explains my stance on this matter better. Again, I want to reiterate that I have nothing against gay or lesbian people. I absolutely would not oppose a gay pairing in Animal Crossing (or any media). I just don't like when people assume things based on an ambiguous term.

 

[axo]

Seeing as this is referring to my original post I just wanted to apologize if my comment came off as offensive. That was most certainly not my intention. For me, love is love. Genders don't matter.
What I wanted to say is that I take issue with people immediately jumping to conclusions and immediately labelling a close relationship between two characters as romantic. This is a form of labelling which I am not a fan of. Sexuality is something personal which you can't just tell from looking at someone (well, unless it's explicit). I saw someone mention "queerbaiting" earlier. That's exactly where my issue lies. It means acting a certain way implies you're queer, which is a form of stereo-typing/labelling. As we all know, there's no correlation between character traits and sexuality. To me it just feels like people treat queerness as some kind of whacky character gimmick they can assign to anyone just for their amusement. I find that tasteless and it devalues actual same-sex relationships.

Not only that, but it also devalues close platonic relationships. Somebody mentioned earlier that there is a lack of platonic male/female-pairings in media and that's exactly why. Everybody who ever had a close friend of the opposite gender can probably relate. People like to jump to conclusions all too quickly when they see a man and a woman together.
If you ship someone simply because they're close to eachother you imply that people can only be close to eachother if they're romantically involved (or related), which is simply not true. THAT is what I'm taking issue with, not the gay relationship itself.
So when people insist on Flick and CJ being a gay couple, it kind of rubs me the wrong way because it implies they can't just be friends. "They're close to eachother, so they're obviously gay". I find it disrespectful and shallow because it's labelling based purely on a surface level. I realize we're only talking about characters in a video-game, but this happens in reality too.

I hope that explains my stance on this matter better. Again, I want to reiterate that I have nothing against gay or lesbian people. I absolutely would not oppose a gay pairing in Animal Crossing (or any media). I just don't like when people assume things based on an ambiguous term.

I don't want to make you feel like you can't have an opinion different from mine, and I'm sure that was never anyone's intention, but I just wanted to point out that the reason many of us came to the conclusion or headcanon that they were dating wasn't because of the way Flick or CJ appeared, or the way the acted, it was because they specifically used the term "partner." I don't really think we were saying they were together just because they seemed close (in fact, we probably wouldn't think they were even friends had they not mentioned that they were "partners") we thought they were together because of the terminology that was used. Of course they can just be friends, if that's how you choose to see them, but I don't think any of us were using their queerness as a gimmick, or as a fun little label, I think many of us were projecting ourselves and our own queerness onto the characters.

Anyway, I don't want to make anyone feel like they have to agree with me, you are of course entitled to your own opinion, so I think I'm gonna step back now unless anyone refers directly to my posts.

 

[Solio]

I don't want to make you feel like you can't have an opinion different from mine, and I'm sure that was never anyone's intention, but I just wanted to point out that the reason many of us came to the conclusion or headcanon that they were dating wasn't because of the way Flick or CJ appeared, or the way the acted, it was because they specifically used the term "partner." I don't really think we were saying they were together just because they seemed close (in fact, we probably wouldn't think they were even friends had they not mentioned that they were "partners") we thought they were together because of the terminology that was used. Of course they can just be friends, if that's how you choose to see them, but I don't think any of us were using their queerness as a gimmick, or as a fun little label, I think many of us were projecting ourselves and our own queerness onto the characters.

Anyway, I don't want to make anyone feel like they have to agree with me, you are of course entitled to your own opinion, so I think I'm gonna step back now unless anyone refers directly to my posts.

Just want to reiterate that I, and I'm sure many others who expressed themselves similarly here in this thread, don't mind if people have head-canons, especially if you're queer yourself. That's totally fine.
But in this particular case, it was covered by several gaming news outlets and very popular on social media, so I think many people felt like the pairing was being forced on them. I think no one enjoys having others opinions forced on them. This being a gay pairing makes it worse because it's harder to relate for some people that don't swing that way.

 

[SheepMareep]

Just want to reiterate that I, and I'm sure many others who expressed themselves similarly here in this thread, don't mind if people have head-canons, especially if you're queer yourself. That's totally fine.
But in this particular case, it was covered by several gaming news outlets and very popular on social media, so I think many people felt like the pairing was being forced on them

How is this any more forced than reece and cyrus? Nook and mable? The pellly/pete or phyllis/pete?

That's the problem we have -- non-heterosexual couples are described as "forced". They are never viewed as natural things like the MANY straight couples are seen as in the game. KK and isabelle has never been described as forced. I've never ONCE seen anyone look at the alpaca duo and say they felt forced.
CJ and Flick, two characters who are never shown directly next to one another but use language specific to a couple-- especially a gay couple-- is somehow "forced" but none of these other relationships are? Because it's a gay couple? Because it makes heterosexual people uncomfortable seeing a gay couple?

