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



## New Horizons lover (Apr 19, 2020)

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

Source *Link Removed*


----------



## xara (Apr 19, 2020)

they’re roommates


----------



## Hesper (Apr 19, 2020)

faiiry said:


> they’re roommates


_Oh my god, they were roommates_


----------



## LuchaSloth (Apr 20, 2020)

I think it's ridiculous that people had relationship connotations in mind to begin with. Not that there would have been anything wrong with it...but, there was never anything to suggest that it was the case. "Partner" is such a vague term for people to latch onto. Especially in a children's video game with cartoon animals...and even more so when you know that they do business together. It was pretty clear to me from the first time I heard CJ say it, that it was a business relationship where his partner made models. There are no romantic relationships between any of the characters in Animal Crossing, and there never should be. That goes for all orientations, obviously. It's just not something that there is any real need for.


----------



## meggiewes (Apr 20, 2020)

@luchasthe only romantic relationship that I ever saw from AC was the Pelly/Pete/Phillis vague pelican love triangle. Plus Kappn and his wife and child.


----------



## Sheep Villager (Apr 20, 2020)

meggiewes said:


> @luchasthe only romantic relationship that I ever saw from AC was the Pelly/Pete/Phillis vague pelican love triangle. Plus Kappn and his wife and child.



Don't forget the power couple that was Reese and Cyrus!​


----------



## meggiewes (Apr 20, 2020)

Sheep Villager said:


> Don't forget the power couple that was Reese and Cyrus!​



Oh yeah! How could I forget our favorite couple? I still want to see them back with a little purple alpaca kiddo.


----------



## hallejulia (Apr 20, 2020)

I was sure they were just business partners but it sure would've been nice if they were an actual couple.


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

I don't understand why some people are saying that there shouldnt be couples in animal crossing. Who cares if there is? 

They may be confirmed roommates/business partners but my headcanon is them being boyfriends lol the guide isnt really going to change that for me.


----------



## meggiewes (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> I don't understand why some people are saying that there shouldnt be couples in animal crossing. Who cares if there is?
> 
> They may be confirmed roommates/business partners but my headcanon is them being boyfriends lol the guide isnt really going to change that for me.



I can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes  it is nice that I can play a game where there is no romantic interactions or love interests. I'm a romantic at heart and love romance. Romantic novels and dating sims are my jam. But it is really nice to have a game where the interactions are simply friendships with no strings attached.


----------



## MidnightAura (Apr 20, 2020)

*I read this too in the guide. I always assumed they meant business partners. In Wild world sometimes there is hints towards villagers romantic relationships. Like a villager would come up and ask what you think of x and y and the responses are either “Just friends” or “Lottsa smooching”*


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

meggiewes said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes  it is nice that I can play a game where there is no romantic interactions or love interests. I'm a romantic at heart and love romance. Romantic novels and dating sims are my jam. But it is really nice to have a game where the interactions are simply friendships with no strings attached.


I suppose but in previous AC games there were relationships so idk why if in this one they actually were in a relationship it would be any different.


----------



## Blue Cup (Apr 20, 2020)

LuchaSloth said:


> I think it's ridiculous that people had relationship connotations in mind to begin with. Not that there would have been anything wrong with it...but, there was never anything to suggest that it was the case. "Partner" is such a vague term for people to latch onto. Especially in a children's video game with cartoon animals...and even more so when you know that they do business together. It was pretty clear to me from the first time I heard CJ say it, that it was a business relationship where his partner made models. There are no romantic relationships between any of the characters in Animal Crossing, and there never should be. That goes for all orientations, obviously. It's just not something that there is any real need for.



Pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter exactly. Head canons are fine and even entertaining, but it's the people that can't separate that from what is actually going on that have the problems and thus make problems for others where shouldn't even be any. Case in point: I was jumped out of the blue because I stated the fact that Raymond is just copy and paste smug villager with a different skin, but apparently there is some head canon theory going around that he's an LGBT character, thus making the actual fact of the matter somehow blasphemous to them, so they went on the attack. 

Love and tolerate, but please for the love of God, learn how to separate your head canon from the truth. 

That said, I would love to see more inclusive stuff.


----------



## naranjita (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> I suppose but in previous AC games there were relationships so idk why if in this one they actually were in a relationship it would be any different.



let's be real, it would be different because it would be a gay couple... no one ever had a problem with cyrus and reese, or the pigeon love triangle in Wild World, or with smug villagers flirting with female players, or with kapp'n getting married to a woman, and lots of people even saw romantic undertones in the relationship between nook and sable... but the moment some people see romantic undertones between two same-sex characters, it's all "oh well, i just don't want romance in my animal crossing, nothing against gay people of course". right, then why did no one ever complain about the endless straight romances? lol

and also, people whip out the "well, it's a children's game!" argument... again, there's been several explicit straight relationships already, and nobody ever argued that those didn't belong in a game for kids. why do you see gay relationships as inherently more adult than straight ones?


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

naranjita said:


> let's be real, it would be different because it would be a gay couple... no one ever had a problem with cyrus and reese, or the pigeon love triangle in Wild World, or with smug villagers flirting with female players, or with kapp'n getting married to a woman, and lots of people even saw romantic undertones in the relationship between nook and sable... but the moment some people see romantic undertones between two same-sex characters, it's all "oh well, i just don't want romance in my animal crossing, nothing against gay people of course". right, then why did no one ever complain about the endless straight romances? lol
> 
> and also, people whip out the "well, it's a children's game!" argument... again, there's been several explicit straight relationships already, and nobody ever argued that those didn't belong in a game for kids. why do you see gay relationships as inherently more adult than straight ones?


I mean... this was all going through my head but I wanted to give people the benefit of the doubt lol but you have a point.


----------



## Rosie Moon (Apr 20, 2020)

MidnightAura said:


> *I read this too in the guide. I always assumed they meant business partners. In Wild world sometimes there is hints towards villagers romantic relationships. Like a villager would come up and ask what you think of x and y and the responses are either “Just friends” or “Lottsa smooching”*



Ikr, there was a lot of that kind of stuff in Wild World, it felt like a high school drama set in a forest village.


----------



## Insulaire (Apr 20, 2020)

Based on his decor, I think Graham desires a potentially impure relationship with Chrissy and Francine


----------



## Underneath The Stars (Apr 20, 2020)

aayyyyy saw this earlier on twitter, gonna exit this thread now because i know it could just get messy so let me just like the posts i agree with


----------



## MidnightAura (Apr 20, 2020)

Blue Cup said:


> Pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter exactly. Head canons are fine and even entertaining, but it's the people that can't separate that from what is actually going on that have the problems and thus make problems for others where shouldn't even be any. Case in point: I was jumped out of the blue because I stated the fact that Raymond is just copy and paste smug villager with a different skin, but apparently there is some head canon theory going around that he's an LGBT character, thus making the actual fact of the matter somehow blasphemous to them, so they went on the attack.
> 
> Love and tolerate, but please for the love of God, learn how to separate your head canon from the truth.
> 
> That said, I would love to see more inclusive stuff.



What? He’s a cat! How can he be LGBT??
And I agree about Raymond.

I have no problem if CJ and Flick are a couple. But Nintendo says they aren’t. If people want to pretend they are a couple then thats their business.
I don’t really view any of my villagers in any of my towns as in relationships with each other.


----------



## SuperK98 (Apr 20, 2020)

I'd be interested to know what the Japanese dialogue says about their partnership haha. Stuff like that has been known to get lost in localization, like how Gracie and Saharah are men in the Japanese games.

I think it's funny that we're having a fairly serious discussion about the sexual orientation of talking animals in a video game lmao


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

MidnightAura said:


> What? He’s a cat! How can he be LGBT??


I really don't think that this logic applies because, well,

He's a cat. Cats can't talk. But this is a video game lol anything's possible.


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

Why did everyone assume partner meant boyfriend? When I hear partner, I think friends who share a common interest or goal.


----------



## due (Apr 20, 2020)

Insulaire said:


> Based on his decor, I think Graham desires a potentially impure relationship with Chrissy and Francine


Graham is a bit... creepy. For example, yesterday he asked me if it was wrong to be in love with a tilapia. He's also said to my sister *multiple* times: 'Love your new hair. I wonder how it would look on me? No, I'm gonna go ahead and respect your boundaries by not copying you... for two weeks


----------



## Lady Sugarsaurus (Apr 20, 2020)

I mean to be fair.. nothing says that they can't be business partners, roomates *AND* dating. haha

I mean, be it canon or just fan shipped, I don't see why it matters? Let people enjoy their crackships and such.
Not everything has to be spoken out loud to be true.


----------



## ZekkoXCX (Apr 20, 2020)

yeah

_“roommates“_


----------



## Lady Sugarsaurus (Apr 20, 2020)

JKDOS said:


> Why did everyone assume partner meant boyfriend? When I hear partner, I think friends who share a common interest or goal.


I think more people associate partners with a romantic relationship now because it is better to say 'partner' or 'spouse' or 'significant other' because you could in fact be wrong. For example, if I knew someone was dating another person, I'd say partner if I didn't know the sexual orientation of that person. Even more so if you want to be technically correct in their respected pronouns. Because we live in a community that is ever changing, so does terms in different minds of different people.


----------



## due (Apr 20, 2020)

CJ is supposed to be gay.. right, though? Maybe by 'partner' he means business associate? Or maybe just a friend? Non-binary animal?


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

due said:


> CJ is supposed to be gay.. right,



I don't know. That may have spawned from the assumptions with him and Flick.


----------



## Morningowl (Apr 20, 2020)

It doesn’t matter to me either way. i have noticed that in many games people seems to always try to seek out romantic relationships or ship characters. I don’t have that mind set when playing games(even I tho do enjoy romance).


----------



## Nefarious (Apr 20, 2020)

Just because they're business partners doesn't mean they can't also be the other kind of partners. 

The word ‘partner’ has another meaning here in the west, it's commonly used for gay couples just as much as simple business partners. I was part of those that thought it was in the romantic relationship sort of way, for buisness partners I usually see the word ‘colleague’ being used. It’s an easy mistake to make, no need to get angry at others that thought it was in that way. The team must have known what they were doing when using 'partners' instead of 'friends' like in the Japanese version. It's ambiguous enough to look at it in either way.

Let's be honest though, people would have still shipped them even if they used the word 'friends'. Running off with your childhood best friend to live together as roommates and run a business together? Sounds like a start to a romance novel to me. lmao
If people want to ship them, let them do. Romance isn’t a stranger to the series, there’s lots of it already.


----------



## Stevey Queen (Apr 20, 2020)

Well it’s Nintendo. They’re not going to come out and say “and here’s are two gay animals.” Anti-gay people and Karen’s of the world would have a cow and that would affect sales.


----------



## seliph (Apr 20, 2020)

literally no one actually thought nintendo would put a canon gay couple in animal crossing (or any of their child-marketed games for that matter), it's all just headcanons for fun



but also they're boyfriends you can't change my mind


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

NefariousKing said:


> The word ‘partner’ has another meaning here in the west, it's commonly used for gay couples just as much as simple business partners. I was part of those that thought it was in the romantic relationship sort of way, for buisness partners I usually see the word ‘colleague’ being used. It’s an easy mistake to make, no need to get angry at others that thought it was in that way. The team must have known what they were doing when using 'partners' instead of 'friends' like in the Japanese version. It's ambiguous enough to look at it in either way.



I don't know if I'd call it a "west" thing, unless you mean west coast, because I think it's more of a regional thing. Where I am from in the west, partner has almost always primary meant someone such as a friend or team mate, or like I said before someone sharing a common interest or goal. Partner In Crime, Business Partner, Dance Partner, a partner on the police force, partner like cowboys say,  The only time it was used for married couples would be based on the context.


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 20, 2020)

Flick and CJ are boyfriends. I don't make the rules that's just how it is

In regards to the term "partner", I use that word to describe both my best friend (in a "life partner" sort of way) as well as my significant other (in a romantic way, since we are both non-binary). It's a versatile term that's intended to mean "a close bond", whether that's in business, a creative venture, friendship, or romantic relationship, but there's also no reason for it to only signify just one of those things. People can interpret CJ's use of the term however they want...but again, he and Flick are boyfriends, and it ain't that deep

Someone else said it in this thread already but we're talking about Nintendo, here. If anyone was expecting them to confirm that CJ and Flick are in a gay relationship in the strategy guide, I have a bridge to sell you (for 168,000 bells).*

*Source: I am a video game academic/historian with a degree in video game narrative design theory who has been studying queer representation in games (with an eye towards Nintendo) for almost a decade. This is a very typical move for Nintendo's "quality standards" and I'd say it's a solid bet based on similar past situations (and judging from other English queer vernacular that made it into NH's dialogue) that it's almost certainly a case of the localizers putting a gay relationship in the game the only way they could while remaining compliant with those standards. But if anyone wants to talk about queer video game content with me that's a topic for another thread. I'm super curious to know how CJ and Flick's relationship is described in the Japanese version though, because who knows? I may be wrong. They might be gay in that version too!


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

MayorMudkip said:


> *Source: I am a video game academic/historian with a degree in video game narrative design theory who has been studying queer representation in games (with an eye towards Nintendo) for almost a decade. This is a very typical move for Nintendo's "quality standards" and I'd say it's a solid bet based on similar past situations (and judging from other English queer vernacular that made it into NH's dialogue) that it's almost certainly a case of the localizers putting a gay relationship in the game the only way they could while remaining compliant with those standards. But if anyone wants to talk about queer video game content with me that's a topic for another thread. I'm super curious to know how CJ and Flick's relationship is described in the Japanese version though, because who knows? I may be wrong. They might be gay in that version too!



That doesn't count as a source, but if it helps, I believe a Japanese player did confirm that they aren't dating, as the word used for partner in Japanese translation did not imply any romantic involvement. If someone wants to ship it go for it. It's just sadly not cannon like everyone wanted.. We will always have Gracie


----------



## RedPanda (Apr 20, 2020)

I mean.... if anything was oddly misplaced in terms of tone, it was Kapp'ns creepy advances toward female players stuck alone in a boat with him.


----------



## goro (Apr 20, 2020)

still ship them don't care lol


----------



## Fuzzysaurus Rex (Apr 20, 2020)

I don't care and I don't know why anyone would.


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 20, 2020)

JKDOS said:


> That doesn't count as a source, but if it helps, I believe a Japanese player did confirm that they aren't dating, as the word used for partner did not imply any romantic involvement. If someone wants to ship it go for it. It's just sadly not cannon like everyone wanted..


I appreciate the info! But with respect, I wouldn't necessarily count that as a "confirmation". I'm not a localizer, but from my experience learning about the work localizers do, part of the art of that work is interpreting the source language and making adjustments. It's entirely possible for a version in one language to have different canon details than a version in another language (such as what someone else pointed out in this thread already: that Gracie and Saharah are gendered as men in the Japanese version whereas they're presented as women in English version). I realize that CJ and Flick's relationship is deliberately not being "canonized" by Nintendo, but that's my point. The many meanings of the word "partner" (especially the romantic one, which is one of its most common usages where I'm from in the States), would not have been lost on the NOA localization team and was almost certainly an intentional choice exactly because it can be seen as platonic or romantic.


