[ SECRET POST #2735 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2735 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 061 secrets from Secret Submission Post #391.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

You must live under a rock if you think people are not as protective of young humans as well.

People pretty much only care about animals, babies, and small children. The response to something bad happening to them is explosive. It's because they are all things people consider innocent and harmless. If something bad happens to them they did not deserve it because they do not know any better.

[evewithanapple]

I had a religious studies professor who posited the "busful of nuns" quandary to us once- what would it take to get somebody to blow up a bus full of nuns? Then he said the question was inherently worthless anyway because he already knew the answer: put a child in danger and almost anyone would push the button.

[(Anonymous)]

put a child in danger and almost anyone would push the button.

That...bothers me a lot. I sure as hell would not do that, and it makes me wonder what's wrong with people who would. A single child is not that important, for fuck's sake.

[evewithanapple]

I think the point he was trying to make is that the lizard hindbrain part of us that says "PROTECT THE OFFSPRING" would kick in before anything else, no matter what the necessary actions were. He could've been wrong, but I think it applies to a good chunk of the population.

[(Anonymous)]

Really? I mean, I am aware people have much more of a kneejerk protectiveness towards kids than they do adults, but in my experience (as stated by someone else), popular pets trump kids in terms of this emotional reaciton. Like, I know people who need advance warnings about dog death in fiction (and in fact, there is a website called doesthedogdie.com for people like this...); I've yet to meet someone who needs to know whether a child dies in a movie before they watch it, who doesn't also need to know more pressingly if there is animal death. Is that really only my experience?

[(Anonymous)]

da

I think it has to do with the way it is handled. Often, when a chuld dies it is soemthing big and important and meant to be awful. But sometimes pets are not treated like that, sometimes we don't even get to know if they live or die, and let's readers/viewers with a sense of having abandoned the poor thing.

[(Anonymous)]

dda

I would say that makes sense if only because more people have had personal experiences with pets dying as opposed to children dying.

I've never personally dealt with a child's death, so seeing it in fiction isn't going to bother me because it isn't going to make me think of something that happened in real life. I have, however, had multiple pets die on me, and it's far more likely that a scene like that will end up making me feel sad for the rest of the day if I'm not prepared for it.

[(Anonymous)]

This exactly! Most people have had a pet die and that scenario is something every pet owner must acce

[(Anonymous)]

This! Most people have had a pet die and it's an inevitability every pet owner must accept. Meanwhile, having a child die is the ultimate nightmare scenario and as such, almost unthinkable. Thus it makes sense that people would have a stronger emotional response to a death they have experienced/know they'll have to one day than something they struggle to believe could ever happen to them (and hopefully won't). I'm pretty sure that in a real-life situation where they could save either a pet or a baby, most people who have stronger emotional responses to animals in peril in fiction would still save the baby. It's just that in fiction more relatable situations tend to be more effective.

[(Anonymous)]

For me, it's because children in media are rarely treated as disposable. Killing or harming one is usually a big deal, and treated with due gravity. Pets die pretty offhand. It's the cavalier treatment that really bothers me.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I am starting to think that's the point. We expect people to try and rescue the children first, even before the cute pet animals, so we react with more obvious sympathy to the animals.