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

Ahahaha, you're my favorite. Puritanism has no place in fandom. Porn of everything!

Being opposed to pedophilia =/= puritanism.

What the fuck is wrong with you.

Hey, calm your tits, we are talking about fictional characters here, no one wants to sexualize real life children.

So would you mind explaining how it's "puritanical" to be grossed out by smut of 12-year-olds?

It's fictional. Get over it.

Okay, let me rephrase that.

Being opposed to smut fanfiction about 12-year-olds =/= puritanism.

Puritanism would be more like "I am grossed out by sex in general and think nobody should write smutty fanfiction."

"I am grossed out by 12-year-olds having sex and think nobody should write smutty fanfiction about that specifically" IS NOT PURITANISM. It is a perfectly normal reaction to a topic that a lot of people find majorly squicky, and with good reason.

"I don't like so NO ONE SHOULD WRITE IT".

Okay...

Since you completely ignored the point I was trying to make, I'm going to assume you either didn't get it or are being deliberately obtuse.

In case it's the first one, I'll break it down in the simplest terms I possibly can:

A lot of people are disturbed by smut involving children. Some of these people believe that such smut should not be written. This is in no way comparable to people thinking that no one should write ANY sort of smut. Someone who thinks no one should ever write ANY sort of smut can accurately be called puritanical. Someone who is only opposed to smut involving children CANNOT be called puritanical if that is the only type of smut they are opposed to.

Do you understand now?

So it's not puritanical as long as you're censoring a kink you dislike and not smut in general.

Deliberately obtuse it is, then.

no u

You were so patient with them, anon. My hat is off to you.

It's still puritanical to say that anyone shouldn't write a particular kind of smut, even if it offends you. Don't look at it if you don't like it. Some people get their jollies from it, and that's exactly 0% your business.

I do not give a shit about what sort of smut people read. What I object to is misuse of the word puritanical. When words are misused they become meaningless.

If you seriously think there's no difference between being offended by smut of children and being offended by smut in general, then there is no point in my debating this with you any further.

I consider it pearl-clutching when someone uses their offense over a particular kink to claim that no one ever should write it. If it's literally just the word "puritanical" you're taking issue with here, okay, I'll use a different one, though I still think it functions.

No, it does not function. It is not puritanical, nor is it "pearl-clutching" for someone to be upset by fictional depictions of children engaged in sexual activity for the purpose of arousing the reader.

It is not puritanical, because to use that word is to describe someone is essentially the same as saying they are offended by sexuality, or that they have nonsensical and/or outdated views about sexuality. This is why it is ridiculous, untrue, and more than a bit skeevy to call someone puritanical for say being upset or offended by the sexualization of children.

Words have meanings. You cannot use a word with a concrete definition to mean whatever you want if you expect people to take what you're saying seriously.

You're moving the goalposts here. I don't care if someone's upset by fictional young'ins having sex; that's understandable and that in and of itself is in no way pearl-clutching. We're talking about the ones that take it a step further and claim no one should write it because it offends them. That's taking their own personal opinions and using them to shame others into ceasing whatever activity it is that bothers them. That's basically the definition of pearl-clutching.

lol why are you even arguing with this person

I give up. There is no reasoning with you.

Okay, have a good one. ♥

By your (extremely poor) logic, the entire country of Canada (and IIRC Australia too) is, legally, "puritanical." Because guess what? Written and drawn depictions of underage persons in graphic sexual situations are illegal here.

I COMPLETELY agree with this, and am so glad to hear someone else saying it too. I am extremely open to all kinds of kinky fanworks, but when it involves characters who are significantly underage, I find that incredibly messed up.

Of course, in the country where I live, it's also illegal to write or draw pornographic content of individuals established to be underage. Not that people necessarily get charged for doing it, unless they're distributing that material in mass quantities or whatever, but still. Every since this issue started blowing up in fandom I've been kind of proud to live in a country which actually makes pornographic content depicting underage individuals illegal.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3202 ]

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist

(frozen comment) Re: Porn fanworks of certain characters that should not exist