----------



## ForbiddenSecrets (Apr 20, 2020)

Partner is very much used where I live to reference non-hetero/binary couples. (And while it's a great term when people elect to use it I personally hate the hell out of it because people insist on calling my wife my partner instead of... my wife when the same people use the term wife/husband for every other couple but I digress.) I don't see why people are acting like it was weird some people saw the phrase as indicating they were a couple.


----------



## SpiritofAce (Apr 20, 2020)

Who cares. I'm sick of this drama now - it doesn't affect the game whatsoever, so why are people getting so worked up about it on both sides?


----------



## Maiana (Apr 20, 2020)

y'all forgot that lottie had a huge crush on digby <3 (digby was my fav ugh i miss him)


----------



## mizzsnow (Apr 20, 2020)

I always see "partner" in reference to significant others way more than colleague or business partners like... just saying "partner" all on its own sounds super awkward unless you are talking about your actual significant other

bet that was intended by the localization team..... regardless of what nintendo says they are still dating in my mind :^)


----------



## Envy (Apr 20, 2020)

I am totally not surprised, TBH. There was nothing in the usage of "partner" here that insinuated a relationship in any way, shape or form. I mean, C.J.'s partner being someone that made models for him to give to you really tipped me off to this likely being a business partner ordeal and nothing more.

This is one of those things that I was extremely skeptical of the reporting on, and I was correct.

With that said, Animal Crossing New Horizons is still quite progressive on gender matters and does have some dialogue from one villager that is much clearer in being reference to a lesbian relationship (or attraction, I forget which, it's that dialogue with the two princesses IIRC). Plus, no reason people can't still ship C.J. and Flick. It's just not official.


----------



## SpiritofAce (Apr 20, 2020)

Maiana said:


> y'all forgot that lottie had a huge crush on digby <3 (digby was my fav ugh i miss him)


Isabelle left him back in the New Leaf town lol


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

SpiritofAce said:


> Who cares. I'm sick of this drama now - it doesn't affect the game whatsoever, so why are people getting so worked up about it on both sides?


I dont see any drama going on here? It seems like it's just a discussion rn


----------



## LuchaSloth (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> I suppose but in previous AC games there were relationships so idk why if in this one they actually were in a relationship it would be any different.



Tbh, I forgot that things like Pelly and Pete, or Reese and Cyrus were already in.

Guess what I should say, instead of saying that Animal Crossing shouldn't have relationships, is that people shouldn't try to establish canonical relationships where there is no basis to do so. When Nintendo has done it themselves, they've done so tastefully, and it has basically been a non-factor...which is probably why I forgot those previous instances even happened.

Also, there's something deeper to the word "partner" I think, when taken in a relationship sense. Implying that Pelly and Pete like each other, or implying that Reese and Cyrus are an old married couple doesn't exactly have the same tone to it as implying that two characters are "partners"...if you catch my drift. Orientation being irrelevant, of course. I just mean the connotation in any regard.


----------



## SpiritofAce (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> I dont see any drama going on here? It seems like it's just a discussion rn


The post about this on the New Horizons subreddit got really nasty. People who said that they weren't in a relationship were being told that they were wrong and vice versa. I can see this going the exact same way.


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

LuchaSloth said:


> Guess what I should say, instead of saying that Animal Crossing shouldn't have relationships, is that people shouldn't try to establish canonical relationships where there is no basis to do so.


Ever since the first game I always tried to make the animals date each other. Hell even now i see Whitney and Audie hanging out all the time so i just assume theyre dating.

Let people have their fun. Even if it isnt canon people can think what they want. I haven't seen any harmful things so far but that could just mean that I'm in the right places where people dont go at each others throats over this stuff.


----------



## LuchaSloth (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> Ever since the first game I always tried to make the animals date each other. Hell even now i see Whitney and Audie hanging out all the time so i just assume theyre dating.
> 
> Let people have their fun. Even if it isnt canon people can think what they want. I haven't seen any harmful things so far but that could just mean that I'm in the right places where people dont go at each others throats over this stuff.



Oh...I never meant to imply that it's wrong for you to play your copy of the game however you want. That shouldn't affect anyone at all. I'm just saying...the community as a whole, trying to push for something to be canon, when it isn't...that's too far. By all means...I hope you play your game however makes you happy. That's the entire point of Animal Crossing.


----------



## Sloom (Apr 20, 2020)

almost every male horse in animal crossing is gay.
there.
I said it.


----------



## Hanif1807 (Apr 20, 2020)

I don't really care about their relationship. I actually thought they're just close friends in the first place
But if people want to think their relationship in different way, i don't really mind too


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> Ever since the first game I always tried to make the animals date each other. Hell even now i see Whitney and Audie hanging out all the time so i just assume theyre dating.
> 
> Let people have their fun. Even if it isnt canon people can think what they want. I haven't seen any harmful things so far but that could just mean that I'm in the right places where people dont go at each others throats over this stuff.



There's no harm in wanting to ship villagers and NPCs.


----------



## ctar17 (Apr 20, 2020)

I had thought that they were business partners, roommates, or childhood friends of some sort helping each other out.

Had no idea about the romantic relationship theory going around.  I've also seen lots of Facebook posts about other villagers, not just Raymond, being LGBT, but I doubt this is actually the case


----------



## Ace Marvel (Apr 20, 2020)

Maybe they are "roommates" 60s style. Lol. We are free to ship whoever we want, so I don't see harm is people believe they are a couple, even with this information out.


----------



## fallenchaoskitten (Apr 20, 2020)

Hesper said:


> _Oh my god, they were roommates_


Literally what I thought. XP
All this does is make them people headcannon them together more.

"They have to keep it a secret. At all costs. Who knows what would happen if CJ fans found out his roommate business partner had a different type of bug gnawing at his heart."

I personally don't headcannon this, but its cute. As long as people who ship realize the difference between that and canon.
(... I mean I have always headcannon Julian as a fabulously flamingly gay unicorn but I see the rest of the smugs as the usual: genericly uppity, dapper and/or hipster characters that smugs are... that doesn't make it canon tho.)


----------



## ForgottenT (Apr 20, 2020)

I honestly laughed out loud when I saw people reaching their hand so far up that they got it in their heads that it was some kind of LGBT representation when it was always clearly meant as business partners, and now they're getting all worked up over being told no.
That's why I stay off of places like twitter, it's so cringe, and insane.


----------



## Fridaynightcatlady (Apr 20, 2020)

I think people are allowed to ship them however they like. Also, remember how Gracie was misgendered in the western version of the game?


----------



## Nefarious (Apr 20, 2020)

JKDOS said:


> I don't know if I'd call it a "west" thing, unless you mean west coast, because I think it's more of a regional thing. Where I am from in the west, partner has almost always primary meant someone such as a friend or team mate, or like I said before someone sharing a common interest or goal. Partner In Crime, Business Partner, Dance Partner, a partner on the police force, partner like cowboys say,  The only time it was used for married couples would be based on the context.



I’m no where near the west coast, but it’s still a common term from where I’m from. I guess it sees more use in different parts of the country, depending how big the community is there.



SpiritofAce said:


> The post about this on the New Horizons subreddit got really nasty. People who said that they weren't in a relationship were being told that they were wrong and vice versa. I can see this going the exact same way.



I can imagine Twitter is also in a similar hellfire too. I think we’re good here on the forums though. So far everyone has been having a respectful discussion about this topic. Hopefully it stays that way, knock on wood.


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

fallenchaoskitten said:


> I mean I have always headcannon Julian as a fabulously flamingly gay unicorn



Same


----------



## fallenchaoskitten (Apr 20, 2020)

JKDOS said:


> I don't know if I'd call it a "west" thing, unless you mean west coast, because I think it's more of a regional thing. Where I am from in the west, partner has almost always primary meant someone such as a friend or team mate, or like I said before someone sharing a common interest or goal. Partner In Crime, Business Partner, Dance Partner, a partner on the police force, partner like cowboys say,  The only time it was used for married couples would be based on the context.


*crackles knuckles*
In a lot of "the western world" aka USA because idk why when people refer to "the western world" they are basically ALWAYS talking about "White America"/USA.

Not a call out. Had to distinguish that before I could further the explanation. =3

We are talking World War I time to probably the late 70s? much of the LGBT community referred to their same sex significant others as "partners." They used the phrase they could easily, and quickly, cover as a "business partner" or "ya know, like my bff partner in crime!" should they be in a situation where it could be unsafe for them to be outted...

Things have changed a lot since those times. Less covers are needed than before. Thus, it is not as common as before. The term is still used today in heavily religious areas or where you can still lose your job if you are not heterosexual.

... anyways, i don't personally ship the couple.
I just wanted to clear up some confusion is all. =3


----------



## RomanRichter (Apr 20, 2020)

SpiritofAce said:


> The post about this on the New Horizons subreddit got really nasty. People who said that they weren't in a relationship were being told that they were wrong and vice versa. I can see this going the exact same way.



/s Because we always play games only for that, aren't we?  
Who care about actual game quality, we got "partners" here, aren't that more cute and important?


----------



## Jared:3 (Apr 20, 2020)

People are too quick to come to conclusions and this is one of those examples


----------



## Bugs (Apr 20, 2020)

Flick is too good for CJ anyways  

he should be with a beetle man.


----------



## fallenchaoskitten (Apr 20, 2020)

Bugs said:


> Flick is too good for CJ anyways
> 
> he should be with a beetle man.


He would get along so well the the Lazy personality with all the bugs in their floors.


----------



## Amissapanda (Apr 20, 2020)

My two cents is just this: Let people think/believe whatever they want about the characters. It's not hurting anyone. Whether they think it's canon or headcanon---it literally can't hurt you and doesn't affect you. Fictional characters aren't going to have their feelings hurt or anything either. Anyone can choose to believe whatever they want. 

I always found this sort of thing tiresome in fandoms. Imagining has always been part of the fun for me. I shipped my villagers based on interactions and other things. No sense in telling people how they can or can't have fun with the characters. : ) Enjoy it the way you want to enjoy it. You're not imposing on anyone else by doing so.


----------



## aibo (Apr 20, 2020)

The animosity surrounding this topic is exhausting. You can't have a discussion about this kind of thing without parallels being drawn to crazy twitter users or viewing people as purposely being offensive on the other side of the spectrum. Sucks.

My opinion is this: Nintendo would never explicitly tell the public that any of their characters are gay. They are terribly stuck in the past and only just now have _localized _Nintendo games become more liberal towards different identities. Remember Tomodachi Life?
When I read the dialogue for CJ in the game, I was personally pleasantly surprised because the dialogue seemed to so obviously imply romance between the characters, which I wasn't expecting. Despite my not "shipping" them, I definitely fall on the side of the spectrum that thinks that connection was made on purpose. And if you disagree with me, it really shouldn't matter, because it was such a small sliver of dialogue that it should be very easy to ignore- as well as the people that are upset about it, because in my experience it seems to be pretty contained to certain users and threads.

Dunno. Being "roommates and business partners" doesn't necessarily point towards romance _or _rule romance out. 

I think people should just have fun with the game the way they like.


----------



## Cranky Squirrel (Apr 20, 2020)

The localization team knew what they were doing. They designated them "partners" in the English language version so we could make the connotation that they are a romantic couple if we wanted. Nothing in the game guide suggests otherwise. To say roommate and business partner doesn't mean they can't have any other kind of relationship with each other. If it's ridiculous to say that the coupling of them is cannon, then it's equally as ridiculous to say that it's cannon that they aren't a couple. The actual in-game text is purposefully ambiguous in order for the player to read into it whatever we want. There are no "right" answers here.


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

Bugs said:


> Flick is too good for CJ anyways



Agreed. CJ is a bit annoying with all his talk of streaming and subscribers.


----------



## Mello (Apr 20, 2020)

not sure how that guide changes anything. roomates with benefits?


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

aibo said:


> Dunno. Being "roommates and business partners" doesn't necessarily point towards romance _or _rule romance out.



Technically, your spouse is a roomate.


----------



## aibo (Apr 20, 2020)

JKDOS said:


> Technically, your spouse is a roomate.


Nintendo has truly cracked the secret to mastering "representation but really not at all"!


----------



## trashpedia (Apr 20, 2020)

When I first read “partners”, I implied it to be more of business partners than a romantic relationship.



But tbh the headcanons and ships are rlly cute tho so I really don’t care if people ship them or not.


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 20, 2020)

aibo said:


> Nintendo has truly cracked the secret to mastering "representation but really not at all"!


This. Love to play my favorite game: "Is It Queerbaiting Or Is It Queer People Trying To Sneak Some Representation Into The Thing In A Way Their Bosses Can't Argue With?"

(It can definitely be both)

Maybe one of these days Nintendo will move past the Tomodachi Life era of queer denialism. The fact that they allow games with queer content to be published on the Switch is legitimately a good sign, and kind of wild when you think about how recently it was that they wouldn't allow any sort of gay stuff within a ten foot radius of the 3DS.


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

MayorMudkip said:


> Maybe one of these days Nintendo will move past the Tomodachi Life era of queer denialism.



I don't know. Gracie was man until AC was westernized.


----------



## Larimar (Apr 20, 2020)

I'm honestly so relieved to come onto this 4 page thread to see people being really chill with other, thank goodness

But yeah onto the topic: personally I find saying them dating in canon is giving Nintendo too much credit more than actually annoying people x'D Nintendo is a tad notorious for avoiding LGBT representation lately, but given that this series has canon relationships verrrry loosely, I dont think its necessarily too bad in this game. But of course that's just me, I still would've loved LGBT representation regardless! There's not really any reason to not to include it.

Plenty of game companies, big and small, have included LGBT representation, yet they're still very much in-business. I really dont think Nintendo, a multi-billion company, would be at any risk of failing if they included one (1) lgbt character. Have you seen how many people claim they're going to "boycott" a game company over something like this or otherwise, only for them to straight up forget about it and keep supporting the company anyway? Or how theres so many people who wish to continue to support the company that the dent is practically unnoticeable? Sure you might think theres a lot of people complaining, but they're simply a very vocal minority. But that's my personal observation :O

I think Nintendo is fully capable of taking the risk. To say that theyll lose a significant amount of sales is an understandable assumption at first glance, but seeing as how people threatened many game companies with "taking them down" over something they dont like and it didnt work at all lately, I think we're waaay overestimating the actual power these people have.


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

JKDOS said:


> Agreed. CJ is a bit annoying with all his talk of streaming and subscribers.


Could just be a persona. A lot of actual youtubers and streamers have a reputation and image they like to hold up to standards so that's likely why CJ acts the way he does. He doesnt want to let that persona down.


----------



## ForbiddenSecrets (Apr 20, 2020)

I will say it would have been nice to have them as a couple just because AC relationships are just kind of there. There would have been no deep drama, one of them wouldn't have been killed and then called 'representation' anyways, their whole life wouldn't have been based on their sexuality like so much media likes to make non-hetero lives out to be. It would have just been a fish bro and a bug artist who also happen to like each other a lot.


----------



## Cranky Squirrel (Apr 20, 2020)

Is there anything in the text absolutely defining the characters as two males? I don't think it's a stretch to read Flick as female. Is Flick ever referred to in-game as he/him?


