[ SECRET POST #3109 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3109 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Sense8]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Gatchaman Crowds]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Blue Beetle]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Metroid]


__________________________________________________



09.
[God, the Devil and Bob]


__________________________________________________



10.
[The Cell (2000)]


__________________________________________________



11.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 015 secrets from Secret Submission Post #444.
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

Re: "Pansexuality"

[(Anonymous)]

I agree, it's dumb. It seems more like an attempt to be pedantic and define bisexuality than anything. Or it's fucking pretentious - "Ooh I'm not attracting to GENITALS I'm attracted to PEOPLE!"... yes, because the rest of us, gay, straight, or bisexual, are only attracted to genitals. What does it even mean in practice? Inclusive of trans people? I think that's even more insulting because it assumes that someone can't be in a gay or straight relationship with a trans person. Inclusive of intersex people? Okay, but again, seems pretty pedantic for including a very, very tiny percentage of humans. Inclusive of "genderqueer" people? I have my own issues with the "genderqueer" movement so whatever. Either way, functionally it adds nothing to the conversation, and I agree, the word should die.