That's not a valid argument or excuse. it isn't forced. the community is happy to FINALLY have representation in this game. Prior to NH we couldnt have varied skin tones, non-white hair styles, ambiguous gender identity, LGBT representation, or anything that showed diversity aside from hair color. Now that we FINALLY have diversity in this game the people who have always been represented-- white heterosexual people -- are claiming it is "forced"?
No. Nintendo is catching up with the fact there are more than just straight white people in the world. I strongly suggest those who complain about this feeling forced or influenced by social media to take a good long look at themselves and what they believe.Because it isn't equality or caring for others.

The pairing is not being forced on anyone. You can't FORCE homosexuality onto anyone. It simply exists and that makes homophobic people mad and uncomfortable because it isn't THEIR preference. The game CLEARLY codes these characters as being in a relationship. Even if they had players set up their wedding, hang banners in honor of their love, etc. it would not be forcing it. Reese and cyrus can now be seen getting married and not ONE person has turned their nose up in disgust for forcing a relationship because it's not gay.

 

[ForbiddenSecrets]

I have an issue with the idea that it was being forced on people. What if if had been cannonized? Is that forcing on people? No one was asking others to ship anything some people were just excited that maybe they were being represented in a game they loved.

EDIT: And another thing. The idea that a couple of a difference sexual orientation is hard to relate to is pretty funny. Should I start getting angry at the adorable alpaca's because I can't relate? No of course not that's just silly. I don't want to attack anyone, I'm sure most people here don't really mean to be hurtful, but some comments really are. It's basically just saying that 'we don't relate to you so we don't need to see it but you obviously relate to us because we're the majority'.

 

[Krissi2197]

Reese and cyrus can now be seen getting married and not ONE person has turned their nose up in disgust for forcing a relationship because it's not gay.

PERIOD

 

[Larimar]

Seeing as this is referring to my original post I just wanted to apologize if my comment came off as offensive. That was most certainly not my intention. For me, love is love. Genders don't matter.
What I wanted to say is that I take issue with people immediately jumping to conclusions and immediately labelling a close relationship between two characters as romantic. This is a form of labelling which I am not a fan of. Sexuality is something personal which you can't just tell from looking at someone (well, unless it's explicit). I saw someone mention "queerbaiting" earlier. That's exactly where my issue lies. It means acting a certain way implies you're queer, which is a form of stereo-typing/labelling. As we all know, there's no correlation between character traits and sexuality. To me it just feels like people treat queerness as some kind of whacky character gimmick they can assign to anyone just for their amusement. I find that tasteless and it devalues actual same-sex relationships.

Not only that, but it also devalues close platonic relationships. Somebody mentioned earlier that there is a lack of platonic male/female-pairings in media and that's exactly why. Everybody who ever had a close friend of the opposite gender can probably relate. People like to jump to conclusions all too quickly when they see a man and a woman together.
If you ship someone simply because they're close to eachother you imply that people can only be close to eachother if they're romantically involved (or related), which is simply not true. THAT is what I'm taking issue with, not the gay relationship itself.
So when people insist on Flick and CJ being a gay couple, it kind of rubs me the wrong way because it implies they can't just be friends. "They're close to eachother, so they're obviously gay". I find it disrespectful and shallow because it's labelling based purely on a surface level. I realize we're only talking about characters in a video-game, but this happens in reality too.

I hope that explains my stance on this matter better. Again, I want to reiterate that I have nothing against gay or lesbian people. I absolutely would not oppose a gay pairing in Animal Crossing (or any media). I just don't like when people assume things based on an ambiguous term.

I appreciate ya apologizing for that term eatlier!

Really all I wanna say that the other person didnt mention, it's a bit different saying "why cant a man and a woman just be friends without people thinking they're dating" vs "why can't two men be friends without people assuming they're gay". One is rooted in heteronormativity, the other is rooted in homophobia and toxic masculinity (Neither of which are good). I know you likely don't intend to mean that way since I know you have the best intentions in mind. But I just do wanna point out that even though you feel equal about "forced" relationships in general, regardless of sexuality, that they have slightly different histories and contexts :O

Also, I'm not sure how much you've seen through the thread (I dont blame ya if you missed it) but there's been a few people that explained why the term "partner" can be assumed in the way that they did due to it's history with lgbt people. I wouldnt call it shallow or surface-level, if anything it's probably more reason than most gay headcanons/ships exist. But even still, you dont ever need a reason to write a lgbt character or have a lgbt headcanon, since we simply just exist, with no deep reason or purpose. I hope that all makes sense!! I dont intend to force your opinion to change, but I wanted to correct you on some things since I know you have good intentions in mind in case it helps better understand where we're coming from

 

[Solio]

Discussing is always a good thing because that's the only way we can reach a mutual understanding.

