fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4282 ]

[ SECRET POST #4282 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4282 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Colette]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Sara Sidle on CSI]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Criminal Minds]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Step by Step, Cody/Dana]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Mad Men]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #613.
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

For what it's worth, anon, I'm also over labels. They have a place, and they can help people put words and validation toward the spectrum of feelings they might feel, as well as make important social change by instigating broad-scale conversations. But most labels are pretty dumb and I want as little as possible to do with them myself. I'm gay and I think that.

Great! That's fine!

The problem is the person you're replying to is going, "Well, gee, we're all SUPER SPECIAL and you should just be happy to be human!!! That's special enough and NO ONE should need labels!!!!"

Honestly, you guys are the ones being dicks in this thread, not her. And frankly, I'm in agreement that most of the spectrum labels are special snowflake nonsense, so come at me.

I would have no problems with her if not for her holier-than-thou-I'm-so-~ENLIGHTENED~ shit about "NO ONE NEEDS LABELS AND WE'RE BETTER OFF WITHOUT THEM TEE FUCKING HEE AREN'T I SO SMART?" bullshit.

Get off to sandpaper, for all I care. The moment you're of the opinion that no one should use labels ever, I'm going to think you're a bigot.

Cool, and the moment you tell me a demisexual gray-romantic shrieking about visibility and acceptance and ~coming out~ isn't just appropriating the actual oppression of actual LGBT people, I'm going to think you're a bigot. I feel no shame about categorizing tangibles when necessary, and thinking the rest absolutely are better off without labels.

I bet you think asexuals are all just them durn cishets trying to appropriate your life, too, and they just need to go fuck off with the other straighties.

Um, no? Why would an asexual person be heterosexual? That doesn't make sense by definition. It's a tangible, I have zero problem with people labeling their sexuality in a way that has real-world application.

But no, while we're on the topic, asexuality isn't queer, and I also very much don't fucking appreciate them appropriating the specific oppression of LGBT people.

So you are a bigot, k, I'm done with you. Bigot.

heteromantic asexuals are straight :)

Yes, when you look at the most extreme example, it does look ridiculous. But I think it is an extreme. And even there, the problem is as much with the discourse around it as it is with the identity itself.

And it kinda feels like getting so worried about this idea that you decide that you have the ability to determine what labels are "necessary" does a lot more harm than that. I just don't like the idea of "necessary". And I really think you kind of have to err on the side of generosity, or respect, or whatever you want to call it.

appropriating the actual oppression of actual LGBT people

I'm not surprised a gay person said this. Disappointed but not surprised.

Yes lmao how could an actual gay person who has experienced actual homophobia not understand that demisexuality is basically the same thing /s

Came back here a day late to reply to this

Still playing oppression Olympics, still not going to win that game.

...Y'know, I'm pretty sure "demisexual gray-romantic" actually IS a fitting descriptor for me. Not the main one I'd use, because it's fairly niche terminology that would only mean anything to specific groups and only be relevant under certain circumstances.

The main label I use (when I need to use one at all) is bisexual. Which last I checked DOES make me an actual LGBT person, per definition. And I'm not remotely impressed with this need to denigrate more specific descriptors because YOU wouldn't find them useful.

"shrieking about visibility and acceptance and ~coming out~" my you're conveying their point factually, aren't you?

They definitely are laying on the dramatics quite thickly but I do understand where they're coming from in a way.
Every time a "demisexual heteroromantic" person whines about their oh so dramatic "coming out" it's just kind of ridiculous.

I would laugh myself to tears if my teenage daughter sat me down and came out to me as "demisexual". Such a struggle.

So basically, "The only labels that should exist are the ones I, personally, deem appropriate and if you don't agree you're a bigot and not REALLY LGBT because you don't agree with my high and mighty opinion!"

Who died and made you ruler of the world, because I don't want someone so far up their ass they can make out with themselves on the throne.

You're fucking right that you're not really LGBT if you are not homo/bisexual or trans.

Quit appropriating LGBT issues with your bullshit labels, thanks.

I'm a lesbian, sweetheart. Nice try. I'm just not a bigot. Because literally the arguments you're making? Gay men made about letting women into the movement. And we're also making about bisexuals!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4282 ]

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1

Re: +1