obsessionisaperfume:

peter-pantomime:

ok I’ve seen a lot of us doing what we tend to do when we’re particularly excited about a piece of spn that lends credence to ‘dean is bi’ readings, which is conceding like, “and yes, its ambiguous, and it could mean something else really easily, but if you look at it this way with other things from earlier in the show, you could use it to read it the way I prefer, and that could turn into something later.” and i feel like this tactic is sort of owning up to the ambiguity/polysemy that our perspective hinges on, and acknowledging that this ambiguity could negate our reading.

but with this one…i don’t know guys, i kind of feel like the ambiguity is exactly what supports the ‘dean is bi’ reading. 

to cut right to it, why wasn’t this the dialogue of the scene?

Dean: …Recent events…made me think i might be closer to that than i really thought. And – and I don’t know, i mean, there’s things I wanna experience differently than I have before. You know, uh, I’ve always kinda loved ‘em and left ‘em but…I don’t know, maybe I’d wanna stick around for once, do the whole wife and rugrats thing

Priest: Go a little deeper perhaps, maybe with Gina?

Dean: Yeah…I’m just starting to think, maybe there’s more to it all that I thought, with someone like her

Something like that would be more like something we would go “ok yes he’s talking about a hypothetical woman, but we could interpret it as a symbol for anyone, and that he’s really talking about, just in general, a long term relationship,” and in that way find our reading in the text.

But Dean is not so gender-specific in the speech. He wants to experience things, people, feelings differently, maybe for the first time, and he’s realizing there might be more to it all than he realized. I don’t know, it just reminds me of when I’m talking to my friends who don’t know I’m queer and we’re all talking about the future and I talk about a hypothetical person while they talk about a hypothetical husband. My gender-unspecific language is something they can overlook, but I’m sure some of them go, “Hey wait, that ambiguity is kind of making a statement in juxtaposition to the specifics you’d expect to hear.”

And I feel like it’s a very loud silence on Dean’s part here not to talk about a hypothetical woman here, especially in a Catholic confessional, because I know the church has become a bit more progressive in recent years, but I still feel like one would want to clarify that you’re not maybe yearning for something their teachings might condemn – unless you are. And if you are, i feel like you use language unspecific enough to be safely interpreted in a way that protects you, but that is close to the truth. You know? So you don’t out yourself and say, “I think I might like guys,” but you also omit saying, “I want to have a relationship with a woman.” 

So, tl;dr: Dean’s omissions here speak very loudly. I wouldn’t go so far as to say this counts as Dean outing himself explicitly, but it definitely pinged something in my head to go, oh, maybe the writers will go there this season or beyond. 

This reminds me of the Fayetteville sheriff talking about his partner when everything indicated he ought to be saying wife.

Those are definitely non-gender-specific when you’d expect specificity.