[ SECRET POST #2906 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2906 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 021 secrets from Secret Submission Post #415.
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)]

lol I know

And then they call it "mummy porn" to try to try to hide the fact that women of all ages actually like sex, shock horror. No idea why this was such a surprise.

Only men are allowed to like porn, really? Perhaps it's because female porn is often quite different than men's that it was deemed not to even exist for so long. Actually, I've been told by even quite liberal male friends that the written porn I like "isn't really porn".

[diet_poison]

Out of curiosity, was it just because it's written, or for some other reason?

[(Anonymous)]

Because porn has to have live action actors, apparently, and be aimed at men. Women aren't dirty enough to like porn.

Although historical written pornography certainly exists, and is called pornography; but that was written mostly by and for men. So there.

It's a completely arbitrary definition. Just a handy way of defining the kind of material a lot of women get of to as "not real porn". Because modern women don't like porn, duh. So whatever they get off to isn't porn. It's a circular argument.

I've seen studies that say that gay porn websites often now have up to 40% female subscribers, so let's see how the definitions start to change.

[diet_poison]

gah, that sounds dumb.

I can see someone arguing about written v. visual porn (though I would disagree with them, if they claimed written porn wasn't "real" porn, but at least it is just a discussion about the media at that point). Saying it's not real porn because women don't like porn!!! is frustrating. Hell, I don't even watch porn at all (and very rarely read it, and even then usually out of curiosity if I do), and that still makes me mad.

[(Anonymous)]

Language is not a static thing and it is good that we use different terms to refer to text or illustrated sexual situations than we do for things involving live actors. The distinction isn't arbitrary.

[darkmanifest]

Ugh, yeah, apparently when people think of porn, they only think of the stuff men like, which is overwhelmingly live-action performers, and women just aren't as into that as erotic literature. It's not until people get a peek into just how dirty the stuff women are writing and reading really is that it shatters the popular stereotype of gentle misty softcore, and then begins the pearl-clutching.

[anonymous4]

Laughing at the image of men clutching their pearls....