[ SECRET POST #3859 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3859 ⌋

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

01.
[Twin Peaks Season 3]



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03. http://i.imgur.com/36jpHpw.jpg
[Marco Polo, warning for (TV) nudity/sex]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of self-harm]

[American Gods (Starz)]


__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of incest]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of abuse, sexual assault]

(Dumbing of Age, Billie and Ruth)














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #551.
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

[fscom]

06. [WARNING for discussion of incest]
http://i.imgur.com/qR7o8qM.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

I take it OP is a 'Vice is nice, but incest is best' type person? Which is all well and good, but most people are not, for a myriad of reasons.

[(Anonymous)]

on what planet do you live where it's remotely possible for siblings to NOT have relational dynamics that would make informed consent extremely unlikely verging on impossible

like I get that people have taste in porn sometimes that would be unethical or gross if it was actual real life people in that situation, as opposed to fiction, but let's not pretend that incest even between adult siblings isn't gonna have fucked up dynamics of some kind built in. Maybe that's what people like about it in their fantasy, idk. But there are definitely reasons for people to be squicked by the idea of romanticizing incest.

[(Anonymous)]

Fucked up dynamics does not automatically equal nonconsent JFC. A relationship can be totally fucked up and still consensual. Stop watering down nonconsent like this.

[(Anonymous)]

So you don't believe that power dynamics established literally from birth could possibly in any way affect the ability of someone to truly consent, especially considering that irl virtually every known case of incest, including sibling-sibling, involves grooming, sometimes from very early childhood

[el_regrs]

Well, there was that one twincest letter in Dear Prudence...

Not that I'm in any way implying it's the rule rather than the exception.

[illiadandoddity]

What about the phenomenon wherein two people raised separately start dating, and then discover they're actually related? It's been known to happen.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm really not into incest, but I think you're projecting your relationship dynamic with your family onto everyone else.

[mrs_don_draper]

I have no idea what 80% of those words mean.

[vethica]

Well you see, when two people who are related love each other very much...

[mrs_don_draper]

Hahaha, very funny!

No, I mean: "ritualistically performative," "denunciations," and "self-satisfied prudery."

I know what those words mean individually, but I don't understand them in this context whatsoever.

[vethica]

Oh yeah, me either.

[mrs_don_draper]

Yeah, and it's kind of hard to discuss a secret when I don't know what it's saying. :/

[(Anonymous)]

I think that last bit translates to virtue signalling, because why else wouldn't they be on board with two hot brothers banging like screen doors, but the rest sounds like word salad cribbed from a sociology text book.

[type_wild]

"people who, for example, expunge certain terms from their vocabulary not because they actively give a shit about not being ableist, but rather because they think it’s important not to appear ableist – appearances and the in-group status they bring are what matter, not the core principle of ‘we do this in order to be kinder to others’." (because it was on my tumblr dash earlier today)

[(Anonymous)]

Which is also why people who don't think they're racist get so upset when someone points out that they did something racist, because actually fighting racism is less important than virtue signalling (in this case that you're not racist). So you get people loudly criticising media for not having Strong Black Characters (and attacking people who ship the wrong thing) and then whining about BLM having demonstrations.

[arcadiaego]

They enjoy protesting how pure and innocent they are and how wicked everyone else is more than they actually care about the issues. I think.

[(Anonymous)]

"People who loudly argue against incest ships are only doing so to advance their own social position; all they really care about is being seen to be anti-incest."

[mrs_don_draper]

Bless you, Anon.

[(Anonymous)]

OP

To put it another way I see people reblogging the anti-incest shipping thing mainly because there is virtually no social "cost" to join the brigade that essentially re-reinforces the social taboo each time it hits their dashes.

Never mind that almost every argument made against it starts from an essentially faulty premise, which is that it's inherently impossible for two consenting adults of similar age to have a healthy relationship simply because they're related.

That's why I call it "ritualistically performative". It's an empty gesture at best. And performative anti-anything is in no shortage on Tumblr, as I'm sure you've probably seen.

There is also a tendency on Tumblr to insist on a purity-culturish orthodoxy that demands that anything in the least "problematic" be denounced with the fire of a thousand suns. That's what "self-satisfied prudery" is all about, and it intersects with the performative aspect of denouncing a completely "socially safe" thing to denounce.

[(Anonymous)]

Yepppp, pretty much.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think you're really responding to the strongest possible version of the incest argument here.

Also, while I agree that some of it is performative, I don't like the idea of extending that argument too far in any circumstance, because it's definitely not all performative and people sincerely believe it and I think there's a real risk of forgetting that and writing those people off.

[(Anonymous)]

Probably the best example I saw of that was someone doing on a long rant of how of course shipping incest was WRONG and IMMORAL and DISGUSTING and anyone who did it should be set on fire.

But.

They made an exception for Sasuke and Itachi because blah blah blah there are REASONS it doesn't actually count as incest u guis!!!!!! So it's ok to ship Sasuke and Itachi but no other incest ships because those are wrong.

[greenvelvetcake]

lol I'm sorry your ships are inherently gross, OP, but that's how the bubble bursts

[(Anonymous)]

LOL! Well said.