----------



## Ace Marvel (Apr 20, 2020)

An example of Nintendo's "inclusion" is at a restaurant in pokemon x/y, there are two men eating together, and if you talk to them they say something like "We're just 2 guys enjoying a meal together. Nothing wrong with that..." so everyone assume they were a gay couple. 

But I don't see Nintendo making direct reference to a same sex couple in a game anytime soon.


----------



## JKDOS (Apr 20, 2020)

Cranky Squirrel said:


> Is there anything in the text absolutely defining the characters as two males? I don't think it's a stretch to read Flick as female. Is Flick ever referred to in-game as he/him?



Flick calls himself a guy, and the villagers use "Him/He "
pronouns for him. Flick is a guy.

I have a picture of it, not with me though, he says something like "Hey, remember me? The guy who loves bugs?"
Villagers say something like  "Flick is in town, he sure does love his bugs"


----------



## meggiewes (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> I suppose but in previous AC games there were relationships so idk why if in this one they actually were in a relationship it would be any different.



It isn't any different. I didn't realize we were talking about a "what's wrong if there is a gay relationship representation". I thought we were talking about relationships in general in AC. There is no way you would know unless you read carefully or were a long time fan of the series (or watched youtube videos on it) about the love triangle sort of progression between Pete, Pelly, and Phillis. The only really cannon romance was between our favorite AC couple, Reese and Cyrus since they are married. Edit: Oh! And Lottie having a huge crush on Digby (which I never really noticed because I never interacted with her that much in HHD past doing my job)

But romantic relationships of any kind really aren't the main focal point of the AC series. The main character (you) doesn't have a goal to date or have a romantic relationship with any of the NPCs or villagers. As far as relationships go, the main focal point of the AC series is the platonic friendships between you of the villagers.

To be perfectly honest, I never realized there was a segment of the community who made fan cannons or headcannons of romantic relationships in AC. It just never occurred for me to do it myself so it didn't cross my mind. Do I care if people do it? No. Just don't try to make it cannon that (for a ridiculous off the top of my head example) Mitzi and KK Slider are dating, but KK Slider is sneaking around with Marshal.

Honestly, living and growing up in a world where the #1 priority is made out to be who you are dating for most of your formative years, playing a game that doesn't have a main focus on any sort of romantic relationship is nice. I hope that made more sense.


----------



## Figment (Apr 20, 2020)

I haven't read this entire thread, so this may have already been said but I think that the nature of Animal Crossing is extremely open to interpretation.

Every village is different and every villager is different. Think about it. You and a friend could both have Raymond. Your Raymond may be a trendsetting, main-outfit-wearing diva, and your friends Raymond may be business cat getting on to everyone about doing their taxes. This is more about personal perception and personal headcannon, as well as small differences between villagers (aka hobbies) within the same personality.

I was part of a conversation with  two of my villagers, one cranky (Butch) and one uchi (Cherry) and both dogs. They were bickering and joking around like a married couple and I thought they were cute together, but it occurred to me that not everyone was going to have the same experience. You may have the same conversation, but it could be with two different villagers. Your Cherry isn't the same as my Cherry.

It's the same to some extent with other characters, even when their personality is technically set. Sometimes I feel like Sable may offer my character a cup of tea and invite me to just stick around and chat with her and Mable. Some people think Tom Nook is much more of a shady character than the game makes him out to be, while someone else may feel like Tom Nook sort of a run down guy who had a midlife crisis and decided to start life anew on a deserted island.

Maybe your C.J. and Flick are more than just business partners. One could easily say that blurb of information doesn't tell that much about them personally. Maybe they're business partners _and_ life partners? The game is what you make it.


----------



## Allytria (Apr 20, 2020)

Maybe it's just me but I think that putting out an article just to do this was sort of a slap in the face and unnecessary . People can do what they want, I think it's harmless. Just let people enjoy things


There is Reese and Cyrus
The Pelican triangle
Kappn and his wife
I think the lgbt community wanting this one thing is okay..


----------



## DinoTown (Apr 20, 2020)

That article: Flick and C.J. are not romantically involved

Me:


----------



## Spunki (Apr 20, 2020)

What about Earthbound and Tony? He was at least confirmed.

I don’t think that it’s important to Nintendo to show a lot of Male/Male or Female/Female Relationships in their video games. The games are still designed for children. I don’t think they want some kind of backlash from Anti-LGBT-People, which wouldn’t even play a game, if they found out that one of their characters is Gay. I know it’s 2020, but there are still such people out there. So they always try to play it safe.


----------



## Luxen (Apr 20, 2020)

naranjita said:


> let's be real, it would be different because it would be a gay couple... no one ever had a problem with cyrus and reese, or the pigeon love triangle in Wild World


If you're talking about Pelly, Pete, and Phyllis they're actually pelicans (I wonder what they're up to nowadays). The only pigeon in Wild World was Brewster and it wasn't until Pocket Camp that they added the trio who work at OK Motors (Beppe, Giovanni, and Carlo); there are no female pigeons in the AC series yet.


----------



## Nefarious (Apr 20, 2020)

Spunki said:


> What about Earthbound and Tony? He was at least confirmed.
> 
> I don’t thing that it’s important to Nintendo to show a lot of Male/Male or Female/Female Relationships in their video games. The games are still designed for children. I don’t think they want some kind of backlash from Anti-LGBT-People, which wouldn’t even play a game, if they found out that one of their characters is Gay. I know it’s 2020, but there are still such people out there. So they always try to play it safe.



I don’t think there’s been any games that Nintendo themselves developed that had any confirmed gay characters. *But*, what they have done is have a confirmed trans character in Mario: Birdo. While Birdo has had some mix reception in some parts of the world, she’s a reoccurring side character in the Mario franchise despite that. I don’t know why they wouldn’t have gay characters in their family-friendly games when they’ve done some representation in their most cherish franchise. It might not be now, but maybe someday they’ll do it.


----------



## naranjita (Apr 20, 2020)

Luxen said:


> If you're talking about Pelly, Pete, and Phyllis they're actually pelicans (I wonder what they're up to nowadays). The only pigeon in Wild World was Brewster and it wasn't until Pocket Camp that they added the trio who work at OK Motors (Beppe, Giovanni, and Carlo); there are no female pigeons in the AC series yet.



you're right lol, it's been forever since I played Wild World


----------



## cIementine (Apr 20, 2020)

i'm taking this as they are supposed to be gay but in a way that's ambiguous enough they can play it off to appease homophobes much like when scenes in disney films featuring lgbt characters can be easily removed for other countries


----------



## Fey (Apr 20, 2020)

I definitely think Nintendo America chose that ambiguous language on purpose. With
how lengthy CJs dialogue already is, there’s no reason to not add “business” in front of the “partner” in order to make it clear. But they didn’t. 

That said, I’m glad. Our boy Flick can do so much better imo


----------



## Hirisa (Apr 20, 2020)

I don't really ship CJ and Flik, but at the same time I can't sit around and wait for Nintendo to explicitly canonize gay characters and relationships. Given their track record for timely responses to social realities. I'd be waiting a long time. I mean, look at how long it took them to add the option to play Black characters, ffs (and please miss me with any justifications that neglecting options for brown skinned characters was because of Japanese "cultural homogeneity/insularity").

So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, they're a couple.


----------



## KnightSky (Apr 20, 2020)

whenever I read the word "partner" I say it in a western accent lol.

But also it seems weird when people are like "There shouldn't be relationships in animal crossing" when there's literally been quite a few:

1: Lottie has a crush on Digby
2: Isabelle has a crush on K.K. Slider
3: Tom Nook and Sable used to have a relationship (I'm pretty sure this is a thing and I didn't make it up? lol)
4: Kapp'n has a wife
5: Reese and Cyrus
6: Pelly likes Pete, Pete likes Phyllis
7: Harvey likes Harriet.
Also the villagers would always have rumors going around about others dating each other.


----------



## Insulaire (Apr 20, 2020)

KnightSky said:


> 2: Isabelle has a crush on K.K. Slider


Peanut (and thus I imagine all Peppy villagers) recently said her “heart belongs to KK Slider,” so she’s got competition!


----------



## Hat' (Apr 20, 2020)

the guide is wrong they're gay


----------



## Solio (Apr 20, 2020)

I couldn't care less whether they're romantically involved or not.
What bugs me is people "gay-washing" or sexualizing any close relationship between two characters they come across. Be it homo or hetero. I see it happen in fiction all the time and I don't really mind, as long as people treat it as personal head-canon. But in this particular case, people act as if it were canon,  based on a very vague term and are really obnoxious about it. Like, not every relationship that goes beyond mere aquaintances has to be romantic an not everyone cares about that stuff...


----------



## SheepMareep (Apr 20, 2020)

I haven't read the thread but I think a lot of people are quick to dismiss this because of the word "Partner" which is actually pretty interesting given the history of gay/lesbian couples in the USA. (Which is the localization I will be speaking on.)

_The guide book is NOT made by nintendo it is an outside source. If nintendo were the ones directly writing this it may have just read "Partner" as it does in the game. The fact it is technically an OUTSIDE source they may have read partner and translated that to "business partner". _

In the USA people in non heterosexual relationships were not able to get married until very recently. Straight (mostly homophobic) people in the USA found it uncomfortable to refer to a gay mans boyfriend/husband as such and instead use the term "Partner". It's very common to speak with someone about a gay couple and to see them pause for a moment and say "Their....... partner" regardless if it is a friend, celebrity, or someone walking down the street. It is also a way for non hetero couples to talk about their s/o without DIRECTLY saying they are not straight and avoid any unnecessary altercations.

CJ and Flick being called "Partners" reflects this kind of language just like how Cyrus refereed to himself as Reese's partner. Now, we know they were married prior to this but why refer to himself as a partner rather than husband or business partner? No one thought he meant "Business partner" then.
Suddenly because a lot of people are against non-heterosexual or non gender conforming identities being displayed in media "for children" (AC is for all ages!) the term "Partner" in this sense has been forced into "Business partner". BUT. That makes no sense in the context of their relationship.

Reese and Cyrus OWNED a store together. They BOTH profited from this. CJ and flick are "Roommates" and CJ helps flick out with finding commissions. They DON'T own a store together, hold events together, etc. CJ just helps Flick out with commissions. Idk about any of you but I know I would NOT consider myself to be a business partner for a friend of mine who is accepting art commissions. Their "Business" is apparently buying fish and bugs....... for no gain aside from social media presence and a love of bugs/need to have them at all. Flick is the only one with an actual business side to it.

Also note "Roommates". A lot of closeted non-hetero couples will say their s/o is their "Roommate" to avoid being harassed by family or strangers.

There are also multiple things thrown around the game that imply the existence and ACCEPTANCE of LGBT people. I.e. dialogue where a character talks about a show with two princesses who are in love, the fact Chevre has a picture of Nan (Another female goat character) above her bed, male character dialogue where they are fine playing a princess in a play, and they have ALWAYS had dialogue about being able to express yourself no matter what gender you are especially in NL. (Makeup, dresses, etc.)

The language is vague for a reason. People who want to see themselves in this game CAN. They can see these two characters being together; they're "Partners" and "Roommates". It's NOT clear because nintendo likely does not want to lose consumers. They know if they put in two characters that are too obviously gay certain people would boycott the game. I've seen people say this has RUINED the game for them. But it's not a big deal!! at all! Nintendo is trying to be inclusive to everyone and there is nothing wrong with that.

The fact that this thread exists as if it were a "Ha I told you so!" is gross.


Thank you for coming to my ted talk


----------



## Morningowl (Apr 20, 2020)

Irishchai said:


> _The guide book is NOT made by nintendo it is an outside source. If nintendo were the ones directly writing this it may have just read "Partner" as it does in the game. The fact it is technically an OUTSIDE source they may have read partner and translated that to "business partner". _
> 
> .


I appreciate you writing that all out but this isn’t just a random guidebook this is  official licensed product by Nintendo, Yes they didn’t directly write but most likely saw  this before it was released


----------



## SheepMareep (Apr 20, 2020)

Morningowl said:


> I appreciate you writing that all out but this isn’t just a random guidebook this is  official licensed product by Nintendo, Yes they didn’t directly write but most likely saw  this before it was released



"Most likely" We DON'T know who was in charge of looking the book over, to what extent, and what liberties the crew making this book had while in production. It is likely nintendo gave them a list of items that HAD to be included and basic information on all of the characters and what not with key points to include when writing about them. I.e. Flick and CJ being "Partners" and "Roommates" as a cool fun fact to add in.

If anything the people reviewing the book did not look at every single word and see that business partner was now "Partner". The people reviewing the book may not have understood the distinction between partner and business partner in the game and did not think it was wrong. They likely looked at all of the OTHER information in the guide such as birthdays, fish, fossils, etc. for accuracy rather than a simple fun fact about two characters.* It may have been licensed BY nintendo but the people in charge of the actual dialogue in the game did NOT write the book.*

If you do not want to see them as a gay couple then that's you. But for there to be a forum and a group of people basically saying "HA there's no LGBT people in AC because you're not kid friendly!!!" in a sea of character relationships/crushes/drama (Isabelle and KK, nook and mable, the pelican trio, reese and cyrus) to put down a gay couple that is coded for gay people to see and know right away is gross and I will do all I can to point out that they are, in fact, not hetero


----------



## Allytria (Apr 20, 2020)

Irishchai said:


> The fact that this thread exists as if it were a "Ha I told you so!" is gross.



This this this this


----------



## Arithmophobia17 (Apr 20, 2020)

just because they're roommates and business partners and friends doesn't end my headcanon that they're both secretly pining for eachother and neither will admit it. it's like all the drama tv shows where the characters are best friends for years and suddenly have a realization that they have fallen in love with eachother


----------



## naranjita (Apr 20, 2020)

Irishchai said:


> If you do not want to see them as a gay couple then that's you. But for there to be a forum and a group of people basically saying "HA there's no LGBT people in AC because you're not kid friendly!!!" in a sea of character relationships/crushes/drama (Isabelle and KK, nook and mable, the pelican trio, reese and cyrus) to put down a gay couple that is coded for gay people to see and know right away is gross and I will do all I can to point out that they are, in fact, not hetero



this is really what bothered me... I mean, how can people say that there's really no romance in animal crossing? are they really _that _blind towards heterosexuality? romance is _everywhere _in animal crossing. and the "not child friendly" excuse _really_ hurts. if you cared about things being child-friendly, you'd be concerned about smug villagers, or especially about Kapp'n, who is a much older character, flirting with the player when said player might be a very young child. but no one thinks there's anything wrong with that. because it's straight.

I mean, I don't even personally like Flick/CJ (not that I dislike them, either; I just don't care). what I care about is the ugly way people are reacting towards the mere possibility that they might be gay, and what that says about how they feel about gay people. and, whether you like it or not, how you react to gay characters _does _reflect how you feel about real gay people, no matter how much you insist that you have "nothing against gay people irl tho!!".



