fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3748 ]

[ SECRET POST #3748 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3748 ⌋

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, 50 secrets from Secret Submission Post #536.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm sorry to hear that. Call me one of the old guard, but fictional kink (distasteful, awful, gross or not) has always been a big part of fandom and I don't think I can start personally judging what's moral and what's not (provided it's all fictional) because firstly, I don't know where that ends, and secondly, it'd be close to impossible to get everybody to agree. The world of fictional porn is a weird one.

The thread that got nuked DID get nuked because it sounded like it was fetishizing actual disabilities/disabled people and not talking about characters like Daredevil, and future threads that sound like that will continue to get nuked (just like any thread that sounds like it's fetishizing actual sexual assault). But I'm not going to nuke threads about how someone likes AUs in which a character is blind, or has a thing for blind characters (which was the rest of the thread besides the first post).

It can be kind of a shock when it turns out people's "gross kinks" are in some way relevant to you, yeah. But that's the cost of everyone being able to talk about fictional kinks freely. Maybe avoiding this post would be a good idea. I hope you feel better soon, whether or not you come back.

You know what? You can justify whatever the hell you want, F!S has always been an anarchic cesspool and there's a place for that. But please, please, please don't insult me by pretending you care about people who get hurt by stuff like this.

And what about the people who would be hurt if they couldn't deal with their trauma through their fictional kinks because people like you stopped all such conversations from happening?

If it helps them that's one thing, but it's fucking gross for someone like Wako or whoever to fetishize something that they aren't a part of. And frankly I don't think F!S should be the place for that, but what the fuck do I know, I'm just the angry disabled person, nobody needs to listen to me 'cuz I'm just getting in the way of peoples' fap fuel. Fuck y'all.

If it FICTIONAL characters with disabilities, it belongs here does it not?

It's still fetishizing disability. It's one thing to say Barbara Gordon is hot, it's another thing to say her disability is hot. Do you really not understand the distinction?

No because they are both fictional.

Do you think it is wrong for people to enjoy reading or discussing noncon stories?

"No because they are both fictional."

Wrong answer. Bye.

Do you think it is wrong for people to enjoy reading or discussing noncon stories?

If you don't think it is wrong, then you are a hypocrite.

If you think it is okay for survivors only, then you are trying to gate keep a fictional fetish in which people have to give up their sexual history to participate in a fictional kink.

If you think it is also wrong, then I don't know why you would be in any fandoms.

you're misusing the term "gate keep" here in a very shitty way please don't do that

You didn't answer the question.

new anon

fwiw I think you're right, this is all really gross and wildly fucking offensive. There's a big difference between YKINMK and "let's fetishize people with disabilities," and I think this asshole knows it and just wants to be an asshole. Thanks for fighting the good fight and sorry about all the bullshit

SA

To clarify: by "this asshole" I don't mean Case I mean Wako. I disagree with Case's call here but he's as a rule not an asshole, cf. Wako

DA

There's also a big difference between "let's fetishize people with disabilities" and "I have a kink for fictional characters in wheelchairs". The same difference as "let's fetishize sexual assault" and "I have a kink for non-con in fiction". Anon is talking about the latter version, which dethtoll is saying is equally wrong as the first. Do you think the same?

AYRT

I think that when a disabled person expresses serious discomfort with ppl fetishizing their disability that's not a time to quibble over phrasing.

And when a gay person says "stop shipping gay ships, you're fetishising me" you'd equally expect people to stop all their shipping right that second?

Actually I think it's really possible to find slash or femslash hot without fetishizing gay people. There's a distinction between gayness as a concept and genitals being smashed together (especially since genitals and gender don't always match up the same way pairing to pairing).

I have DEFINITELY heard of people fetishizing gayness and it's weird and gross, but getting off on slash is very different because it's not the gayness that makes the pairing hot in that case, it's the specific characters and their specific bodies. The characters in question don't even have to be gay! Hell they can be canonically straight!

Then how is it harder to separate the idea of finding fictional amputations hot vs real life ones?

We've had tons of threads about people discussing things they find hot in fanfic that they do not in real life.

It's hard to word, but like...if you ship slash because you like slash you aren't necessarily fetishizing "gayness", just slash, because those concepts, while not unrelated, are distinct. If you think someone is hot just because they have an amputation, then you are fetishizing amputation, straight-up, and there's really no way around that.

(And if someone specifically tells you they are uncomfortable with it the least you can do is not continue to talk about it around them. It's really disrespectful and it's putting your own kink above someone else's basic comfort.)

DA

But on the other hand, when on the internet if someone doesn't like a topic they can very easily not enter that discussion or read that thread.

That argument can be made for literally anything, though. Some things there aren't much to be gained by talking about. We can argue about where to draw the line and why, but "you can just avoid it" isn't a good reason for things that make people uncomfortable. (It's a good reason if it's just something you find boring.)

"And if someone specifically tells you they are uncomfortable with it the least you can do is not continue to talk about it around them. It's really disrespectful and it's putting your own kink above someone else's basic comfort."

This is a forum. If someone does not want to be around something, they can remove themselves from the conversation.

Re: Serious question?

diet_poison - 2017-04-10 19:57 (UTC) - Expand

And if someone specifically tells you they are uncomfortable with it the least you can do is not continue to talk about it around them.

We're... not in a closed room in real life or something, though. You can't put moratoriums on conversations in online forums; the onus is 100% on the person who's upset to get away from the situation that's upsetting them. That doesn't make their feelings less valid, but there is no "around them" on the internet. If they have access to a place, it is "around them."

In this case, maybe it doesn't seem fair to you, but everyone has the choice to stop coming to this community. No one has the option to be like "hey forum of dozens-and-dozens of users, some of whom aren't even reading this conversation/aren't here today/have no reason to assume anything is wrong, you're no longer allowed to talk about [x]." It doesn't work like that.

Re: Serious question?

diet_poison - 2017-04-10 19:58 (UTC) - Expand

...something that they aren't a part of.
Ah yes, good old 'disclose your gender/sexuality/trauma/disability to me, so I, The Great Arbiter of Good Vs. Problematic, can decide whether or not you're allowed to wank to this'. You seriously don't get how obnoxious you're being?

Being disabled doesn't mean you're always right, even on subjects relating to disability. Otherwise I'm pretty sure I would have done better in my psych classes.

I think anything I say might continue to be taken as an insult (which is not my intention), so I'll just end it here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only