It would also be in line with Incest Subtext. So yeah, good idea.
Good idea. Three Yay should be a redirect to the three-way equivalent of Ho Yay - specifically, One True Threesome.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
adopting kitteh
Tsundere pet.
Plus 1 to move.
edited 5th Mar '12 10:53:40 AM by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
Tsundere pet.
Bump for votes.
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
Hurler of Swine
Should we go over the other -Yay tropes after this, too?
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
Crowner called.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
That One Troper Guy
Made the alt-titles crowner
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
Crowner hooked.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Gentleman Troper!
Am I correct that this should also be marked subjective and audience reaction?
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
No, you are not.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Spark9: No, we wouldn't mark it as subjective. This is supposed to be actual objective teasing of a threeway relationship. For the fandom reaction or shipping, we have One True Threesome. That said, to keep it consistent with Homoerotic Subtext we would probably demand some pretty blatant evidence.
edited 11th Mar '12 1:16:49 PM by Arha
Gentleman Troper!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Did I miss something here? I thought Homoerotic Subject was "anything that any fan whatsoever thinks might be hinting at a homosexual pairing, even if the characters are canonically straight"? That's about as YMMV as you can get. Did this get fixed while I wasn't looking?
"homo subtext" doesn't fit "canonically gay" very well.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Gentleman Troper!
I'm aware of that, but this is the internet we're talking about. For any movie or book that has two male characters in it, some part of the fandom is going to clamor that they're "gay for each other" according to however they interpret the subtext.
The same thing applies here. The examples for Spirou, TRON, and Girl Genius are just fan theories, and that's just the works I'm familiar with; the picture is from Archie, for crying out loud. Such theories exist for any work; want me to break out the Harry/Hermi/Ron shipperfics? I don't see how this and all the other "Yay" tropes can be anything but YMMV.
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
Spark: Homoerotic Subtext is not Ho Yay. Ho Yay was supposed to be an objective trope about actual, objective teasing or fanservice involving homosexuality. However, as we all know, it decayed massively to the point where the thread decided it would be far simply to simply move the objective trope to a new name and let Ho Yay continue as a shipping thing. Which is also how it's used off wiki.
edited 11th Mar '12 2:01:25 PM by Routerie
Gentleman Troper!
Okay, so I guess it did get changed when I wasn't looking.
Well, that's good. So if I understand correctly, this trope here is being turned away from a "Yay" trope, and therefore all examples that are just fan theories ought to be cut (as per the third paragraph on Homo Erotic Subtext)?
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
I certainly support this redefinition. If we are renaming the trope, we shouldn't carry over the definition that fits the old name only.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Certainly. Any fandom interpretations of threesomes are supposed to be on OT3 anyway.
Crown Description:
Now that the former definition of Ho Yay has been moved to Homoerotic Subtext and Ho Yay is now an audience reaction, we should rename this to Threesome Subtext for title consistency, and because this is an objective trope to it should have a title that sounds more objective.