fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3885 ]

[ SECRET POST #3885 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3885 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #555.
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

But is the younger character actually a child or is this another case of the alarmist "this adult/almost adult character is ~child coded~" silliness? Because the latter happens a lot lately.

Naw, usually they actually helped raise them

It's so funny, because if OP had the opposite complaint, F!S would take their story completely at face value and be outraged and up in arms about it. But in this case, everyone assumes that OP is in the wrong and the ship is fine. Just act on the assumption that the ship is probably fine and OP is being an alarmist.

OP is automatically in the wrong for moralizing about shipping, that's why they're not being taken seriously.

OP isn't moralizing at all.

They're comparing a fictional couple to real world atrocities and saying that everyone who disagrees with them supports real world atrocities...

they're not

You can say that all you want. Doesn't make it true.

They said that they find the ship gross, and that they don't want to deal with people defending it and talking about how it's actually good

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-08-24 01:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2017-08-24 12:18 (UTC) - Expand

Of course the ship is fine. It's make-believe.

There are two things we know to be true: the ship is fine because it's make-believe, and the ship squicks OP.

The thing that people are talking about is whether the ship does contain grooming and power differentials, or whether OP is being an unreasonable ninny. That's what I was responding to in my post. The response to OP's post was that the ship doesn't contain any power differentials or grooming and OP is crazy. I think that's jumping to conclusions. You're right to point out that it was imprecise of me to say "fine" when I meant "does not contain grooming or power differentials" which is what we're actually talking about here.

I don't see anyone calling OP crazy.

I do see people questioning what qualifies as grooming and power differentials here, and understandably so, considering how broad those categories can be in fandom right now. Yes, sometimes unreasonably broad.

The strong presumption is that OP is being ridiculous and overreacting.

Well, it's hard to believe that there's a fandom full of people who think that grooming children is totally fine.

Honestly. This place is super hypocritical.

No, there just has been a huge influx of people screeching "Pedophilia!!!" at adult ships with an age gap lately so it's a perfectly valid question.

Lmao do you have any proof? Like actual proof this is happening?

uh just wade into the overwatch fandom for five fucking seconds, dude

Overwatch. Voltron. JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. Yuri on Ice. The list goes on.

DA- https://hicstreme0.tumblr.com/post/145599794429/hey-everyone-in-light-of-recent-events-ive

This is the art in question https://68.media.tumblr.com/06e1bceb08651924e642c740b0e82f4a/tumblr_o7pz7ewwfa1qggkzoo1_500.png
Kylo Ren and Hux, 29 and 33 years old.

Was Kylo not 17 when he left home? I'd assume he done some training after so these two could have met when he was 18 or such. No idea. It's weird.

Lol, this was my first thought too. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but, let's face it, if somebody uses the 'it's all so gross and terrible' card, they don't tend to be the most reasonable of fans.

The first time I saw "child coded" applied to a very obviously adult woman who just happened to be "girly," I was seriously confused.

What does that even mean?

If a grown-ass woman who pays her own rent likes fluffy, pink things and happens to be a bit of an optimist she's not really an adult? The audience is supposed to view her as "a child"? Even though she's very obviously not a child?

I seriously don't understand this whole "child coded" thing at all.

It's a weapon to beat your fandom/shipping opponents with whilst claiming the moral high ground. Awful tempting for the immature and self-righteous sort.

In the original use it's supposed to be something like "Donald Duck's nephews are not actual children, but they're drawings of cartoon ducks meant to represent children character-wise."

Or even "Garnet may be a pink alien, but she's designed and voiced to invoke her being black."

In fandom it's meaningless because it's a way to fling pedo accusations even if both characters are adults and have no age gaps.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only