[ SECRET POST #3347 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3347 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[The Sound of Music]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Step Up Revolution]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Richonne & Ichabbie/Andy+Danai, Nicole+Tom]

__________________________________________________



06.
(Hamilton)


__________________________________________________



07.
[Elementary]

__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #478.
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)]

It's almost, and I'm just spitballing here, but it's almost like people have a problem with what is being drawn, not how well it has been drawn, and complaining about the anatomy is used as a dishonest way to add legitimacy to their objection?

I think you nailed it.

[(Anonymous)]

It often is, though to be fair if it's really phrased as "this depiction goes to great lengths, even defying anatomy (despite the generally realistic style) just to draw attention to spiderwoman's pornographically poised ass, and here we see another example of sexualized objectification of the female body (in a non-sexual context)" I would still agree. But people writing off pictures like that because "eww look at the anatomy!" It's definitely dishonest and stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

That would indeed be more honest, but I still don't understand why objectification arguments in general overlook male objectification and conveniently erase lesbian and bisexual womens' enjoyment of this stuff. To me, that is dishonest as well.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
yeah, as a bi woman (mostly into girls) I'm usually really pissed when people start sexism wank over images that I happen to find sexy. It's just that there should be acknowledgement of the fact that there is a severe imbalance in the way men and women are objectified, and even male objectification tends to emulate male desire. Sure, that often overlaps with our own but that doesn't make it not a problem at all. That said, I don't believe in "stahp objectifying!!" I'm pro "acknowledge female modes of desire and objectification of the male body"
But I also believe that there will always be an imbalance because there is a statistic tendency of sexual passivity being more prevalent in women. (I'm not, NEVER, saying that "passivity is typically female". there are too many different nuances and variations that are just as "typical" as anything else. I just think it's a matter of majorities.) I'm one of those women, and I don't think it's something to overcome, or something that is "just society". This tendency leads to us desiring in a non-agressive way, rather preoccupied with our own body and with experiencing certain sensations (fictional, imagined or real). Hence the fanfic vs. visual porn thing. I wouldn't even be slightly interested in objectifying male bodies, because if I'm with a man it's more about what sensations he can make me feel, not about "ohmygod his ass is so hot!"

[(Anonymous)]

I don't buy the "male desire" and "female desire" argument. That's definitive gender stereotyping.