[ SECRET POST #2686 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

The only inclusion I can possibly think of is maybe an exclusive attraction to non-binary folk and even then I'm iffy about it.

Re: Controversial opinions

[diet_poison]

Yeah, was going to say this. I can see "pansexual" which 99% of the time will be functionally the same as "bisexual". I also agree with ayrt that sometimes they blur together.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

There was this great definition of pansexual I read somewhere, which defined it as attraction to all genders, whereas bisexual was defined as attraction to some genders.

Which I thought removed some of the tendency for people to view bisexuality as transphobic, and pansexuality as 100% accepting.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

What are the genders to that pan is attracted to and bi is not?

Because I've only seen pan as treating trans as a third gender, which is pretty damn transphobic.

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with your comment RE: pansexual actually being transphobic in many cases. Pretty ironic considering the amount of shit bisexuals get for even identifying as bi! :/

I think the best way to illustrate it is being attracted to people who identify neutral/other/third/no gender, in addition to people identifying as male and female.

Whereas someone identifying as bi may be attracted to people who identify as male & female, for example, or people who identify as neutrois & female, but not ALL expressions of gender.

How people USUALLY define bisexual & pansexual are: "attracted to men & women" and "attracted to ALL genders including trans!", both of which end up causing wank all over tumblr.

That made a lot more sense to me when someone explained it, anyway. And it seems to eliminate a lot of the debate about transphobia. (Obviously there's still problems with it, but these are the definitions I feel are least shitty to everyone involved.)

Re: Controversial opinions

[diet_poison]

I thought bi was defined as being attracted to men and women, not men + some other gender or women + some other gender. o.O

(I spend very little time on tumblr)

Re: Controversial opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Yeahhhh idk, because that brings up all kinds of issues.

Like, if we're talking trans people here (eg. MtF, FtM) they would probably identify as men and women. So they'd still fall under the umbrella of hetero/homo/bi sexuality.

But if you're talking about people who identify as third/other/neutral/no gender... is there a separate sexuality for that? Or are they too under the large umbrella? I don't know.

It would be interesting to see whether there are people who are exclusively attracted to people of third/other/neutral/no gender, but I've never heard of it. Not even on tumblr. (Then again, humans are diverse creatures.)