case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-03-20 06:38 pm

[ SECRET POST #3729 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3729 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 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) 2017-03-21 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
I tend to ignore canon for straight characters because there aren't enough non-stereotyped gay or bi characters. Congrats, bi people do exist!

Secret OP

(Anonymous) 2017-03-21 02:03 am (UTC)(link)
Congrats, I know bi people exist because I am one!

But "bi" doesn't automatically equal "massive cockslut" either, which is a disturbingly common characterization and strays way too close to the "bis are greedy and hypersexual" stereotype for me to be comfortable with. Lots of people seem to think "bi" is shorthand for "now I get to write about ____ straight character getting bent over six ways to Sunday by random dudes". There's never any variety to the depictions of canonly straight characters being portrayed as bisexual, it's almost always used as a lazy narrative tool so authors don't have to write someone discovering their sexuality. It's often a way to retcon a canon sexuality in under two sentences, or an excuse to write OOC smut and then not tag it.