[ SECRET POST #4428 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4428 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #634.
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

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT but it doesn't have to be. People care about a lot of other things in Regency stories--money, for instance. Boom, you have conflict. You don't need homophobia; it's not VITAL to the setting in the slightest.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not, but it's also weird to remove JUST homophobia from historical accuracy and not... classism, sexism, racism, et cetera... how does that even work?

Like, how do you get two women marrying each other and being fine without dealing with the sexism of the era, or the racism of the era if interracial, or the classism and gender roles of the era if they both own property or have family that owns property (as most people with the leisure to feature in Regency era stories did), and how does inheritance work with lesbian couples, if we're keeping all the sexism as well - and if that's all still there, how come only certain issues were cherrypicked to be removed and how does removing them not affect all the others?

If they do affect all the others, which they must in order for it to work, how much can you change before it stops resembling history and it might as well be a totally fictional pre-industrial urban fantasy land named Regencia with certain accents and costumes with nothing at all being different?

[(Anonymous)]

And please don't be like "historical sexism can stay and women could be considered property but totally still have the agency to marry each other and everyone's cool w/it" because come on.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh. This was an era where women just didn't live alone.

Which meant that *sometimes* a lady and her live-in companion were simply a lady plus sort-of servant, or two unmarried ladies quietly living in shared quarters.

And *sometimes* it was a relationship that the neighbours just didn't ask too many questions about.

Not formal marriage vows, but there was lots of room to fly under the radar, and some of them did.

[(Anonymous)]

You must be so fun at parties.

[(Anonymous)]

Just wanted to say that I would genuinely enjoy talking to AYRT at a party and would be really delighted to find someone so interesting to talk to

[(Anonymous)]

Cool, you two have fun, I'm gonna go read about this fantasy land called Regencia where gay historical fiction exists.

[(Anonymous)]

OK.

[(Anonymous)]

Going by the comment you replied to, I would find AYRT really fun to talk to at a party. They seem like an intelligent person with similar sensibilities to my own and a desire to discuss topics in earnest.