[ SECRET POST #3442 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3442 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[resized, not a repeat]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 54 secrets from Secret Submission Post #492.
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)]

I think people are criticizing things that previously were not criticized. I'm not sure that's the same thing as being sex-negative as such, and if throwing everyone talking about things that way into a bucket labelled 'sex-negative' is fair.

[(Anonymous)]

Today an artist just got harassed and death threats over the fact someone deemed 30 year old Kylo Ren and 34 year old Hux to be "Child porn". Please. Do tell me how that's just criticizing things that were not criticized before.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, no, I would say that's wrong. I would also say that it's possible to criticize those things without doing the harassment and death threats.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT Yikes. I haven't noticed a sex negative trend either but it may be the fandom I'm in or the people I associate with. There are always going to be a few lunatics in any fandom, though.

[diet_poison]

I'd call that less "sex negative" and more "batshit crazy"

[(Anonymous)]

Is anyone else looking forward to the day when Tumblr decides that ALL porn is actually child porn because everyone was once a child? Come on... You know it's only a matter of time.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm just rolling my fucking eyes at that shit. People are so pedo-happy these days.

[diet_poison]

I'd bet there are people already saying that, or something similar

[(Anonymous)]

Hasn't it already reached that point? I mean I've already seen discourse how a ship between a 20 year old and a 25 year old is too big an age gap and child pornography. Maybe people just don't understand the words they are throwing around.

[(Anonymous)]

I've already seen "aging young characters up is still child pornography because you're sexualizing the IDEA of the child character!!" levied at people who ship aged up Steven/Connie or the South Park boys on Tumblr, so it really is imminent.

[(Anonymous)]

People are already calling fic where characters are aged up child porn for precisely that reason. The wrong character bottoming is also child porn (according to a wank in the Sherlock fandom), as well as any pairing with a large age gap, even if everyone is over 18.

[(Anonymous)]

Just this past week I got told that I was a "pedophile apologist" because I said it was ok for people to write porn for a series meant for children. Most of the characters in said series are over the age of majority, including the original heroes since they've aged.

Writing legal age characters is child porn because they're in a series aimed at kids. What.

[(Anonymous)]

Apparently Wincest is also child porn, even if it's set in the recently finished season where Sam and Dean are 38 and 34, because Dean was "grooming" Sam.

I mean.

What.

The.

Fuck.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh they were criticized before.

Then YKINMK came into being.

Now the pendulum is swinging the other way again.

Criticizing a kink in the abstract is okay. Attacking a person because they like said kink, especially in a purely fictional context, I believe is not okay.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, and my point is that I think that characterizing the entire conversation as sex-negative harassment is an undue generalization and hostile to conversations about criticizing kinks in the abstract.

[(Anonymous)]

You use a lot of words to say you want to judge other people. Stop couching in academic jargon, and save some key strokes.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't particularly want to judge anyone. I'm trying to defend the people who might think there are legitimate grounds for judging other people.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm trying to defend the people who might think there are legitimate grounds for judging other people.

Since most of those people think that "you have a kink that I do not share" is legitimate grounds for judging, I wouldn't bother defending them.

[(Anonymous)]

I would wager that most of them have some other grounds for the kinks they're criticizing. Because I don't see them criticizing every kink.

[(Anonymous)]

Of course not. They only criticize the kinks that are icky and wrong.

Unfortunately, one person's "icky and wrong" is another person's "hotter than hell" and vice versa, so maybe everyone should just concentrate on what they think is hot and ignore the icky stuff.

Otherwise known as YKINMK.

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem with YKINMK. All I'm saying is that I don't think people criticizing specific kinks are necessarily kinkshaming puritans, or evidence of a whole generation being sex-negative. And I'm not comfortable dismissing them out of hand if they want to make an argument.

[(Anonymous)]

If only they left it at judging, things would be fine, but now anything not even involving actual children is grounds for calling out, harrassing, and sending death threats.

[(Anonymous)]

And you are awfully defensive and hostile about what gets you personally off.