[ SECRET POST #3354 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3354 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Yu-Gi-Oh]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09. [ warning for homophobia / transphobia / misogyny take your pick, people seem to be divided on this one ]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 009 secrets from Secret Submission Post #479.
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)]

Maybe we need to re-evaluate what "gay" and "straight" means in this context, I don't know.

Doing so seems pretty invalidating of transpeople's chosen identities, tho.

[kallanda_lee]

Yeah, but...the problem is people who define themselves as lesbian ALSO have a right to that chosen identity. Just saying, it works both way.

I can also understand that if you're only attracted to cis women and on occasion trans men, but never cis men, that "bi" would feel like a disgenuine label, too.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. If you want to identify as lesbian, that's fine. If you're a lesbian that's into transmen, you're bisexual. I think it's far more degrading to say that a transman isn't really a man than to say maybe someone isn't quite as lesbian as she thought she was.

[kallanda_lee]

Okay, but then you are defining someone sexuality for them.

Look, I'm occasionally into trans women, but I feel calling myself bisexual would be factually untrue.

And not because I have a problem with the term - but because I'm never into cis women, ever, so I'd feel that was more misleading than vice versa.

Edit: Alternatively I could say I'm into people with penises, which I have no issue with, but then you have people whining about objectifcation.

[diet_poison]

This is why I think it's sort of odd that people decided to define sexuality but the gender of the people they're attracted to.

I mean I can see why it came about, but...it's a really imperfect approach.

Maybe one day we can just be at the point where people are interested in who they're interested in and nobody shits a brick over it. But that day will be far into the future I think.

[(Anonymous)]

This is an interesting topic but well ... if we remove it from culture, society, history and such, we are all ugly flesh bags that like to rub on other sweaty flesh bags to their liking :B (or not). It would be awesome and less brick-shitty not to do mental tango to validate that and go past and past of mountains of anything that makes current us.

I like men. I envision them with dicks. But, you can never know who you are attracted to initially, so you can fancy a woman without knowing, in my case. As a gay bloke, nope, if I Johnny Depp came out as a woman - would lose any sparks for him. If Johnny Depp wanted a date and told me he was trans and non-op - suuuureeeee.

But. Sexuality is dynamic, a bag of cats and all that, so ... everything is different to everyone and it's awesome.

[kallanda_lee]

Well, sure. But the terms heterosexual and homosexual were invented anyway - I mean not the behaviors, but the categories, by psychiatrists relatively recently in history. I'd say - of course they're imperfect terms. The problem is we started using them as identities, and at that point people start having strong feelings bout it.