[ SECRET POST #4011 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4010 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #574.
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

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I think it depends. With bisexuality you sort of need to handle it explicitly the same way they did Rosa Diaz on Brooklyn Nine-Nine (which was very similar to how they handled Holt early). Otherwise, fandom will Litigate. The. Labels. To. Death. "No labels" doesn't really get you very far in American culture. You'll be labeled anyway and screenwriters who beat around the bush come off like old ladies from 50 years ago. Which would be fine now and then for spice, but not Every. Single. Character.

[a_potato]

I agree with you. I don't think I phrased myself very well. I wasn't saying that labels shouldn't be applied when appropriate; I think that they should, and I was absolutely thrilled with Rosa outright saying, "I'm bi," leaving no room for any ambiguity or, as you say, fandom litigation. What I'm trying to get at is treating that as a part of who a character is rather than as the sum total of who they are, or as the single most important thing about them.