case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-03-18 04:08 pm

[ SECRET POST #3727 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3727 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

















Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 55 secrets from Secret Submission Post #533.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-18 10:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Maybe I just don't get it. But it seems weird to me. Say I like to color, I like board games and video games, I like toys. But I am an adult, I am not "child-coded" or a child. I would be so annoyed if someone were to treat me as one.

I think anon is talking about cases like this:

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 12:28 am (UTC)(link)
While this doesn't bother me personally (I don't get the hand-wringing over loli and shota, I think the style is like a more extreme version of "moe" and these characters don't really bear any resemblance to real life children in my opinion, they seem more about the fantasy of youth), there's stuff like this: (NSFW, half naked loli, aftermath of her vampire bite)

Mina Tepes is an ancient vampire queen who happens to have been turned when she was 13 or so, and has never grown up physically. The show is [i]not[/i] shy about using her for fanservice, and it's even part of her character, it bothers her intended romantic partner at first that she acts like a very dominant, predatory grown up woman while she looks like a child.

I think that's what people tend to mean when they talk about stuff like this. I don't care personally, but lots of people do. I don't think it justifies the internet doxxing hatemobs at all though, those people are more gross than this kind of stuff could ever be in my opinion.

Re: I think anon is talking about cases like this:

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 12:30 am (UTC)(link)
Same anon

Hah, I've done that accidental wrong HTML tag twice now tonight on here. Another website I use has the html tags set as [], and this one uses <>.

Re: I think anon is talking about cases like this:

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 02:16 am (UTC)(link)
I think -coded is the sort of thing where there's examples the majority of people would agree they are X-coded, examples the majority of people would not agree that they're X-coded, and plenty of examples where people will nitpick and fight over if they're X-coded or not.

Like I wasn't really in the MLP fandom, but I know there were discussions about...
Most people would agree that even if they're candy colored ponies, the Cutie Mark Crusaders and their classmates were child-coded, they're intended to be kids.
Most people would agree that characters like Princess Celestia were adult-coded.
People would happily fight over if the main six ponies were adult or not. They're the same size as the other adult ponies and Rarity owns her own business, but Twilight is still a student. So with no canon ages given, what's the right interpretation?

It ends up messily trying to guess the person's reasoning for shipping a pairing, and there's no faster way to start wank on the internet than by guessing why someone likes something either with build-in moralizing or by attaching one. ( "Girls only watch Doctor Who because they think the Doctor is hot." )