[ SECRET POST #3202 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

yeah i'm not saying that isn't possible, just shouldn't your orientation reflect who your attracted to in all capacities rather than splitting it up?

it's like there's already a history with conflating being gay with being all sexual and no romance and it feels like this is just going back to that

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

yeah i'm not saying that isn't possible, just shouldn't your orientation reflect who your attracted to in all capacities rather than splitting it up?

But if you're not attracted to the same thing in all capacities then how does it make sense NOT to split it up?

it's like there's already a history with conflating being gay with being all sexual and no romance and it feels like this is just going back to that

How is acknowledging that some people are romantically and sexually attracted to different things in any way saying being gay is all about sex and no romance? For example, an aromantic heterosexual person has nothing at all do with being gay and them using that label says nothing about how gay people feel about sex or romance. I just don't see how you made that leap at all.

[(Anonymous)]

Because the split attraction model literally says that homosexuality is all about sex, maybe?

[(Anonymous)]

It says that sexual attraction is all about sex, whether it's sexual attraction to the same or opposite sex. Which...it is. Homosexual DOES mean sexual attraction to the same sex.

That said, homosexual ≠ gay. It's why a lot of people have stopped using the word homosexual, because it does have that connotation of being all about sex, while gay doesn't (well, I suppose it always will with certain people, but those are people who will always have the same opinion regardless of what word is used).

[(Anonymous)]

Attraction to the opposite sex is irrelevant. There has never been a cultural narrative stating that straight people are incapable of genuine relationships and will fuck anyone with the right configuration of genitals.

And homosexual = gay. Adoption of non-clinical terms because we're humans and not lab animals doesn't actually break the association. You're playing semantic games in order to justify applying an attraction model to gay and bi people that plays heavily into harmful stereotypes that still exist and are still used to justify homophobia, and it's not remotely a good look.

[kitelovesyou]

I don't get it. How is pointing out that some people experience attraction in different ways homophobic? As a woman, finding myself attracted to someone for the first time without being bogged down in romantic feelings was fucking liberating, and I'm also gay? I mean, that's a reality that many people experience about their sexuality, hell, a lot of bisexual people focus on this when they talk about their sexuality changing over time, or for different genders. It might not happen for your particular sexuality permutation, but suppressing what is an indisputable fact (what you call a "model") about how many people experience their sexualities won't help queers. What is a way/context of phrasing that indisputable fact that you think would harm queers (specifically gay men)?