[ SECRET POST #4049 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4049 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 44 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
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

Re: How detailed do you get when tagging smut?

[raspberryrain]

No one should feel obliged to tag for which character is on top.

Tagging for common squicks seems considerate, but anyone who's going to freak out because of unexpected bondage or anal in a story may need to grow up before reading porn.

ETA: Oh. I suppose the real reason people want descriptive tags is to organise their masturbation material more precisely. I get it, but I don't think it's your job as a writer to anticipate all the kinks some nerd might organise by. (For example: "OK, let's see, non-bondage, interracial, lesbian, toys, white stockings, pubic hair, fantasy characters in a scene with no fantasy elements, meganekko, nipple play with toys, yelling, citrus scented oils, dog owners, nappy hair, tribadism, earlobe kissing, fingering, long-term relationship, what else should I tag this with?")