[ 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?

[were_lemur]

What does "legally binding" have to do with anything?

There's no requirement that an author click on "choose not to warn" only if there is something that fits under one of the established categories of things to be warned for.

So yeah, maybe they're only covering their ass. Or maybe they're taking a principled stand against "warnings culture." Or they have no idea of how to tag it, only that it's something that might upset people.

"Choose not to warn" is a warning. It means that you don't know what's inside. And as a writer, when I use that warning, I know that I am going to have fewer readers, because some people won't read fics without explicit warnings.

As a reader, you get to decide if the 95% of fics that weren't upsetting (to you -- another reader might be upset by 50% of the fics, or upset by a different 5% of fics) is worth risking the 5% of fics that are going to upset you.