[ SECRET POST #3238 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3238 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I hate when people use this argument. It's so unbelievably stupid.

Yes, of course gay and bi men existed back then. No fucking shit. They've always existed. But the social context meant they stayed behind closed doors. Gay romances weren't mainstream in the 1800s because it wasn't considered okay.

I mean, why do you think there's a whole fucking civil rights movement centered around LGBT people?

[(Anonymous)]

Not okay as in illegal and could result in a term of hard labour at her Majesty's pleasure and social ruin.

[(Anonymous)]

As I acknowledge and am perfectly well aware of. Nowhere do I say that they had to do anything else. I was only clarifying what the person I was replying to meant by "the social context" as mainstream Sherlockians (in places like the scion socs) are fond of using it to erase 19th century queer people altogether.

So less of the "unbelivelably stupid", if you don't mind. Read the whole thread.

[(Anonymous)]

typo, sorry