case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2019-04-09 06:37 pm

[ SECRET POST #4477 ]


⌈ Secret Post #4477 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[American Gods, season two]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[James Gunn]


__________________________________________________



07.
(Riverdale)


__________________________________________________



08.
[Gotham, Penguin/Riddler]


__________________________________________________



09.
[one direction]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #641.
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.

(Anonymous) 2019-04-10 12:12 am (UTC)(link)
No, but it does OP address the point of why they think the point isn't a pedophile. OP specifically mentions that the reason they think the guy isn't a pedophile is "fiction is fiction". OP does not mention that "Oh, also, the guy isn't attracted to the characters involved at all, he just ships them in a cute child-like ship sort of way". I think it's unlikely that you would raise the point in the first place, and then not mention the much stronger reason that the guy isn't a pedophile, and just skip over the much bigger reason that the people you're complaining about are being unreasonable. If you think that's "grotesque" and "a complete absence of critical thinking", OK.