[ 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

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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describe someone is essentially the same as saying they are offended by sexuality, or that they have nonsensical and/or outdated views about sexuality.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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

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

[(Anonymous)]

lol why are you even arguing with this person

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

[(Anonymous)]

I give up. There is no reasoning with you.

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

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, have a good one. ♥

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.