[ SECRET POST #4563 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4563 ⌋

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

01.
[XKCD's What If?]



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Poirot/Columbo]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 08 secrets from Secret Submission Post #653.
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: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's a really obvious but overlooked double standard that if a straight girl doesn't want to read or write about women because she's not attracted to them, it's shallow, but if a lesbian doesn't want to read or write about men because she's not attracted to them, it's fine.

I'm a bi girl and this secret is not "straights are oppressed" in case anyone tries to derail and pretend I'm saying that.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

Is that a generally accepted thing? I mean, I'd count everyone that exclusively wants to read or write about characters that personally physically sexually attract them and ignores all the rest to be shallow.

Nothing necessarily wrong with being shallow in fiction either, considering it's not real life.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

As a lesbian I constantly get shit for not wanting to read/write about men because I'm not attracted to them... People tell me it's okay in theory, but in practice it doesn't happen that way.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

I find it weird in both cases because since when has being attracted to a character been a requirement for reading or writing about them? If we're talking smut fic, then yeah, I suppose I can sort of understand, but if it's not smutty, I don't get it at all.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

+1

i've written about characters i'm not attracted to at all, i just thought they were interesting and wanted to explore that. the idea that the ONLY reason you'd write fic for a character is because you want to bone them is so foreign to me.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

Because this is about fanfiction and almost all fanfiction is about shipping. And it's not just sexytimes shipping, fluff can also be dull if you can't get warm and fuzzy feelings for either character in it.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

... okay but since when has shipping been about personal physical attraction either? i ship all sorts of characters i have zero attraction to whatsoever because i love the chemistry they have together.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[philstar22]

There has to be a reason, though, that men have no problem writing all about men even though they aren't attracted to them but women don't seem to be able to write about women when they aren't into them.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

not all men tho

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

Probably the fact that men's power fantasies are generally accepted or lauded, while women's power fantasies are derided.

Re: Secrets you're too lazy to make

[(Anonymous)]

Women as a whole write romance more often than men, especially in fandom. And it's easier to write romance about people you're attracted to. If a straight man writes a romance, at least one woman's presence is always a requirement for him. No straight man will even write a romantic subplot if it only involves men.