Arithmophobia17 said:


> just because they're roommates and business partners and friends doesn't end my headcanon that they're both secretly pining for eachother and neither will admit it. it's like all the drama tv shows where the characters are best friends for years and suddenly have a realization that they have fallen in love with eachother



gay culture is dating for 2 years before you ask each other out


----------



## SheepMareep (Apr 20, 2020)

naranjita said:


> this is really what bothered me... I mean, how can people say that there's really no romance in animal crossing? are they really _that _blind towards heterosexuality? romance is _everywhere _in animal crossing. and the "not child friendly" excuse _really_ hurts. if you cared about things being child-friendly, you'd be concerned about smug villagers, or especially about Kapp'n, who is a much older character, flirting with the player when said player might be a very young child. but no one thinks there's anything wrong with that. because it's straight.
> 
> I mean, I don't even personally like Flick/CJ (not that I dislike them, either; I just don't care). what I care about is the ugly way people are reacting towards the mere possibility that they might be gay, and what that says about how they feel about gay people. and, whether you like it or not, how you react to gay characters _does _reflect how you feel about real gay people, no matter how much you insist that you have "nothing against gay people irl tho!!".



YEAH. I hate the "I'm not homophobic BUT....." If you have to put a "but" before your clearly homophobic statement or even say that you AREN'T homophobic before making a statement honey.......... You are  It's a fictional game yes but if you cant handle two characters being gay in a game where they LITERALLY NEVER COME INTO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER Then you clearly have no tolerance for it irl either jsdnkjsdfnkdsjfn

Kapp'n creeps me out so much because of the way he flirts with characters. The fact he makes comments about there being more than one girl on the boat. The fact he has A WHOLE WIFE AND CHILD and will still serenade about how beautiful a possibly 8 year old is..... Like.... No one else complained about the probable pedophile in the game who is likely to cheat on his wife but god forbid we have two cute and harmless gay characters y'know. 

Plus, what about all of the non-kid friendly dream addresses in NL? The horror towns with blood splatters, the bars and gambling clubs people made, the QR codes of all kinds of non kid-friendly stuff like...... No one bat an eyelash at that


----------



## diamond is unbreakable (Apr 20, 2020)

It's a really simple topic! You either:
take the what the guide says at face level and live in heteronormative animalville
you don't care either way
or
you can see the nods to homosexuality

I am not going to spit up what everyone else has already said. You are allowed to experience the game however you'd like. But a lot of the "arguments" against their possible relationship are... really disgusting? As a gay, masculine nonbinary.. it is nice to see some sort of rep in game?


----------



## maple22 (Apr 20, 2020)

I never thought anything of their friendship. I feel like they're supposed to be kids, and regardless, I don't care. People can think what they want, though.


----------



## axo (Apr 20, 2020)

I think a lot of the arguments against Flick and CJ's relationship are really... transparent. To say that a headcanon or pointing out that a relationship between two male characters might exist is "gaywashing" or "taking things too far" is, in my opinion, really ignorant. It's also kind of gross that people think same-sex relationships are inherently sexual, or more sexual then opposite-sex ones. I don't want to bring even more drama into an already controversial topic, but for years and years us in the LGBT community are told that if we want representation we have to create our own, and then when we do we're told we're taking things too far, we're reaching, we're looking too deep into things and creating gay characters out of nowhere.

To me, this was obviously intentionally ambiguous in a way that is a subtle nod to LGBT people without creating fury among homophobes and people who think that gay characters in video games isn't "kid-friendly" and the fact that some of you don't want to allow others to believe that is really disheartening.


----------



## Arithmophobia17 (Apr 20, 2020)

i also just want to say that the fact that it was ambiguous/had nods to homosexuality made me really happy. i love this game and i want to see myself in the things i like. the people who feel the need to say that it's "gay-washing", that there shouldn't be any romance in animal crossing, etc. are being so ignorant and so unaccepting. like seriously, gay-washing? there are so few instances of lgbt representation in the first place and a lot of them just aren't done well, so why can't we take something that was left up in the air and project ourselves onto it? why can't we give ourselves the representation that most of the media can't seem to give us? why do people have to complain about people "making things gay" when it's making us happy, us who have only really been accepted in recent times and are still fighting for acceptance everyday? it isn't okay that some people have gone far enough as to attack others who don't view two character's relationship the same as they do, but do you really have to complain about every single person's head canon that maybe, just maybe, these two characters are homosexual and happy?

i'm going to keep thinking that they're gay and nothing's really gonna change that lol


----------



## Jas (Apr 20, 2020)

i knew they were referring to being business partners, but i like to think of them as romantic partners too!


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 20, 2020)

naranjita said:


> romance is _everywhere _in animal crossing. and the "not child friendly" excuse _really_ hurts. if you cared about things being child-friendly, you'd be concerned about smug villagers, or especially about Kapp'n, who is a much older character, flirting with the player when said player might be a very young child. but no one thinks there's anything wrong with that. because it's straight.


The "not child friendly" argument coming up in this thread is funny to me too because it's literally and explicitly the excuse Nintendo has used historically to keep gay content out of their games. That and the whole "we're not trying to do social commentary" thing, which is equally offensive. This is in response to players campaigning for gay relationships to be added to Tomodachi Life back in 2014:
_"[Nintendo] never intended to make any form of social commentary with the launch of Tomodachi Life...The relationship options in the game represent a playful alternate world rather than a real-life simulation. We hope that all of our fans will see that Tomodachi Life was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary."_ (source)

In other words, "I don't see why you're so upset, we're just trying to imagine a playful alternate world where gay people don't exist".

Aside from the points I and others have made in this thread already about the specifics of the language choices in the localization and the validity of gleaning a relationship beyond "roommates/business partners" through it, for the folks in here saying things like "I don't see why this matters, why do you care, it's just a game, etc.": that quote is six years old. It's old enough to go to kindergarten, and yet in the intervening six years Nintendo _still_ hasn't published a game with queer characters that come any closer to canon than CJ and Flick. Until proven otherwise, the official stance of Nintendo in the year 2020 is _still_ that they'd prefer Playful Alternate Worlds that don't contain any queer people.

I think it's safe to say that everyone here is on this forum because we enjoy Nintendo games, and Animal Crossing in particular, and (most likely) New Horizons, but for the people here arguing that it's pointless to talk about this or that nobody should care, imagine how it feels to love the work of a publisher known for its inspiration of delight and childlike wonder, to feel attached to a series as joyful and kind as Animal Crossing, and have the company responsible for its existence basically tell you they're grateful for your "passion" (read: money), but they'd rather you didn't exist.

I'm not a shipper; I'm not gonna go out searching for CJ/Flick content, so I'm not saying any of this because I'm "mad that my ship isn't canon" or whatever. What I _am _is queer, and it's nice to finally have a little morsel of content that nods towards me in a series I've been playing since it first came out on the Gamecube. It's a good feeling to see yourself reflected in the media you experience, even if you're forced to find that reflection in interpretation of language coming out of the mouth of a digital beaver.


----------



## Saaga (Apr 20, 2020)

How is this news? This was only suprising to those who can’t read what partner (it means someone you are affliated trough work and is primarily non-romantic word) means for the most world and those who see things that were never there be begin with. People need stop blaming Nintendo or Treehouse for their poor reading comprehension, they didn’t do or add anything vague or double meanings in the dialogue as this whole CJ/Flick thing was entirely fabricated by delusional and simple-minded shippers.

Someone in the earlier pages of the thread wrote that Nintendo censored or has their relationship ”lost” in the localization. They are friends or coworkers in every single regional version starting from the Japanese one, English version changed nothing about that. And people may have forgotten by now, but CJ isn’t the only one who uses the word ”partner”. The Nooklins did it too. Yet I see no one gushing (thank god) that they must have a thing for the player.


----------



## axo (Apr 20, 2020)

Saaga said:


> ...they didn’t do or add anything vague or double meanings in the dialogue as this whole CJ/Flick thing was entirely fabricated by delusional and simple-minded shippers...


But they did. A huge amount of LGBT people in America and other countries refer to their lovers as "partners." They didn't say "business partners" they said "partners" and for many people that can make a huge difference. Please don't make out marginalized communities to be "delusional" or "simple-minded" for projecting themselves onto media, when media so rarely caters to us, or even _acknowledges _us.


----------



## SheepMareep (Apr 20, 2020)

Saaga said:


> How is this news? This was only suprising to those who can’t read what partner (it means someone you are affliated trough work and is primarily non-romantic word) means for the most world and those who see things that were never there be begin with. People need stop blaming Nintendo or Treehouse for their poor reading comprehension, they didn’t do or add anything vague or double meanings in the dialogue as this whole CJ/Flick thing was entirely fabricated by delusional and simple-minded shippers.



Did you join the site just to call LGBT people delusional 
We aren't "shippers" honey we know Gay lingo when we see it  Because we use it  and hear it  in our day to day life.

Also if you truly wish to go for the "Definition" route I'll have you know you are very wrong my dear.
As my lovely friend google so kindly brought up for me here are the official definitions. #2 will shock you!

either of a pair of people engaged together in the same activity.
"arrange the children in pairs so that each person has a partner"
either member of a married couple or of an established unmarried couple.
"she lived with her partner"


----------



## Larimar (Apr 20, 2020)

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.


----------



## mayortiffany (Apr 20, 2020)

I personally never saw them as romantic partners but business partners, though I can see how others have come to that interpretation. The fantastic thing about media is that we can all interpret it in the the way that we like, so long as we do not shame others for seeing the game in the way they do! Ship CJ and Flick or not, that's up to you. I don't really pay attention to the romantic parts of the game anyways, I personally do not ship anybody. Someone earlier said that we live an expectation to date and to get married and to be romantic and it's nice that we do not have to fully interact with romance in this game if we don't want to (with no opportunity for your character to date, for example).

I also read somewhere earlier in this thread that our perception of our villagers and our town is very dependent on our interaction with the game, and I really resonate with this. I see my Rocco as a kind of grumpy grandfatherly figure. Your Rocco might be just a cranky, insufferable guy. In the same vein, it's not out of the question to say that my CJ and Flick are business partners and your CJ and Flick are romantic partners.

This is a topic that I am personally quite indifferent about, but it's really great to see so many people loving these new characters and finding representation in them!


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

Saaga said:


> How is this news? This was only suprising to those who can’t read what partner (it means someone you are affliated trough work and is primarily non-romantic word) means for the most world and those who see things that were never there be begin with. People need stop blaming Nintendo or Treehouse for their poor reading comprehension, they didn’t do or add anything vague or double meanings in the dialogue as this whole CJ/Flick thing was entirely fabricated by delusional and simple-minded shippers.
> 
> Someone in the earlier pages of the thread wrote that Nintendo censored or has their relationship ”lost” in the localization. They are friends or coworkers in every single regional version starting from the Japanese one, English version changed nothing about that. And people may have forgotten by now, but CJ isn’t the only one who uses the word ”partner”. The Nooklins did it too. Yet I see no one gushing (thank god) that they must have a thing for the player.


Fang is gay too btw


----------



## Hirisa (Apr 20, 2020)

"Fang is gay too btw"

_I knew it!_

Also, so is Megan. At least my resident representative hopes so.


----------



## Arithmophobia17 (Apr 20, 2020)

Saaga said:


> How is this news? This was only suprising to those who can’t read what partner (it means someone you are affliated trough work and is primarily non-romantic word) means for the most world and those who see things that were never there be begin with. People need stop blaming Nintendo or Treehouse for their poor reading comprehension, they didn’t do or add anything vague or double meanings in the dialogue as this whole CJ/Flick thing was entirely fabricated by delusional and simple-minded shippers.
> 
> Someone in the earlier pages of the thread wrote that Nintendo censored or has their relationship ”lost” in the localization. They are friends or coworkers in every single regional version starting from the Japanese one, English version changed nothing about that. And people may have forgotten by now, but CJ isn’t the only one who uses the word ”partner”. The Nooklins did it too. Yet I see no one gushing (thank god) that they must have a thing for the player.


would just like to say that you took the nooklings' use of partner very out of context. like seriously, you included a screenshot of their usage. do you really think that their use of the word is relevant to this discussion? it definitely feels like you used this thread to express homophobic tendencies under the guise of believing that everyone who liked the idea of two characters from a video game series being together are simple-minded, delusional, and have poor reading comprehension. like seriously, do you think that everyone who ships characters together are simple-minded? everyone who has the imagination to wonder what it would be like if some characters were in a relationship? that doesn't sound simple-minded to me.

anyway, i'm getting pretty heated, so I'm probably just going to stop looking at this thread unless someone quotes me. i'm glad that most of the people in this thread are accepting, because this is just ridiculous.


----------



## purple_vixen (Apr 20, 2020)

Allytria said:


> There is Reese and Cyrus
> The Pelican triangle
> Kappn and his wife
> I think the lgbt community wanting this one thing is okay..



This sums up how I feel. I want to see queer people in mainstream media this same, off hand, kid-friendly way, where we are just normalised. No big deal. Just happens to be non-binary people with they/them pronouns in books - I cheer, seeing people like me. Just there. Accepted. I loved the idea that one of the new couples just happened to be gay.

As with other people in this thread - I refer to my lover/spouse as my 'partner'. In the UK, that's most often automatically interpreted as life partner without the need to spell things out.

On a lighter note - I have been convinced that Brewster and Blathers are in a relationship for years. I will now continue to believe that Flick and CJ are a couple. Because it makes me happy. Everyone else is welcome to their own beliefs.


----------



## naranjita (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> Fang is gay too btw


my girlfriend says that Whitney and Audie are girlfriends and really who am I to disagree with her


----------



## Larimar (Apr 20, 2020)

Hirisa said:


> "Fang is gay too btw"
> 
> _I knew it!_
> 
> Also, so is Megan. At least my resident representative hopes so.


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

naranjita said:


> my girlfriend says that Whitney and Audie are girlfriends and really who am I to disagree with her


Youd be scandalous to disagree bc my Whitney and Audie are 100% girlfriends xD


----------



## Lillyshins (Apr 20, 2020)

Well for what it's worth. I absolutely took it as a "romantic partner" when CJ said that. But then again, I refer to my wife as my partner quite frequently. So it feels rather natural to hear a SO referred to like that.

But seriously... If you cant handle 2 same sex characters together in a video game there NO FRIGGIN WAY you are okay with same sex couples irl. Quit fooling yourselves.


----------



## coffee biscuit (Apr 20, 2020)

They may not be an official couple but that's not gonna stop me from thinking that they're adorable together =D


----------



## Kurashiki (Apr 20, 2020)

people who are getting angry and defensive abt people interpreting two video game animals as being gay need to take a long hard look at themselves. it's harmless and if you can't even handle that then i can only imagine how horribly homophobic u must be irl lmao.


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)




----------



## Hedgehugs (Apr 20, 2020)

whether you just see them as business partners, friends, or even an actual couple just don't go around saying it's the only way to interpret/view them. so annoying when people do that, let us have our own opinion/headcanon.


----------



## Byebi (Apr 20, 2020)

So that i dont overload my tiny brain i just view them as both romantic partners and also just friends/business partners because i just enjoy their relationship/appreciation for each other and thats it


----------



## Bcat (Apr 20, 2020)

I literally don’t what the official stance on them is. If you ship them: hell yeah right on!
If you prefer them as buddies: that’s cool too.
Just ship and let ship and be cool to each-other. ✌


----------



## Aleigh (Apr 20, 2020)

THIS IS SO CUTE I LOVE THEM
I just wanna know, if cj is related to chip, is flick related to nat?


