fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3041 ]

[ SECRET POST #3041 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3041 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 085 secrets from Secret Submission Post #435.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I wouldn't say fandom is generally anti-smut, but there are certain anti-kink tendencies. All those people who call themselves "kink-critical" and who want to police which kinks are acceptable and which are "problematic" and need to be "examined" (usually meaning anything non-con, underage, rape fantasies, ageplay, that kind of thing).

It's pretty depressing. For me fandom was always a place that accepted each and every kink and taught you not to be ashamed of what you're into, and there's definitely some push back against that now. I'm glad I'm old enough not to give a shit, but I wouldn't have wanted to hear how disgusting the things I get off to are when I was 15.

This 100%

I think examining kinks are fun, i.e., I get enjoyment out of reading good analyses and get enjoyment out of laughing at bad ones. But not because I "need" to "understand" the problematic context of what I like or some shit. Like, seriously, on a scale of 0-10, how important or helpful is knowing why you like kinks that may or may not be related in some way to patriarchal structures (just like 90% of everything in society)? A 0.25? A 0.1?

Jesus Christ, it's like the way bored rich people used to make a big clothes-changed production out of eating dinner because they have nothing else of any urgency or importance in their lives.

Pff, bored rich people? Tumblr sjws always call Tumblr "safe space for us queer, nonbinary, poc marginalized voices"!

Well, all I can tell is that they're the segment of marginalized people who seem to have the energy and many hours of free time a day to engage in protracted online flame wars and write thousands of words worth of meta about TV shows. Not a terribly representative segment, to be sure.

I guarantee that like 75% of people claiming to be queer/nonbinary/poc on Tumblr are lying through their teeth about it. That might even be a generous number.

The more profiles I see of "nb demiboy greyacesexual panromantic anarchosocialist", the more I feel LGBTQ turning into a massive joke, and I really don't like it.

My name's Madras, and I love cock. Transmale, He/him/his or they/them pronouns only. Polykin. Demiboy Check my about for more info.

On the offchance this is a real thing... what the fuck is polykin?

Oh it's real. No clue.

(no subject)

blitzwing - 2015-05-03 14:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

elialshadowpine - 2015-05-03 15:50 (UTC) - Expand

Is this bio real? It could be.

I don't get this tumblr trend for putting your sexuality out there for any curious anon to leer at. Shouldn't you get to know someone a little first before informing them what you like to do with your genitals, or any interesting transformative history they might have had?

The best (worst, I mean) part is when people legitimize that shit by encouraging self-pigeonholing into special unique snowflake categories like that.

Those labels aren't that weird...

I can't even get demisexual and demiromantic straight since they seem to describe almost the same thing, and let's not get started on grey-sexual and grey-romantic. It's like we have to slap a special label on everything lest 0.000001% of the population feel ~left out~ or something, even if the labels are more confusing than helpful.

Demiboy/demigirl/demisexual are downright moronic and snowflakey.

This seems really cynical. I think lots of POC/LGBT kids flock to tumblr because it's a safe community in their eyes (not sure if I agree, but whatever). So maybe the reason they are over-represented there compared to the general population is because they feel free to be loud/visible there. I'm sure there are some yahoos out there faking their identity, but I doubt it's as many as 75%.

Fine. 73% then.

Nah, it's an instant win button. People with desperate need for outside validation will absolutely morph themselves into whatever the people they're trying to impress like best-- and in a good chunk of fandoms on Tumblr, the massive list of queer/race labels (that often don't in any way accurately describe them or how they actually feel) does the trick.

Safe space. Sure. Ha.

I think it's fun to examine kinks, as well. And I also think that it can sometimes be good to be critical of kink, because sometimes kink is expressed in rather unhealthy ways.

But the whole move toward codifying everything as "problematic" or "not problematic" and then dropping them into these tight, little boxes and completely eliminating any nuance or grey area is...not at all balanced. And the thing is, I don't think it's actually conducive to understanding or awareness, which is the big reason it's neither helpful nor useful. At the end of the day it's just, well, a massive circlejerk, and a way to make a bunch of people feel like they're better than others.

What I really have a problem with is the faux-neutral way these "problematic"/"not problematic" arguments are carried out. I honestly much prefer the "wtf this totally freaks me out because to me it says XYZ" outbursts. It comes off as rude, but it's just so much less insidious and slippery than the "We need to talk about ______" shit, which I can't stand. It's like...don't tell me I need something. You can tell me that you think something I like is fucked up, that's fine with me, but don't tell me I need to think about it some more, as if you know what's already in my head. Asking "So, why do people like ___?" and asking it non-rhetorically is much more helpful.

Yeah, those are good points. It's condescension wrapped up in the illusion of objectivity. It's a lot like the people who'll say, "you're being irrational and emotional, unlike me" in order to shut down a discussion. There's a sense that their preferences are stemming from a more intellectually "pure" place, and that that's why you need to listen to them, and not only is it not true, it's also very insulting.

-We need to talk about how this is terrible and you should feel terrible"

-Actually, I disagree with what you said because...

-WHO SAID I WANTED YOUR OPINION SHITLORD, DIE IN A FIRE

I like discussion/examination of kinks, too. But to me, that's kinda meta. There's a big difference between discussing and examining kinks, and targeting someone because they write a kink someone is squicked by or thinks is "problematic."* The problem is, we're getting more of the latter than the former -- or, the former ends up turning into the latter by people who steamroll a discussion/examination of kinks by starting shit like, oh, women being submissive is automatically internalized misogyny, and any man who wants to dominate a woman is at the very least a misogynist, and probably a rapist too. I got into a lovely /s argument with one person who jumped on me for talking about being a switch and a sub in certain circumstances. I did not mention gender, and they assumed that I was talking about men. When I elaborated that I only sub to women, and if there is any kink involved, I'm a domme with men (and some women; I have a D/s relationship with my fiancee, and I'm her co-dom)... let's just say it was amusing seeing them at a loss for words and unable to come up with an argument about how that was internalized misogyny. They finally admitted that they were just squicked by the whole concept of BDSM, and while they didn't say this, I'm pretty sure that their arguments of internalized misogyny were their way of justifying their squick.

There are areas in which a social justice based discussion can be useful, such as the awesome posts at Pervocracy where Cliff talks about experiences with the whisper network for warning people about abusers that the community won't kick out for reasons related to the geek social fallacies (and how that network fails a lot of people). That's an area where rape culture ties heavily into, and that's a useful discussion to have. But not every discussion or examination of kink needs to be about social justice.

* I'm getting very annoyed at the overuse of the word and how it's being applied to nearly everything, because there are places where it is a good descriptive word for discussion. Unfortunately, it's being used so generically that instead of describing the often unintended implications of a real social issue, it's becoming synonymous with "this thing I don't like", which is effectively meaningless.

absolutely this.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only