Neil in response to Dana:
No, what I meant was that his sexual proclivities bear no relation to his actions as a revolutionary. Although there are scenarios in which one
could
argue that his sexuality may have directed him towards becoming a revolutionary in the first place, a man blowing things up is a man blowing things up, regardless of whether he prefers to ... [description of
possible sexual activities deleted]
As I'm sure you're aware, Neil, there's been at least some fanfic written about whether the accusations of paedophilia against Blake reduced his popular support or prevented other resistance groups from allying with Blake's group. If one assumes that the Federation discourages homosexuality -- which I personally consider a very likely possibility -- then Blake's sexual orientation again might be important in terms of limiting popular support for his political cause.
I'd hate to get back in the US politics rant, but as a (politically naive) outsider, it seems to me that Clinton would be a case in point -- a leader with charisma and at least some good policies, discussion of whose merits currently appears to be limited to his sexual proclivities.
Well, I'm afraid tastes differ. And who's to say that one's is any better than another's? If you want to read B7 as a gay soap opera (to quote from an earlier post of yours) then fine, do so. I can't stop you and it would be unreasonable of me to want to do so*. But that doesn't mean that B7
*is*
a gay soap opera, merely that you choose to read it as such. Personally I would consider calling the show a 'soap opera' to be an unconscionable insult to the series. And if you choose to blind yourself to the wider and - IMO - more interesting possibilities opened up by relegating sex to the margins of the action, then that's your loss.
I feel I ought to stand up in support of Dana's exceptionally wide-ranging B7 fiction output, which certainly doesn't all fall into the gay soap opera genre. Unfortunately I can't give examples without revealing her pseud.
Tavia