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

Aleigh said:


> THIS IS SO CUTE I LOVE THEM
> I just wanna know, if cj is related to chip, is flick related to nat?


I think it's implied? In the Japanese dialogue at least. I remember seeing a post saying that CJ mentions that him and Flick's fathers are friends, which is how they met and grew up together.

EDIT: Flick also mentions at some point that his dad and him don't get along too well because his dad likes to eat bugs.


----------



## Aleigh (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> I think it's implied? In the Japanese dialogue at least. I remember seeing a post saying that CJ mentions that him and Flick's fathers are friends, which is how they met and grew up together.


that makes everything so much better
it funny cause cj looks like chip and well flick looks nothing like nat hahaha


----------



## Krissi2197 (Apr 20, 2020)

Aleigh said:


> that makes everything so much better
> it funny cause cj looks like chip and well flick looks nothing like nat hahaha


Well they're both chameleons so maybe Flick just decides to be red/Nat decides to be green!!


----------



## Aleigh (Apr 20, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


> Well they're both chameleons so maybe Flick just decides to be red/Nat decides to be green!!


i--
I didn't even think about that
I completely forgot chameleons can do that haha


----------



## Mezzanine (Apr 20, 2020)

deleted


----------



## jiojiop (Apr 21, 2020)

jfc this thread is toxic. Accusing people who disagree with you of being bigots or delusional and simple-minded has a chilling effect on constructive discussion.

I think it's very interesting that NoA decided to translate "friend" (tomodachi) to "partner", and I agree with others here - that was deliberate and the word "partner" does indeed have romantic connotations. So no I don't think people are 'reading into' it or reaching and they can't be blamed for that.

I think this is a pretty classic example of *queerbaiting*: _"Queerbaiting is a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment in which creators hint at, but then do not actually depict, same-sex romance or other forms of LGBTQ representation. They do so to attract ("bait") a queer or straight ally audience with the suggestion of relationships or characters that appeal to them, while at the same time attempting to avoid alienating other consumers."_

Some people like that. Others might be offended by it as a half-measure. Others might be frustrated at friendships routinely being given romantic overtones and you know what? Those people aren't bigots for it. Some people are asexual or otherwise not in romantic relationships or just don't want those overtones pushed on them. And sometimes it can be seen as insulting on the part of the media's creators - like two girls can't appear together on screen unless they are either (a) there to talk about how wonderful a man is or (b) being lesbians for a male audience. Because everyone knows girls can't be friends! Girls hate each other! Right?? 

It's a complicated topic and people should be compassionate to others' viewpoints and try to assume the best of others, especially in these difficult times. People are already isolated enough as it is and there's so much negativity out there, so let's try to be understanding.


----------



## kotinni (Apr 21, 2020)

meggiewes said:


> Oh yeah! How could I forget our favorite couple? I still want to see them back with a little purple alpaca kiddo.



omigosh that would be so cute!!


----------



## IonicKarma (Apr 21, 2020)

Ship them or don't ship them, either way is fine.  Nintendo likely wouldn't ever officially make them a pair because its too risky in a children's game but don't let that stop you if you want to!


----------



## Chris (Apr 21, 2020)

Let's keep this thread friendly so it doesn't get locked. I'd like to applaud those who took the initiative to step back when things got heated. As long as people can discuss this topic civilly then it has a place here. Reminder that being a member of the LGBT+ community is not something inherently adult in nature. LGBT+ representation in media aimed at family-friendly audiences is on the rise to help normalise being gay and/or transgender and erase the stigma that it is something dirty, abnormal, or to be ashamed of.


On that note, my first interpretation of CJ referring to Flick as his "partner" was romantic too and then business as an afterthought. I figured that was likely me projecting onto the characters and didn't think other people had made the connection too!


----------



## DinoTown (Apr 21, 2020)

I saw it mentioned a lot but I wanna point out that 'partner' doesn't even explicitly mean 'significant other of the same gender' but just straight (hah) up 'significant other'.

My mum refers to her fiancee as her 'partner' and vice versa but they are 100% cis and straight so. Yeah. The first thing I see when C.J. says his partner is 'oh cute he got a boyfriend'


----------



## Dragostea Din Tei (Apr 21, 2020)

jiojiop said:


> jfc this thread is toxic. Accusing people who disagree with you of being bigots or delusional and simple-minded has a chilling effect on constructive discussion.
> 
> I think it's very interesting that NoA decided to translate "friend" (tomodachi) to "partner", and I agree with others here - that was deliberate and the word "partner" does indeed have romantic connotations. So no I don't think people are 'reading into' it or reaching and they can't be blamed for that.
> 
> ...



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

	Post automatically merged: Apr 21, 2020

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.


----------



## jiojiop (Apr 21, 2020)

Dragostea Din Tei said:


> 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.



Dragostea Din Tei said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

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


----------



## cottoncandylover (Apr 21, 2020)

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 (Apr 21, 2020)

New Horizons lover said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

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


----------



## Solio (Apr 21, 2020)

Larimar said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

Solio said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Apr 21, 2020)

chees4mees said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

Solio said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

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 (Apr 21, 2020)

Irishchai said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

Solio said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Apr 21, 2020)

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 (Apr 21, 2020)

i just wanna point out


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252127957184729088



Solio said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

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 (Apr 21, 2020)

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 (Apr 21, 2020)

seliph said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

Solio said:


> 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 (Apr 21, 2020)

Nah they’re still mega gay for each other.


----------



## Solio (Apr 21, 2020)

seliph said:


> 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.


----------



## seliph (Apr 21, 2020)

Solio said:


> 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.



i did read your post, however people already picked apart the rest of it so i saw no point in doing so myself. Your paragraph from which i quoted from heavily implies that seeing two characters as romantic is equal to devaluing friendship when that is not the case and that's what i'm trying to point out. these conclusions, especially among lgbt fanbases, are usually drawn _because_ their close friendship would make them a good couple. it is not a matter of throwing their canon relationship out the window.


----------



## naranjita (Apr 21, 2020)

Solio said:


> 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.


are you, like... for real? I'm sorry, but how can you complain about gay people "forcing their opinion" on you when gay people have had heterosexuality forced on us for our entire lives? hell, the newest update is going to shove heterosexuality down our throats with the reese/cyrus stuff. but no, the problem is that the gays ship two (2) characters and the straights have a hard time relating to that! won't somebody please think of the poor straights!


----------



## Solio (Apr 21, 2020)

seliph said:


> i did read your post, however people already picked apart the rest of it so i saw no point in doing so myself. Your paragraph from which i quoted from heavily implies that seeing two characters as romantic is equal to devaluing friendship when that is not the case and that's what i'm trying to point out. these conclusions, especially among lgbt fanbases, are usually drawn _because_ their close friendship would make them a good couple. it is not a matter of throwing their canon relationship out the window.


Okay, now I'm getting where you're coming from. If you put it that way, it makes more sense. I didn't mean to say that seeing two characters as romantic is equal to devaluing friendship. What I meant is that assuming that a close relationship is always romantic in nature is a bit shallow in my opinion. That's an issue mostly unrelated to homosexuality. But that's the entire point of shipping, isn't it?

Again, it's completely fine if you're wording it accordingly like : "Oh, I think CJ and Flick would make a really cute couple." instead of "These two are so obviously gay for each other! He called him his partner, which is clearly a romantic term and everyone who disagrees with me is a homophobe!"




naranjita said:


> are you, like... for real? I'm sorry, but how can you complain about gay people "forcing their opinion" on you when gay people have had heterosexuality forced on us for our entire lives? hell, the newest update is going to shove heterosexuality down our throats with the reese/cyrus stuff. but no, the problem is that the gays ship two (2) characters and the straights have a hard time relating to that! won't somebody please think of the poor straights!



I never complained about gay people in particular. Please don't put words in my mouth. I would never give you a hard time for wanting a little bit of representation. 
My issue was that this couple was very much hyped as romantic couple, based on a single word that isn't even explicit and that people were being ridiculed for disagreeing. I would have the same issue if, say, Flick was a girl, making this entire issue unrelated to homosexuality. I would still complain about people trying to justify their ship and devalue other opinions whitout having any confirmation that this is actually the case. _This isn't about them being gay_. This is about people trying to enforce their opinions on others!


I think I said enough. If I offended anyone with my posts I truly apologize. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I was just trying to provide a little bit og perspective.


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

SuperK98 said:


> I'd be interested to know what the Japanese dialogue says about their partnership haha. Stuff like that has been known to get lost in localization, like how Gracie and Saharah are men in the Japanese games.
> 
> I think it's funny that we're having a fairly serious discussion about the sexual orientation of talking animals in a video game lmao



Sorry if this has been answered: CJ just calls Flick his friend.

	Post automatically merged: Apr 21, 2020

I wish people would stop twisting and interpreting things to fit their agenda.

As a trans person, I've found people latching onto usage of they/them or just lack of someone being addressed with pronouns at all ( which is the case in Japanese anyway.. ) to be exhausting. I have cried when seeing actual honest representation in media before, I felt seen.

I do not feel seen by people giving undue credit for ideas, or forcing their ideals SO hard that they act like the idea and creation of the very character (s) they're head cannoning for belong to them. As a writer, it's this that makes me wary of getting myself to a point where I could publish anything.

I don't want English teachers trying to say I made a curtain blue because the scene is sad. I don't want people saying I had a character use a generally neutral nickname to secretly try out an NB or trans identity.

Sometimes, it just ain't that deep.

THAT SAID.

If you want to pretend, that's entirely okay!! I want people to have their hc ships, I want people to speculate how cute Francine and Coco would be as girlfriends.

But stop saying that ambiguity is representation. It isn't. They shouldn't be given credit for the most lazy thing they can possibly do. They don't deserve that, and people who need that rep do not deserve to be a towel that they wipe their hands on then tossed to the side because we've been fulfilled.


----------



## axo (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> Sorry if this has been answered: CJ just calls Flick his friend.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Apr 21, 2020
> 
> ...


i couldn't agree with this more, this was incredibly well said. I know before I mentioned how I chose to believe this was a (incredibly) subtle nod to LGBT people but that's just my really generous interpretation. That doesn't mean it's good representation, even if the ambiguity was intentional. I think my only point is that LGBT people should feel free to project themselves onto media and create representation for themselves without being attacked or belittled for it. (while also not needing to give unnecessary credit to companies and corporations for doing the absolute least amount of representation as possible)


----------



## Rave (Apr 21, 2020)

Hot take: Who cares? Do I think Flick and CJ an official canon couple? Nope! Am I still going to read it that way because it's a game about cartoon animals and it hurts no one to think 2 of the cartoon animals are dating? Also yes! I just... don't get all the "You're calling people homophobic for not liking your ship!!!" stuff when 99% of the time I see arguments about this, it's one person going "haha fish man and bug man gay" and the other going "well nintendo CONFIRMED they aren't!!" as if that means anything. No one's questioning people because they don't agree that Flick and CJ are a couple, it's because of the amount of people incredibly angry that people might dare to go against canon.




Centuria said:


> Sorry if this has been answered: CJ just calls Flick his friend.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Apr 21, 2020
> 
> ...



Fair point, but I don't think a majority of people shipping this genuinely think this was intentional representation on the part of Nintendo. Who does it hurt to head canon stuff about characters? Who's trying to push an agenda and force other people to think they're a couple?





Krissi2197 said:


> Well they're both chameleons so maybe Flick just decides to be red/Nat decides to be green!!



I have to say I LOVE the idea that flick just chooses to be red for the Aesthetic


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

Rave said:


> Fair point, but I don't think a majority of people shipping this genuinely think this was intentional representation on the part of Nintendo. Who does it hurt to head canon stuff about characters? Who's trying to push an agenda and force other people to think they're a couple?



Several people in this thread, joking or not, have said the developers/localization team " knew what they were doing " when they used the term partner, as if the word is exclusively romantic, and it's some wink - wink that they'd use it.  It's also been purported many other places by people who want to force the idea they're a couple.

I said in my post I support headcanoning.  I do not support letting devs swipe their representation achieved cards because fans want to insist this is absolutely canon and that the translators are pulling one over on the big boys who would otherwise apparently smack them on the hand and tell them no.

More issues with deciding words mean what you want them to.  Not every minor disagreeance means every point someone has is wrong or is in disagreement with what you were saying.  Not to call you out, or anything like that.  But just to point out I explicitly underlined a headcanon for something that is obviously not canon.  I never said anything was wrong with it, I never said anyone was being hurt.

	Post automatically merged: Apr 21, 2020




chees4mees said:


> i couldn't agree with this more, this was incredibly well said. I know before I mentioned how I chose to believe this was a (incredibly) subtle nod to LGBT people but that's just my really generous interpretation. That doesn't mean it's good representation, even if the ambiguity was intentional. I think my only point is that LGBT people should feel free to project themselves onto media and create representation for themselves without being attacked or belittled for it. (while also not needing to give unnecessary credit to companies and corporations for doing the absolute least amount of representation as possible)



I definitely agree!
I just wish we didn't have to give props for cheap, lazy things like acting as if using 'partner,' which has well established history of NOT being in any connotation romantic, means they're totally feeding us the rep we need and deserve. ):

It's disappointing every time I see someone saying it's totally intentional and purposeful, because it makes me think, " it's come to the point where we'll take a word that doesn't mean ( x ), but we will MAKE it mean ( x ) just to feel seen! "


----------



## Rave (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> Several people in this thread, joking or not, have said the developers/localization team " knew what they were doing " when they used the term partner, as if the word is exclusively romantic, and it's some wink - wink that they'd use it.  It's also been purported many other places by people who want to force the idea they're a couple.
> 
> I said in my post I support headcanoning.  I do not support letting devs swipe their representation achieved cards because fans want to insist this is absolutely canon and that the translators are pulling one over on the big boys who would otherwise apparently smack them on the hand and tell them no.
> 
> More issues with deciding words mean what you want them to.  Not every minor disagreeance means every point someone has is wrong or is in disagreement with what you were saying.  Not to call you out, or anything like that.  But just to point out I explicitly underlined a headcanon for something that is obviously not canon.  I never said anything was wrong with it, I never said anyone was being hurt.



Key word being jokingly, how many people really genuinely think that Family Friendly Nintendo tm would intentionally put a gay couple in their game? And does saying things like "forcing an agenda" and "forcing their opinions" and "twisting it to their agenda" not inherently imply that what they're doing is wrong...? If you aren't referring to headcanoners with that, who are you referring to?

I agree with you that Nintendo shouldn't be getting brownie points for representation when it clearly isn't there, but I'm not seeing the correlation between headcanoning that equaling giving them points.


----------



## Larimar (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> Sorry if this has been answered: CJ just calls Flick his friend.
> 
> Post automatically merged: Apr 21, 2020
> 
> ...