Yes, I agree that they are not quite the same. Men and women are expected to engage romantically in heteronormative society so it's a bit more understandable when people jump to that conclusion.
Interestingly, women that are close seem to be much more accepted. Which is why I agree with you that this issue is related to the way society expects men to act. Women are generally expected to be more affectionate towards others, so women that are close don't seem as .... "exotic" (sorry for the wording). However, I disagree that this is necessarily related to homophobia. Can be, but I think in most cases it's just a case of wanting to be accepted the way you are and being able to be yourself. I'm sure we all know that feeling.


On the matter of the word "partner". It's actually really simple, as people have pointed out. It can refer any kind of partner, be it romantic, business or "Howdy, partner!".
It is true that it is widely used for the former, especially in the lgbt-community, since homosexual marriage is still not legal in many countries, so the terms husband and wife don't seem as fitting, because they specifically refer to a legally-married person. Heterosexual pairs us it as well, specifically if they aren't married.
However, just because it is used that way by many people doesn't mean that the other meanings are less valid. It means that people may have a different notion of that term, depending on their experiences. With words like this, context is important. Since this term is dropped during a dialogue about business relationships, I think people have a valid point in interpreting "partner" as business partner. That doesn't mean that the other side is wrong, however, the fact is that the wording is much clearer in other languages and that the guide also points towards a business partner, means that Flick is more likely meant to be CJ's business partner in that specific instance. Still, that doesn't exclude the possibility that they are dating. It just means that that specific line of dialogue doesn't refer to that specifically.

People are still free to use their imagination, though. I think no one minds. But if you insist on it and belittle others who don't share your opinion or force your view on others, people are going to retaliate, which is probably how this thread happened. The fact that the pairing in question is gay ads fuel to the fire because it brings ethics into the debate.

 

[seliph]

i just wanna point out

https://twitter.com/x/status/1252127957184729088

So when people insist on Flick and CJ being a gay couple, it kind of rubs me the wrong way because it implies they can't just be friends.

i'm sorry but this take (and it's not just you making it) is so funny to me like are yall not friends with your bfs/gfs??? romance and friendship are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Mink777]

I think it’s funny how people are so passionate about this. The book revealed it all. Game over. Move on to something else.

 

[carackobama]

let queer people have or theorise that characters are queer, it’s not hurting anyone lmao. it’s literally 2 characters out of hundreds in a game, so what if people want to read their relationship as gay? I ship it and homophobes won’t stop that

 

[Solio]

i just wanna point out

i'm sorry but this take (and it's not just you making it) is so funny to me like are yall not friends with your bfs/gfs??? romance and friendship are not mutually exclusive.

That is just what I'was talking about. Thanks for laughing at my opinion I actually spent time writing out and tried being respectful... :/
Obviously, you're usually on good terms with your spouse, but it's not the same kind of relationship you have with a very close friend. I wasn't saying that they can't be a couple because their besties. You misunderstood my post.

 

[seliph]

That is just what I'was talking about. Thanks for laughing at my opinion I actually spent time writing out and tried being respectful... :/
Obviously, you're usually on good terms with your spouse, but it's not the same kind of relationship you have with a very close friend. I wasn't saying that they can't be a couple because their besties. You misunderstood my post.

sorry but it's an argument that's been made time and time again and it's always in regards to m/m or f/f couples and never towards any m/f relationships. i've heard it so often that it's no longer frustrating and it just become funny to me. a romantic relationship isn't an upgrade from a friendship, and it does not kill a friendship if it emerges from one. cj and flick being boyfriends does not mean they can't be friends - the word ends in "friend" for crying out loud - and it certainly isn't disrespecting anyone to view them this way.

i think you're generalizing both kinds of relationships (and perhaps projecting but ofc i don't know you) when the fact is there isn't one universal experience but you really shouldn't become romantic with anyone you don't also view as your best friend.

 

[Streaks]

Nah they’re still mega gay for each other.

 

[Solio]

sorry but it's an argument that's been made time and time again and it's always in regards to m/m or f/f couples and never towards any m/f relationships. i've heard it so often that it's no longer frustrating and it just become funny to me. a romantic relationship isn't an upgrade from a friendship, and it does not kill a friendship if it emerges from one. cj and flick being boyfriends does not mean they can't be friends - the word ends in "friend" for crying out loud - and it certainly isn't disrespecting anyone to view them this way.

i think you're generalizing both kinds of relationships (and perhaps projecting but ofc i don't know you) when the fact is there isn't one universal experience but you really shouldn't become romantic with anyone you don't also view as your best friend.

Then you severely misunderstood my post, because that's not what I was trying to say at all.
I never said that CJ and Flick can't be a couple because they're already friends. What? Did you even read my entire response or did you just read that single sentence you quoted out of context (I appreciate it btw... /s)? Yes, I agree with you that friendship can evolve into a romantic relationship. But that is not always the case, you said it yourself: It's not simply an upgrade. What I was trying to say that two people can be really close without being sexually/romantically attracted to eachother. But that doesn't mean that these two relationships are mutually exclusive.