[ SECRET POST #4387 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4387 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #628.
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: If you were a fandom character...

[(Anonymous)]

Fandom loves the unemotional but vulnerable types as bottoms.

I've honestly never really understood this pattern.

Re: If you were a fandom character...

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I love the unemotional but vulnerable types as bottoms, myself, but I'm not sure I can really explain it. Um...?

One, I think we tend to relate "outwardly unemotional" to "controlled" so making them not just a bottom but a slightly sub-y bottom is a reversal of their character, and thus more dynamic than having them be a slightly dom-y top.

Two, I think the vulnerability thing may just be an issue of people relating to the character. They feel vulnerable themselves, and wish they had a loving top to cherish them and care deeply about pleasuring them, etc.

IDK, there's a LOT more to it than that, but I think those are often relevant factors.

Re: If you were a fandom character...

[philstar22]

It is the idea that they aren't really unemotional, they just need to be forced to be completely vulnerable in order to let go of control. The idea that someone could actually just not feel strong emotions never occurs to them.