This is exactly how I feel about Disney lately, barely even doing the minimum of representation, calling it "subtle" and then letting media outlets run about how great their non-existent lgbt undertones are. Its incredibly exhausting and disappointing. I'd really hate for other companies to pick that up and start a hardcore queer-baiting trend. Whether that's what nintendo intended to do, I don't exactly think so. But I still think we shouldn't give them a pat on the back for it. I'd really hate to reinforce this behavior further when we were finally making progress on being out in the open in media.

As much as I love and fully support the interpretation of them dating, we just need to keep this in mind.


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

Rave said:


> Key word being jokingly, how many people really genuinely think that Family Friendly Nintendo tm would intentionally put a gay couple in their game? And does saying things like "forcing an agenda" and "forcing their opinions" and "twisting it to their agenda" not inherently imply that what they're doing is wrong...? If you aren't referring to headcanoners with that, who are you referring to?
> 
> I agree with you that Nintendo shouldn't be getting brownie points for representation when it clearly isn't there, but I'm not seeing the correlation between headcanoning that equaling giving them points.



Lots of people use slurs and say it was a joke, or an accident because they were mad. Many times you might have a bad friend who 'jokingly' insults you for lols. That doesn't make it any lesser.

A joke isn't sarcasm, and most jokes carry actual hope. And not everyone is joking, we can't just declare that because we think it's a joke means it is.

Besides that, genuine intent does not carry over well enough, especially in text, for that not to be seen an issue for me.

Different opinions.

I don't have much more to say about it, my English isn't great enough.


----------



## CowKing (Apr 21, 2020)

Wow this thread is a roller coaster anyways Flick and CJ are gay


----------



## Rave (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> Lots of people use slurs and say it was a joke, or an accident because they were mad. Many times you might have a bad friend who 'jokingly' insults you for lols. That doesn't make it any lesser.
> 
> A joke isn't sarcasm, and most jokes carry actual hope. And not everyone is joking, we can't just declare that because we think it's a joke means it is.
> 
> ...



You're... comparing joking about two cartoon characters being in love to calling people slurs. One is harmful, one isn't. The problem is thinking that gay people are being pushy/forceful for wanting the characters to be gay while people who *don't* read them as gay are just innocently, kindly stating their opinions, but I digress. Agree to disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

Rave said:


> You're comparing joking about two cartoon characters being in love to using slurs. One is harmful, one isn't. The problem is thinking that gay people are being pushy/forceful for wanting the characters to be gay while people who *don't* read them as gay are just innocently stating their opinions, but I digress. Agree to disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



That's not even the topic I was talking about, nor even what you stressed from me, but okay.

Have a good day anyway, Tuesday already. Power through this week and this social distancing.


----------



## Rave (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> That's not even the topic I was talking about, nor even what you stressed from me, but okay.
> 
> Have a good day anyway, Tuesday already. Power through this week and this social distancing.



My point is that you're saying headcannoning is innocent while also saying that people forcing their opinions is bad and wrong, while drawing no line between the two, then comparing it to calling people slurs??

Anyway, have a good day too


----------



## Saaga (Apr 21, 2020)

chees4mees said:


> But they did. A huge amount of LGBT people in America and other countries refer to their lovers as "partners." They didn't say "business partners" they said "partners" and for many people that can make a huge difference. Please don't make out marginalized communities to be "delusional" or "simple-minded" for projecting themselves onto media, when media so rarely caters to us, or even _acknowledges _us.


I mean, this whole mess wouldn’t have started in the first place the said people weren’t projecting themselves on the said characters and spouting their head canon as a fact. Partner or business partner makes no difference as both mean someone you work with. CJ refers Flick as his partner when you request a model trough him as he acts as the middle man of the deal by delivering the request to Flick and mailing it to you the next day and they both are event organizers. So in overall context it does make sense for him to refer him as a partner because they work together. Honestly, it sounds like huge overreach to imply that Nintendo would make a double meaning for LBGT people, when that was not the case at all. But you know, you can believe it and if it makes you happy, then ok.


----------



## meggiewes (Apr 21, 2020)

seliph said:


> 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.



So, if I live with my husband and another person in the same house, it is automatically assumed that the other friend is our partner in a polyamorous relationship?

Relationships of all kinds are complicated and assuming really specific things can just get everyone in trouble.


----------



## axo (Apr 21, 2020)

Saaga said:


> I mean, this whole mess wouldn’t have started in the first place the said people weren’t projecting themselves on the said characters and spouting their head canon as a fact. Partner or business partner makes no difference as both mean someone you work with. CJ refers Flick as his partner when you request a model trough him as he acts as the middle man of the deal by delivering the request to Flick and mailing it to you the next day and they both are event organizers. So in overall context it does make sense for him to refer him as a partner because they work together. Honestly, it sounds like huge overreach to imply that Nintendo would make a double meaning for LBGT people, when that was not the case at all. But you know, you can believe it and if it makes you happy, then ok.


No, this whole mess wouldn't have happened if people could just understand that no one was "spouting a head canon as fact." No one was trying to make you believe that Flick and CJ are dating. In fact, this entire thread was started as an "I told you so!" to people who had a harmless headcanon about these two characters. The problem isn't LGBT people projecting themselves and sharing their headcanon with other likeminded people, the problem is when people take it out of context, take it to mean that we're shoving something down their throat when that's never what we're trying to do. The problem is when ignorant people tell us we're not allowed to believe what we want to believe because it's not family friendly, or it's too much of a reach. Please stop being condescending when you're still ignorant to the fact that no one is trying to shove a headcanon down your throat. No one is telling you that you have to share the same opinion as us, we're just asking you to _respect _our opinion.


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

back again aaa.

" the problem is when people take it out of context, take it to mean that we're shoving something down their throat when that's never what we're trying to do.  "

I agree !  But I do want to note that some media is making this happen by being obnoxious with their article titles.  They changed it, but Polygon had an article whose title they changed at least five times now without changing much of the content at all, previously titled just earlier this morning, " CJ and Flick are gay, deal with it. "

I think if this wasn't going around like that, it wouldn't be so easy for people to justify having a fit about something harmless. ):


----------



## SheepMareep (Apr 21, 2020)

I think it should also be mentioned that no one in any way said that the use of terminology as "partner" and "roommate" to suggest them being in a gay relationship without confirming it was in any way GOOD representation. Just that the people in charge of dialogue did this to make it ambiguous, especially to het people, but recognizable in SOME way for people who are not heterosexual. 
I would much rather have a gay couple who are as up front as reese and cyrus exist rather than 2 characters who never see one another at all in the game be portrayed as possibly gay but not gay enough for the homophobic people to boycott the game y'kno?

If the dialogue was "I know a guy who does these cool models of fish. I'll hook you up with one if you give me some fish in return" and not "My Partner's into makin' slick collectibles if you want one. he's sooooooooo talented" then there would be 0 correlation between the two aside from he knows flick. But the word partner, the elongated "so" and the fact he had to comment that he is talented like.... that's all context clues there. I don't call my roomates or friend my "partner" when I'm helping them find commissions that's for sure.

You can read it at surface value or take it for what the implied meaning is. It's not GOOD representation but it is there and it means nintendo is warming up to the idea of further diversity in their games. Let us not forget the tomodachi life fiasco.


----------



## sierra (Apr 21, 2020)

Flick and Chip are in a committed gay relationship and yall can stay mad about it idc


----------



## seliph (Apr 21, 2020)

meggiewes said:


> So, if I live with my husband and another person in the same house, it is automatically assumed that the other friend is our partner in a polyamorous relationship?
> 
> Relationships of all kinds are complicated and assuming really specific things can just get everyone in trouble.


that's not what i'm saying at all lmao "your partner should be your friend" =/= "your friends should be your partner"


----------



## Rave (Apr 21, 2020)

Saaga said:


> I mean, this whole mess wouldn’t have started in the first place the said people weren’t projecting themselves on the said characters and spouting their head canon as a fact. Partner or business partner makes no difference as both mean someone you work with. CJ refers Flick as his partner when you request a model trough him as he acts as the middle man of the deal by delivering the request to Flick and mailing it to you the next day and they both are event organizers. So in overall context it does make sense for him to refer him as a partner because they work together. Honestly, it sounds like huge overreach to imply that Nintendo would make a double meaning for LBGT people, when that was not the case at all. But you know, you can believe it and if it makes you happy, then ok.



This keeps getting repeated in this thread- "Headcanons are ok, but not when people act like it's fact!" What exactly qualifies someone as saying their head canon is fact? Every random tweet that says "oh haha theyre gay" doesn't need to come with a giant "WARNING! THIS POST IS A JOKE! I KNOW THEY ARE NOT A CANON COUPLE!" disclaimer at the bottom to not be read as fact. Or are headcanons fine as long as you never publically share them?


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

Considering I feel I cannot even comment any further without being labeled homophobic, and the reason this topic was started was effectively " guess they aren't gay, so y'all are wrong! " I feel like this thread needs to be closed soon for the hostile environment it's promoting.


----------



## Saaga (Apr 21, 2020)

chees4mees said:


> No, this whole mess wouldn't have happened if people could just understand that no one was "spouting a head canon as fact." No one was trying to make you believe that Flick and CJ are dating. In fact, this entire thread was started as an "I told you so!" to people who had a harmless headcanon about these two characters. The problem isn't LGBT people projecting themselves and sharing their headcanon with other likeminded people, the problem is when people take it out of context, take it to mean that we're shoving something down their throat when that's never what we're trying to do. The problem is when ignorant people tell us we're not allowed to believe what we want to believe because it's not family friendly, or it's too much of a reach. Please stop being condescending when you're still ignorant to the fact that no one is trying to shove a headcanon down your throat.


We wouldn’t have had video game journalists write them as something alone the lines of ”Nintendo’s first gay couple” on their articles if that view wasn’t forced in some way or, how do I put it, wanted to be seen that way by some fans. It would have been exactly that, harmless, if some vocal but loud minority didn’t try to force it as a canon on Twitter or Tumblr or in social media overall.

And by forcing it as a canon, I mean that they make posts like ”NINTENDO CONFIRMED THEY ARE CANON! THEY ARE GAY!” They don’t even say or specify that is their personal headcanon, but as a fact. I have no problem with headcanons, because they are just that, headcanons.


----------



## Rave (Apr 21, 2020)

Saaga said:


> We wouldn’t have had video game journalists write them as something alone the lines of ”Nintendo’s first gay couple” on their articles if that view wasn’t forced in some way or, how do I put it, wanted to be seen that way by some fans. It would have been exactly that, harmless, if some vocal but loud minority didn’t try to force it as a canon on Twitter or Tumblr or in social media overall.
> 
> And by forcing it as a canon, I mean that they make posts like ”NINTENDO CONFIRMED THEY ARE CANON! THEY ARE GAY!” They don’t even say or specify that is their personal headcanon, but as a fact. I have no problem with headcanons, because they are just that, headcanons.



The media twists things all the time, constantly, every single day. "Media lies because they're FORCED TO" is quite the bold take. The video game media reported on it (and exaggerated, as media is prone to do) because it was a popular headcanon. We keep getting back to the main point which is that LGBT people can't innocently headcanon anything without being presumed to be LITERALLY FORCING THEIR IDEAS DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS. Expecting every single person who ever writes a headcanon to include a disclaimer that they know it isn't a fact is... ridiculous.


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

sorry to say again ( but i had someone help me formulate what i mean ):
my take is not that it's being forced on anyone, i just don't like that there are people, even just since my previous post, that are giving back pats and interpreting partner as ambiguous, when they even directly said ' business partner ' in the guidebook, and also flick never even mentions cj.

it's one - sided as hell.  if i hadn't met cj before i met flick, i never would have known they knew each other to begin with ...

it's not ambiguous.
it was not intentionally placed to give lgbt+ people hope.
it's not a step forward.

nintendo still has problems and they shouldn't be given credit where it isn't due.

that's my entire point.


----------



## driftwoodisle (Apr 21, 2020)

this entire thread took 10 years off my lifespan lmao


----------



## Saaga (Apr 21, 2020)

Rave said:


> This keeps getting repeated in this thread- "Headcanons are ok, but not when people act like it's fact!" What exactly qualifies someone as saying their head canon is fact? Every random tweet that says "oh haha theyre gay" doesn't need to come with a giant "WARNING! THIS POST IS A JOKE! I KNOW THEY ARE NOT A CANON COUPLE!" disclaimer at the bottom to not be read as fact. Or are headcanons fine as long as you never publically share them?


I don’t think you understand what I’m saying, can’t speak for others you may be referring to and you are overreacting a bit.  So to simplify, a headcanon is your own personal canon which may differs from actual canon as it has elements, story, characters etc. not present in the actual continuity, but inside your mind. So people understand when you mention or refer something  as your headcanon, that it’s YOUR personal idea of the subject or character that exists only in your head and therefore doesn’t actually affect the actual canon in anyway. The key is how you present it.
For example, X and Y are non-canon couple in the actual canon, but two fans want to imagine them as a couple and here is how they present the idea:  ”My headcanon is that X and Y are a couple.”<— Straight to the point and clear.
vs. ”X and Y are canon, sorry I don’t make the rules.” <—which is their headcanon, but it is poorly and unclearly presented that may confuse the reader because they can’t tell if the writer is presenting their idea as a fact and which can  cause misunderstandings. No, you don’t need to put any disclaimers unless you want to/ feel like to, just make sure that reader understands that what you are sharing as a headcanon is presented as headcanon and not some opinion or idea that is not canon as canon.


----------



## axo (Apr 21, 2020)

when someone says "X and Y are canon, sorry I don't make the rules" they're making a joke. I just wanted to clarify that, I know sometimes joking doesn't come across well through text, but it's a joke. A lighthearted joke that I think people have every right to make. Just like when someone posted earlier in the thread that Flick and CJ were "mega gay" it was a joke. Obviously they ship Flick and CJ, but it was a joke since we all obviously know what the article says at this point.


----------



## Rave (Apr 21, 2020)

Saaga said:


> We wouldn’t have had video game journalists write them as something alone the lines of ”Nintendo’s first gay couple” on their articles if that view wasn’t forced in some way or, how do I put it, wanted to be seen that way by some fans. It would have been exactly that, harmless, if some vocal but loud minority didn’t try to force it as a canon on Twitter or Tumblr or in social media overall.
> 
> And by forcing it as a canon, I mean that they make posts like ”NINTENDO CONFIRMED THEY ARE CANON! THEY ARE GAY!” They don’t even say or specify that is their personal headcanon, but as a fact. I have no problem with headcanons, because they are just that, headcanons.



Been said, but when people say that... they're joking. People who make jokes on the internet are in no way obligated to word their posts to make sure that you know it's a joke. Making a joke and not making sure that every single person who reads it knows it's not real does not mean you are forcing people to believe what you believe, or lying with the specific intent to make people think these cartoons are gay.


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 21, 2020)

okay so i wasn't going to respond in this thread again but someone referred to a point i made and i want to clarify my position!


