fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3202 ]

[ SECRET POST #3202 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3202 ⌋

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, 072 secrets from Secret Submission Post #458.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's Susan. She's not a particularly sexed or sexualised character which I admit is one of the things I love about her. Not that she's a prude, I just imagine she has better things to spend her energy on. I just don't like to see her portrayed as someone who spends her nights getting finger-blasted by her grandaddy.

The problem I have with this attitude is that it seems to view sex as a lessening - like engaging in it lowers Susan - and I disagree with that view, for any other character.

I agree that it's probably OOC (although I could kind of see how you could do it in character and I think it would be pretty hot) but I don't think that makes it morally wrong. Just OOC and dumb.

It is lessening form some people.

Look, you watch a documentary about Leonardo Da Vinci, and instead of talking about how great he was, they talk about where he put his dick. That doesn't seem like it's cheapening him?

Nope.

Well, no. Because you can be a great artist and still be a human being with all the earthiness that implies. You seem to think that we can only view certain people in certain ways, and anything that doesn't fit your... well, rather one-dimensional view of people, to be honest, shouldn't be discussed.

Da Vinci probably took messy dumps and picked his nose as well, it doesn't make him less of a great artist. Documentaries about famous people are invariably trying to get at the root of what makes them human and like us, so we can understand them at that level rather than putting them on a pedestal. There's nothing wrong with that.

AYRT used the words "finger-blasted by her grandaddy" and you go straight to "Don't slutshame"?

If you don't think getting finger-blasted by your grandaddy is lessening I don't think I want to attend any family event with you.

If the point made was don't make porn where Susan gets finger blasted by her grandaddy, I would agree with that. But OP's position was don't make porn of Susan at all.

There's a difference between 'sex' and 'porn'. Sex happens in character, in universe, and is respectful. Porn is OOC, exploitative, and made for the viewer regardless of the IC implications and IS lessening. There's a difference between a well-rendered sex scene with partners that make sense and what the majority of Rule 34 is.

Even if all that were true, who cares? Unless you're just anti-porn period -- and porn of fictional, of-age characters is as non-exploitative as it gets -- any distinction made between characters who do and do not 'deserve' to be featured in porn is purely arbitrary and a matter of personal preference. And when it's personal preference, the most you can do is refuse to participate.

I'd wager most fans are against porn as I have defined it- sex where the universe is thrown out and the characters are exploited for only viewer satisfaction. It's why fanservice is a dirty word. The issue of this thread is the conflation of sex and porn. A well written sex scene can be tailored for viewer satisfaction without becoming porn- that's a win for everyone. At the point you make porn as described by the definition above, you are by nature insulting the subject.

With the proliferation of kink memes and id-oriented tropes like ABO, I would gladly see that wager. We are talking about fan-fans here? People who participate in fandom as we know it?

What I think is more likely the case is that most people have characters they would rather not see pornography of, as do I, as do you, and they probably even have reasons for it if you care to ask. But the OP wants to make a normative argument out of these arbitrary preferences.

Lol, I'm a diehard fan and do you know what I really love? Hot, graphic-as-fuck porn in which my OTP go at it like they're in heat (sometimes because they actually ARE in heat).

I also love well characterized, well plotted fics.

Sometimes I get to have BOTH those things in one fic. When that happens I am a very, very happy fangirl.

I think that's an egregious example and don't see that particular scenario as in character for her, but I don't necessarily think that Susan is disinterested in sex altogether. You're creating your own interpretation of canon for Susan's sex life. The person who wrote that fic is also doing their own interpretation of canon. That's kind of what fandom and fanfic is all about, right? I think the mistake you're making here is to think that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3202 ]

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

not the OP, but a devil's advocate

nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: nayrt

Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist