[ SECRET POST #3058 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3058 ⌋

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: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #437.
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

not op

[(Anonymous)]

they said they never called the author creepy, just critiqued the writing.

Re: not op

[(Anonymous)]

"Creepy" is an intrinsically judgmental, personal jab, no matter how you slice it.

Re: not op

[(Anonymous)]

Uh, no it's not. If there's an abandoned house at the end of my street where mysterious lights show through the windows even though nobody's lived in it for years, calling it creepy isn't personal at all.

Re: not op

[(Anonymous)]

In what world is calling a nonsentient thing creepy any way comparable to calling a person creepy?

Houses can't take anything personally, on account of them, you know BEING HOUSES.

Re: not op

[(Anonymous)]

The original critique refers to a relationship being creepy. While relationships can involve sentient people, the relationship itself is nonsentient and cannot take anything personally. Much like a house.

Re: not op

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who knows a couple where she is 22 and he is 49 and knowing they are perfectly happy together, calling a relationship with the same age difference "creepy" by default is pretty judgemental, narrow-minded and potentially offensive.

Re: not op

[diet_poison]

"Creepy" is not a fucking jab and it exists for a reason. I'm not saying it's not judgmental or that it would be appropriate for this situation (I'd make a terrible writer and I guess my empathizing so much with OP is one reason why) but it's not said to tear down someone else; it comes from a place of defense, not offense. When I'm bothered by something that's creepy it's not because I just don't like someone; it's because I feel their actions or behaviors are either threatening/demeaning or contribute to a culture that is threatening/demeaning.

And while I do think real relationships between young and old adults can exist, I also think an old man writing about his desire for young women for no reason other than that they're hot is borderline creepy, and when you consider that women in their late 20s can look just as youthful but are WAY more likely to be cognitively developed, it is definitely creepy. it's just a few years away from being legal while decades away from the other person's age. 22 years old is rarely mature and so much easier to manipulate too.

Re: not op

[(Anonymous)]

So older people are never allowed to find younger people hot, then?

Re: not op

[diet_poison]

I will be honest: when an old person finds someone in their 20s hot, I get creeped out.

Again, not saying it will never work, and my reaction here isn't neutral or unbiased. It's a gut reaction. It's made worse when the person is, as I said, probably not cognitively mature, and when someone's trying to build a fantastical relationship with someone just based on how hot she is without constructing an actual character.

I've had people much older than me crush on me, and depending on how old they are, my response tends to vary from "not interested" to "ew, creeper, go away". My trainer at my current job leans into the latter category. He's old enough to be my dad but consistently get a Thing for the young women at my workplace, including, I strongly suspect, myself (and I know of at least two others, one of whom recently talked to me about it and is also pretty creeped out). Fortunately for me I don't work on his shift so I never see him anymore. I've also, when I worked in a more customer service-oriented job, had old men behave inappropriately towards me in ways that they were clearly not doing towards my male co-workers. This behavior bothers me. It's not like these are people who know me well and have fallen for me as a person - they see a young, cute face and get horny and don't even seem to think about how uncomfortable that can make the people attached to those faces.

(For reference, I'm 24.)

Re: not op

[blitzwing]

It doesn't really matter if it's creepy or not, judgemental or not, or if you find it creepy or not. The issue is that that's not an appropriate remark for a writing critique. You're there to help them become a better writer--not to tell them your morals, or your personal tastes.

There are situations where your personal moral opinions are neither needed nor appropriate.

Re: not op

[diet_poison]

I think it's pretty clear from reading my comment that I'm on a tangent here.

I said:

I'm not saying it's not judgmental or that it would be appropriate for this situation (I'd make a terrible writer and I guess my empathizing so much with OP is one reason why)

I'm staying away from the whole "is this good/bad critique" argument for a reason. I'm specifically defending OP's, and people's in general, use of the word "creepy" since apparently some people think it's a personal attack.

And since we've done this before, I'll just say right now that if you're going to keep harping on the thing I wasn't actually saying because it's more relevant to the origin of the thread, I'm not going to continue to engage.

Re: not op

[blitzwing]

So, you went on about something unrelated to the OP's conversation, and now you're mad that someone replied to it as connected to the OP's issues?

That's a strange thing to get your jimmies rustled over. If you're "on a tangent" and don't want to discuss it in the context of the OP's point, maybe you should start your own thread on the issue. That's what I do when a thought has been sparked by an OP but I'm not really replying to them or wanting to discuss their point.

I'm not going to continue to engage.

Then simply do so. Right now you come across like those little kids that go "I'm not talking to you!" *talks to you* *keeps talking to you* "I said I'm NOT talking to you!!!!"

Re: not op

[diet_poison]

I mean do you never go on tangents? Ever? Maybe not; you're literally the only person I've had this issue with. That's how threads work, though, and why sub-threads exist - people start to talk about related things as they go along.

I said I'm not going to continue to engage if you continued to harp on an issue past one comment. I said it once (in the comment you just replied to) so I'm not sure why you are under the impression that I said it earlier.