Centuria said:


> Several people in this thread, joking or not, have said the developers/localization team " knew what they were doing " when they used the term partner, as if the word is exclusively romantic, and it's some wink - wink that they'd use it.  It's also been purported many other places by people who want to force the idea they're a couple.


hi, i'm one of the people who said this! i stand by what i said, which is that the NOA localization team knew what they were doing by using the word "partner". my point was _not_ that they thought the word was "exclusively romantic" or even that they were trying to wink to the audience, but simply that as people whose literal job it is to understand the nuances of language, that they would fully understand that using the word "partner" would mean some english-speaking people in the region they're localizing for (where one of the most commonly used meanings of the word _is_ as an allusion to a romantic relationship, usually but not exclusively between two queer people) would read it that way. with that in mind:


Centuria said:


> it's one - sided as hell.  if i hadn't met cj before i met flick, i never would have known they knew each other to begin with ...
> 
> it's not ambiguous.
> it was not intentionally placed to give lgbt+ people hope.
> ...


i completely agree with you that nintendo shouldn't be given credit for this, centuria. i _do _believe the use of the word "partner" is ambiguous, deliberately so (as someone else pointed out earlier, if they'd meant "roommate" or "business partner" or "friend", without intending any room for ambiguity they would have said have had cj say any of those things). it's unusual for nintendo to not be _extremely specific_ when it comes to shutting down interpretations of their characters as queer, so this is definitely a deliberate choice in some way, and i can say with 99% certainty, with nintendo's publishing standards being what they are, that the use of the term would at least have come up in a discussion at some point before making it into the final game. 

that being said, whether this is a case of queerbaiting, queer localizers trying to sneak in some gay content (and as i've said previously in this thread, those things are not mutually exclusive), or something else, nintendo absolutely does not deserve any sort of credit for it. hell, even if this was a good-faith, legitimate attempt at queer representation that backfired, they still wouldn't deserve any sort of credit, obviously, because one throwaway line with this much room for interpretation is obviously not actual queer representation in any sense. i am completely against megacorps like nintendo and disney trying to claim credit they did not earn for their measly, pathetic attempts at "representation". if people want to view flick and cj as a gay couple, more power to them, and i think there's more than enough suggestion in the text to allow for that to be a legitimate view beyond simply "headcanon", but that doesn't mean it's good representation, and i don't think i've seen anyone suggest that in this thread (which is a very pleasant surprise; if i see one more person praising gigantic corporations for putting in possibly-gay-blink-and-you-miss-them background characters one more time i'm going to scream).

i certainly will go on viewing flick and cj as a gay couple -- again, not because i'm a shipper (i wouldn't consider myself a part of any fandom) or eager to see my headcanon validated, but simply because 1) i think there's enough in the text to support that view, 2) because it's pleasant for my gay little heart, and 3) because it probably makes a lot of people at nintendo (and on the internet at large) angry/uncomfortable that i see them that way (and i love making those particular people angry/uncomfortable).

no disrespect at all meant by any of this, and i gotta say i really appreciate how mostly civil this thread has been thus far. the nature of representation (and what counts as good vs. bad representation) is a thing that warrants serious discussion, despite what some very vocal people online would have us believe, so i appreciate that everyone is keeping best intent in mind in this thread.


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

MayorMudkip said:


> if they'd meant "roommate" or "business partner" or "friend", without intending any room for ambiguity they would have said have had cj say any of those things



they did specifically say business partner in the guide, tho.

i just wanna clarify in general i'm totally cool with the ship, and think it's pretty cute.
but it was not left ambiguous for people to ship.  everyone's making a word mean something more than it is...
it literally says _business partner _in the guide.

c.j. is like a hyperactive teenager/very young adult ... i don't think him saying business partner would fit his persona.
it doesn't mean it's not implied.  idk.


----------



## Saaga (Apr 21, 2020)

Irishchai said:


> Did you join the site just to call LGBT people delusional
> We aren't "shippers" honey we know Gay lingo when we see it  Because we use it  and hear it  in our day to day life.
> 
> Also if you truly wish to go for the "Definition" route I'll have you know you are very wrong my dear.
> ...


No, I never said that _the LBGT people_ are delusional, stop misinterpreting my words. I was merely annoyed at a vocal but loud minority of people who claimed that CJ and Flick are canon couple, when it was evident that was not the case. Not aimed specifically people here at all, this happened to be the place to vent out. And no, I didn’t join the site to call people, but because I wanted to take part in the topics. This happened to be my first topic to take part in and currently the most used one, because people keep sending me replies and I reply back when I can after work. Understandably the topic is something that sparks strong opinions, so misunderstandigs opinion clashes are bout happen.

You must be a bit naive to think that’s the only definition of what partner is. And I didn’t really think you would copypaste the front page of google search. I give you Ö for effort. Let me expand your horizons a bit, no pun intended.
P.S. Do you honestly believe that Nintendo sends their players subliminal messages trough their  games? Don’t you think you are going a bit overboard? I’m slightly concerned about you.


----------



## axo (Apr 21, 2020)

Saaga said:


> You must be a bit naive to think that’s the only definition of what partner is. And I didn’t really think you would copypaste the front page of google search. I give you Ö for effort. Let me expand your horizons a bit, no pun intended.
> P.S. Do you honestly believe that Nintendo sends their players subliminal messages trough their  games? Don’t you think you are going a bit overboard? I’m slightly concerned about you.


the whole point of that user posting the dictionary entry for partner was to show that there *are* multiple meanings. that's the entire reason why anyone thought Flick and CJ were dating to begin with. no one thinks that the word partner exclusively refers to romantic partners, that's the reason we keep using the word ambiguous. the term partner is ambiguous, and that's where the headcanon came from. literally no one is denying that the word partner can refer to business partners, we're just trying to say that any word could've been used. hell, they could've said "business-partners" from the get-go instead of leaving it up to our imaginations until the companion book dropped. but they didn't. they used a word with multiple meanings and this is what happens when you leave ambiguity in media.


----------



## ZekkoXCX (Apr 21, 2020)

why are y'all making a huge deal about this? , just ship them or not if you want to and move on.


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> they did specifically say business partner in the guide, tho.


i know, but i'm talking specifically about in-game dialogue. companion books/player's guides are written by an entirely different teams than  localizations, typically long after the language used in in-game dialogue has already been approved. i've addressed this repeatedly at this point, but again i'll say that it's possible for the following to be true simultaneously:

for different languages to have different versions of canon;
for the NOA localization team to have been aware of the many meanings of the word "partner" when the word is used without a clarifying modifier (such as "business")
for the NOA localization team, being aware of this, to have chosen intentionally ambiguous language;
for the player's guide, written and approved by different people within nintendo (or by outside contractors), to offer one particular view of the intentionally ambiguous language chosen by the localization team (a view which, by the way, does not inherently _negate_ a romantic perception of that language, since as other people have pointed out, you can be roommates/business partners with someone you're also in a romantic relationship with)
yes, it says "business partner" in the guide (a document that, statistically, most players of New Horizons will never see or own a copy of). but it says "partner" in the game. every detail that goes into a game, particularly one of this scale, with this level of budget, is deliberate, especially when the developer/publisher is as exacting as nintendo. that's my only point. if they wanted every english-speaking player of new horizons to understand with 100% certainty that flick and cj are _absolutely not gay_, they would have used different language in the actual game -- but they didn't. does that make it good representation, or representation at all, for that matter? no, as i've already said. but it is a deliberate choice to be linguistically ambiguous, which invites audience speculation.


----------



## queentylerqueen (Apr 21, 2020)

this thread isn’t about shipping them, phrasing it as such would imply the relationship doesn’t exist canonically


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

MayorMudkip said:


> but it is a deliberate choice to be linguistically ambiguous, which invites audience speculation.



I highly disagree because were I not in the LGBT+ community myself, partner rings extremely platonic to me due to my job in law.
Partner is used there as business partners in lawyers, police, etc.

It's way more commonly used to the average person as a business thing, or like the definitions above like paired off students having a partner, statistically.
You can certainly believe it was chosen to allow people to think this, but I think that that is an incredible reach considering the original connotation of the word.

I acknowledge many other instances it is used, including romantic, but as I stated, Flick does not even once mention CJ.  It's too hard for me to see how it's viable to say anyone did this as a nudge that people could pick up on so much as, you know, finding a word that a character like CJ would use, because that's kind of important.


----------



## queentylerqueen (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> I highly disagree because were I not in the LGBT+ community myself, partner rings extremely platonic to me due to my job in law.
> Partner is used there as business partners in lawyers, police, etc.
> 
> It's way more commonly used to the average person as a business thing, or like the definitions above like paired off students having a partner, statistically.
> ...



To the average person (eg one not involved in the law business) partner has a romantic context, especially if it’s used between same-sex partners. It’s an incredible reach to say otherwise. If you’re going to cite statistics please actually cite them.

It’s a bit more than a nudge. The most simple reading of the dialogue is CJ giving what his relationship is to Flick— his partner. Do either of them look like lawyers, policemen, students, to you?


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 21, 2020)

Centuria said:


> I highly disagree because were I not in the LGBT+ community myself, partner rings extremely platonic to me due to my job in law.
> Partner is used there as business partners in lawyers, police, etc.
> 
> It's way more commonly used to the average person as a business thing, or like the definitions above like paired off students having a partner, statistically.
> ...


You're right that the word "partner" has additional connotations in law and law enforcement. But I disagree that the "average person" doesn't know about the romantic meaning of the word. This is obviously anecdotal, but I recently had a conversation with my parents where we discussed how when my mom hears the word "partner" she assumes the inherent meaning is "romantic partner" -- as in, a synonym for "significant other", regardless of the gender of the person using the word, unless otherwise specified. My dad has been a lawyer for many decades; my parents are both cisheterosexual people and are not any more or less more familiar with elements of queer culture than your "average" boomer cishets (other that what my best friend/platonic life _partner_ and I have taught them with our gay little ways).


----------



## Faux (Apr 21, 2020)

MayorMudkip said:


> You're right that the word "partner" has additional connotations in law and law enforcement. But I disagree that the "average person" doesn't know about the romantic meaning of the word. This is obviously anecdotal, but I recently had a conversation with my parents where we discussed how despite that when my mom hears the word "partner" she still primarily associates it with the connotation of "romantic partner" -- as in, a synonym for "significant other", regardless of the gender of the person using the word. My dad has been a lawyer for many decades; my parents are both cisheterosexual people and are not any or less more familiar with elements of queer culture than your "average" boomer cishets (other that what my best friend and I have taught them with our gay little ways).



Sorry, I didn't mean to say they don't _know, _but more to say it's less likely that in a connotation of saying, " I'll give this to x and they can make you awesome art, " adding partner in there sounds a lot more like a business situation to the average person.  It's not like when someone introduces you to their significant other and says this is their partner..

I have been in the LGBT+ community for over 17 years.  My best friend of 15 years is genderqueer as is their romantic partner.
My mom has known them for as long as I have.

She still doesn't call their partner the right terminology.  I have to argue 'girlfriend' is not the case because he is transitioning.  That he doesn't like boyfriend because it sounds infantilizing to a thirty year old man.

We forget the average person is not and does not have much deep involvement with the LGBT+ community, which is why we have to fight to be seen in these games as it is.

It was not, in my opinion, even slightly purposeful, and unless the writers themselves come and say it was, I will never believe it is because that is giving them credit for even trying when we cannot prove they were doing so in any way.

What everyone else chooses to do and conclude is on the, but I really don't care to allow them to claim even something as simple as pretending they did it in such a way as to let people feel comfortable with their interpretations.


----------



## Sir Takoya (Apr 22, 2020)

Just because they're roommates doesn't mean they can't be mates.


----------



## queentylerqueen (Apr 22, 2020)

Centuria said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to say they don't _know, _but more to say it's less likely that in a connotation of saying, " I'll give this to x and they can make you awesome art, " adding partner in there sounds a lot more like a business situation to the average person.  It's not like when someone introduces you to their significant other and says this is their partner..
> 
> I have been in the LGBT+ community for over 17 years.  My best friend of 15 years is genderqueer as is their romantic partner.
> My mom has known them for as long as I have.
> ...



Who is this average person you’re referencing?

The translators, for the sake of translating with this ambiguity in mind, probably won’t come out and /say/ this, if NoA/Nintendo wanted their first gay couple they’d have it. I know you want better representation, as do I, but I don’t understand why you’re dismissing subtext or other readings. 

Proof is already here that this was a possible interpretation of the dialogue — the proof of omission: not “business partner”, not “friend”, not “cohort”, not “buddy” was used in the dialogue. Claiming that the whole point of view is invalid because an interpretation is not solid is to dismiss subtext itself. 

Also you’re equating difficulty of your mother using correctly gendered descriptors boyfriend v girlfriend against an implied difficulty or lack of familiarity with using partner in a romantic context. These are not the same, aside from being unrelated to the topic at hand.


----------



## Faux (Apr 22, 2020)

queentylerqueen said:


> Also you’re equating difficulty of your mother using correctly gendered descriptors boyfriend v girlfriend against an implied difficulty or lack of familiarity with using partner in a romantic context. These are not the same.



Thank you for not reading.  I will lend you the same courtesy.
Have a great rest of your day/night.


----------



## SheepMareep (Apr 22, 2020)

Saaga said:


> No, I never said that _the LBGT people_ are delusional, stop misinterpreting my words. I was merely annoyed at a vocal but loud minority of people who claimed that CJ and Flick are canon couple, when it was evident that was not the case. Not aimed specifically people here at all, this happened to be the place to vent out. And no, I didn’t join the site to call people, but because I wanted to take part in the topics. This happened to be my first topic to take part in and currently the most used one, because people keep sending me retplies and I reply back when I can after work. Understandably the topic is something that sparks strong opinions, so misunderstandigs opinion clashes are bout happen.
> 
> You must be a bit naive to think that’s the only definition of what partner is. And I didn’t really think you would copypaste the front page of google search. I give you Ö for effort. Let me expand your horizons a bit, no pun intended.
> P.S. Do you honestly believe that Nintendo sends their players subliminal messages trough their  games? Don’t you think you are going a bit overboard? I’m slightly concerned about you.



Was not going to reply to this at all but you definitley struck a cord and kind of pissed me off so I am going to make this EASY for you to understand. 

1. The people you are talking about being delusional saying flick and cj are together? We are primarily lgbt. So YES. You did call us delusional. Dont get mad about something you said. If you're going to say something so offensive to a group of people own up to it and APOLOGIZE not treat us as though we cannot point out such poor behavior.
2. In my post which you quoted I provided 2 separate definitions and did NOT say that was the only one. You clearly have not read my responses to anything in this thread as I've pointed this out multiple times that it is ambiguous in language. 
3. This isnt necessarily a "subliminal message" it is context clues my dear. You use critical thinking skills to dissect meaning out of words. This is a basic skill used in all forms of communication. 
4. Dont be concerned about me. I am on my way to be an RN next month and can say for sure I am in a much better place morally than you. Not to mention I dont join a site then immediately make fun of and make rude remarks to a group of people who have done nothing to me unlike you. There is an introduction board and you skipped right past it.

Please, continue to be rude towards me for no reason. I am eager to see your next uneducated response.


----------



## diamond is unbreakable (Apr 22, 2020)

Anyway, flick and cj are boyfriends and savannah and audie are girlfriends


----------



## SheepMareep (Apr 22, 2020)

Chevre and nan are also lesbians


----------



## Faux (Apr 22, 2020)

diamond is unbreakable said:


> savannah and audie are girlfriends



u sayin my girl audie cheating on whitney ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
or are they poly


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 22, 2020)

Centuria said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to say they don't _know, _but more to say it's less likely that in a connotation of saying, " I'll give this to x and they can make you awesome art, " adding partner in there sounds a lot more like a business situation to the average person.  It's not like when someone introduces you to their significant other and says this is their partner..
> 
> I have been in the LGBT+ community for over 17 years.  My best friend of 15 years is genderqueer as is their romantic partner.
> My mom has known them for as long as I have.
> ...


Sorry to hear that about your mom, I've been in similar situations with my parents and I know how frustrating and hurtful that can be. I'm genderqueer myself, and basically all of the people I have my closest non-familial relationships with are either genderqueer or non-binary as well. Trust me, I don't forget that the "average person" doesn't have much involvement with or knowledge of the queer community.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, though I do think we're agreeing on quite a bit. I don't think we can split the semantic hairs of the specific linguistic uses of the word "partner" any more than we already have, we probably just don't see eye to eye on this. I still agree with your basic premise, that Nintendo should not get _credit_ for any _perceived_ representation people feel Flick and CJ present, and I would argue against anyone who disagreed with that premise if they were to present that view here or anywhere else. 

But I disagree that simply acknowledging the fact that ambiguous language was used for CJ's dialogue is also giving Nintendo "credit" in any way. I am literally doing exactly the opposite of that and so are many other people in this thread. I haven't seen anyone defend or advocate for Nintendo's use of such ambiguous, easily-hand-waved-away terminology; we're discussing the choice to use it, what that means, and why people obviously have such a wide range of strong feelings about it. None of us are on the localization team at NOA, and can say definitively why this particular word was chosen and what the specific intent behind it was, you're right. 

That being said, the indisputable fact remains that the word "partner" has a meaning that is in common use which signifies a romantic relationship, and it _was_ chosen for CJ's dialogue, deliberately, without modifiers, phrased exactly as it is. You can view CJ and Flick however you like, no one's insisting that you _have_ to see them as anything in particular. As I've said before, this isn't a matter of shipping or fandom to me (I really couldn't care less about that, though if anyone reading this does, more power to you), it's simply a matter of looking at the game, the text it offers, the potential queer context that surrounds that text, and the reception of that text by the audience. Even if Nintendo didn't make this choice for the right reasons, or for any reason at all, it's worth discussing those concepts. That's not the same thing as giving them "credit" for anything.

Also I don't say this as a gotcha and I don't want to be one of those people who waves their credentials around but I just want to reiterate that I literally have a degree in _exactly this_ and have lectured at ivy league universities about the history/exclusion of queer content in games (nintendo games specifically), which is why I keep writing five paragraph essays in this Animal Crossing fan forum thread about whether a digital cartoon beaver and lizard are gay when I should be asleep, if anyone's wondering


----------



## SuperK98 (Apr 22, 2020)

Absolutely in awe of the fact that there's 10 pages of this all over a chameleon and beaver in a video game that may or may not be gay


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 22, 2020)

SuperK98 said:


> Absolutely in awe of the fact that there's 10 pages of this all over a chameleon and beaver in a video game that may or may not be gay


One page of discussion for every Nintendo executive who would be pissed off by acknowledging this truth: CJ and Flick are gay and love each other, and I _will_ be officiating their marriage them during wedding season.


----------



## Faux (Apr 22, 2020)

MayorMudkip said:


> Sorry to hear that about your mom, I've been in similar situations with my parents and I know how frustrating and hurtful that can be. I'm genderqueer myself, and basically all of the people I have my closest non-familial relationships with are either genderqueer or non-binary as well. Trust me, I don't forget that the "average person" doesn't have much involvement with or knowledge of the queer community.
> 
> [ snipped for length gjukhi ]



To simplify and shorten this whole thing for us:
I agree we are pretty much in agreeance.

And I want to also clarify that I don't disagree that it _can_ be ambiguous.
I guess my literal only issue is people saying the ambiguity was a choice and on purpose and was done for a reason??  because many people, here and elsewhere, are giving nods saying that someone on the team purposely sought out this word to allow interpretation, when I personally do not think that is the case.
The fact they made the clarity in the guidebook does not seem like some correction or anything to the phrase used in the game so much as an expansion of it.

For game dialogue, it just feels like that is what the writers felt fit CJ's personality ( since, as a writer, I tend to think of 'what feels realistic' for a character to say, not so much 'how will the audience assume this means,' because too many people overanalyse literature where they do not need to, very much disliked that when I attended schooling in the States for a brief time ), not because anyone was purposefully looking for a term people could use however they want.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 22, 2020)

technically nothing of the image debunks them being lovers and them being lovers doesn't contradict anything in the image


----------



## queentylerqueen (Apr 22, 2020)

there’s a big difference between overanalyzing and looking at subtext, also a little weird to assume exclusively US schooling in this thread for everyone that disagrees with you

when writing snippets of dialogue, where small choices have big impact on the understanding of the nature of relationships between characters, word choice is important

partner was chosen for a reason and saying you disagree that there was authorship on the part of the translator in this one instance without reasoning is just a blank assertion


----------



## MayorMudkip (Apr 22, 2020)

Centuria said:


> And I want to also clarify that I don't disagree that it _can_ be ambiguous.
> I guess my literal only issue is people saying the ambiguity was a choice and on purpose and was done for a reason??  because many people, here and elsewhere, are giving nods saying that someone on the team purposely sought out this word to allow interpretation, when I personally do not think that is the case.
> The fact they made the clarity in the guidebook does not seem like some correction or anything to the phrase used in the game so much as an expansion of it.
> 
> For game dialogue, it just feels like that is what the writers felt fit CJ's personality ( since, as a writer, I tend to think of 'what feels realistic' for a character to say, not so much 'how will the audience assume this means,' because too many people overanalyse literature where they do not need to, very much disliked that when I attended schooling in the States for a brief time ), not because anyone was purposefully looking for a term people could use however they want.


I understand what you're saying here, but I just briefly want to push back slightly. I've brought up the idea several times in this thread that it's _possible_ the word "partner" was chosen intentionally by a queer person or people on the NOA localization team (I've also already stated this being true wouldn't negate the nature of the queerbaiting in the dialogue, so I won't get into that again). 

The reason that I float that possiblity, though, is because I know queer people who work at Nintendo. I don't think any of them work in localization, but the reason I bring that up is simply because...queer people work at Nintendo. Do I know for sure that there are queer people on the NOA localization team? No, I don't (and even if I did, I can only guess at their motivations for their work). But I'd say it's at least fairly likely, statistically speaking, that there's at least some queer presence on the localization team (as I've pointed out in past posts here, other queer vernacular that made it into NH seems to indicate this). My only point here is that it's certainly not impossible for there to be multiple reasons for this particular language choice, and I certainly don't think it's far-fetched to ponder whether the choice itself was made by a queer person, for whatever reason. Queer people? In _my_ Nintendo franchise? It's more likely than you think!

Respectfully, I am also a writer, as well as a narrative designer, and I don't really know that I'd go so far as to say the word "partner" fits CJ's personality necessarily? It's the job of a good writer/narrative designer/localizer to take into account not just what feels "real" but also precisely what you said -- how the audience will interpret the dialogue you write. If the player _can't_ interpret your dialogue or if they're given too _much_ room to interpret when you don't want them to, well...you probably need to rewrite or risk that they won't get very far in the game, which is why game writers/narrative designers need to be very precise in their language choices. This may just be a creative/vernacular difference, but if I were writing a character for a game who's supposed to be a young, cool streamer in the year 2020, if I meant "friend" I'd probably use "friend", or "buddy", or "bud". If I meant business partner I'd say business partner. If I meant roommate I'd say roommate. But I'd only make those choices if I didn't want to invite interpretation of the word "partner", knowing as I do that it has many potential connotations depending on who's reading it, and I want to be as precise as possible.


----------



## Saaga (Apr 22, 2020)

Irishchai said:


> Was not going to reply to this at all but you definitley struck a cord and kind of pissed me off so I am going to make this EASY for you to understand.
> 
> 1. The people you are talking about being delusional saying flick and cj are together? We are primarily lgbt. So YES. You did call us delusional. Dont get mad about something you said. If you're going to say something so offensive to a group of people own up to it and APOLOGIZE not treat us as though we cannot point out such poor behavior.
> 2. In my post which you quoted I provided 2 separate definitions and did NOT say that was the only one. You clearly have not read my responses to anything in this thread as I've pointed this out multiple times that it is ambiguous in language.
> ...


1. So, because you think that most people who shipped them are LBGT, I must have meant LBGT even when I didn’t say so or refer to that group in anyway. And even if they make a portion of those who ship them, again I wasn’t calling them specifically delusional, but that’s just your reading. It’s not all about you. That kind of assumption making isn’t healthy. If you don’t understand something or it is unclear to you, you could have asked me. But to clarify, I meant those who are vocal but loud minority in social media who enforced their views on ship as canon, even when the dialogue, the context, original and the other localizations tells the opposite.

2. While you didn’t say only definition, you brought me only one definition of the the word and nothing else and stated that as the official definition. _”Also if you truly wish to go for the "Definition" route I'll have you know you are very wrong my dear.
As my lovely friend google so kindly brought up for me here are the official definitions. #2 will shock you!”. _

3. Do you ever think that may be text you read is just that and there is no ”clues” and you may be reading too much into it? You have a one very clear example in the game that clearly states same-sex relationships (the princess comic), so it doesn’t make any sense for Nintendo to suddenly ”hide” a second example under vague terms, if they were to be a couple. It doesn’t make sense.

4. While it is encouraged to make a introduction as a first post, I’m not obligated to do it as the first step and but if I do eventually write there, I want to have weekend off or more time to actually put some effort in it and not write it half-assed because I have limited free time due work during days.
I noticed that you are referring to me in endearing terms, which I find weird as we clearly don’t know each other or aren’t even close. Or is this some American thing? Because you mentioned it, I hope wherever you are going that it helps you. Though I find going to an RV trip in the middle of global pandemic a questionable for health reasons as you are supposed to be quarantined in the most parts of world.


----------



## Clock (Apr 22, 2020)

I don't really understand why this is controversial, but I see the two of them as roommates working together as a business.


----------



## Chris (Apr 22, 2020)

Second reminder to keep things friendly. There have been some unnecessary put-downs in this thread, even if they were not full-blown insults. Remember that on the receiving end of your posts are real people who will feel hurt by your words, no matter how kindly or subtly you try to phrase your opinion of them.

Also, if you have nothing to contribute to the thread then please do not respond. I have had to remove several posts that were irrelevant to discussion. This topic is perfectly valid.


----------



## chameleoncommunism (Apr 22, 2020)

I don't want to look through 11 pages of thread so I'll just add my personal opinion, sorry if it's already been said:

I don't mind at all if players don't think that Flick & CJ are dating...there are lots of other reasons why you might not like that, from you just don't think they have the chemistry.

However it does become quite...glaring when people choose _now _to say there shouldn't be romance in Animal Crossing, when the newest update literally has you giving a cute heterosexual couple a wedding-themed anniversary photo. If you go through a series with occasional, but quite in-your-face, straight relationships and then choose the speculated gay couple to air your uncertainties about romance being in the series, people have the right to wonder why.

Normally I also get annoyed when people state headcanons as fact, but when it comes to LGBTQ+ headcanons, I think you need to remember the dark and horrific history behind the oppression of our communities. Considering straight people haven't been regularly oppressed for their sexuality, I think they can cope with LGBTQ+ people stating a chameleon and beaver are dating as if it's fact. All it is is projecting onto cartoon characters as a way of saying "we exist" in a world that consistently acts as if we don't.


----------



## thatveryawkwardmayor (Apr 22, 2020)

this is some tumblr style toxicty can we not freak out or police people's headcanons. its a headcanon. thats it


----------



## Faux (Apr 22, 2020)

MayorMudkip said:


> I understand what you're saying here, but I just briefly want to push back slightly. I've brought up the idea several times in this thread that it's _possible_ the word "partner" was chosen intentionally by a queer person or people on the NOA localization team (I've also already stated this being true wouldn't negate the nature of the queerbaiting in the dialogue, so I won't get into that again).
> 
> The reason that I float that possiblity, though, is because I know queer people who work at Nintendo. I don't think any of them work in localization, but the reason I bring that up is simply because...queer people work at Nintendo. Do I know for sure that there are queer people on the NOA localization team? No, I don't (and even if I did, I can only guess at their motivations for their work). But I'd say it's at least fairly likely, statistically speaking, that there's at least some queer presence on the localization team (as I've pointed out in past posts here, other queer vernacular that made it into NH seems to indicate this). My only point here is that it's certainly not impossible for there to be multiple reasons for this particular language choice, and I certainly don't think it's far-fetched to ponder whether the choice itself was made by a queer person, for whatever reason. Queer people? In _my_ Nintendo franchise? It's more likely than you think!
> 
> Respectfully, I am also a writer, as well as a narrative designer, and I don't really know that I'd go so far as to say the word "partner" fits CJ's personality necessarily? It's the job of a good writer/narrative designer/localizer to take into account not just what feels "real" but also precisely what you said -- how the audience will interpret the dialogue you write. If the player _can't_ interpret your dialogue or if they're given too _much_ room to interpret when you don't want them to, well...you probably need to rewrite or risk that they won't get very far in the game, which is why game writers/narrative designers need to be very precise in their language choices. This may just be a creative/vernacular difference, but if I were writing a character for a game who's supposed to be a young, cool streamer in the year 2020, if I meant "friend" I'd probably use "friend", or "buddy", or "bud". If I meant business partner I'd say business partner. If I meant roommate I'd say roommate. But I'd only make those choices if I didn't want to invite interpretation of the word "partner", knowing as I do that it has many potential connotations depending on who's reading it, and I want to be as precise as possible.



Since I'm now on my phone and don't wish for this to be drawn on more when we simply won't change our minds,

I again don't say it's impossible. To me, personally, saying what you're saying is giving someone out there credit for word choice that I myself might have considered with no indication or thought for the fanbase.

I don't write in English so that may be why that is the case, but I really just don't see it that way and there's not much that will change it for me, and I don't intend to try and take that thought from you.

I'm glad we could have a structured discussion though! Thank you for your points, even if it didn't change my mind.

Hope to see you around on less heated topics. )


----------



## Thyl (Apr 22, 2020)

I did not expect people to make this topic such a heated question. All I can say is that neither side is wrong nor right, because it is pretty subtle and therefore there's definitely space for some own character stories.

I personally never saw them as partners simply because they seem so young in my eyes, but if someone does I don't mind it. Animal Crossing leaves a lot to the player's own imagination.

Edit: I also want to mention that Nintendo has had gay options in their games recently. For example Fire Emblem: Three Houses has option to form same sex relationships and they even increased the amount of gay partners in the previous DLC.


----------



## panic.cherry (May 17, 2020)

Krissi2197 said:


>


people keep saying "kEeP rElAtIoNsHiPs OuT oF a KiDs GaMe" like theres literally going to be a wedding event lmao if we want flick and cj to be boyfriends we can think of them as boyfriends


----------

