[ SECRET POST #5064 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5064 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 45 secrets from Secret Submission Post #725.
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)]

Ehh, sinful can be used just as a descriptive word without any religious intention. Like in the 'there's no reason for this to be so good' sense.
I appreciate it in the religious sense when a character is religious in a way that they would have that sort of dilemma.

[(Anonymous)]

sinful can be used just as a descriptive word without any religious intention.

MTE. Maybe OP can't see it that way, but a lot of people do. It's a bit like celebrating Christmas or saying, "thank god." Am I actually thanking god? No, not remotely. Am I celebrating the birth of Christ? Not at all. The words have become separated from their origin. Someone might use them in a religious way or they might not. Context is important in determining how such words are being used.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT: I don't think people calling gay ships "sinful" are using it in a religious way. I do think the implication often is that shipping m/m is kinkier than shipping het.

[(Anonymous)]

Anon of the ayrt

My hesitation comes from OP's specification of "in any context" as if it doesn't matter to them if the person is casually mentioning how 'sinfully' delectable their new ship is to them, or a person who actually is extremely religious and believes they're genuinely sinning by enjoying content that includes two men in a romantic relationship.
Neither of them are wrong to use the term in the ways that they do.

Technically, homosexuality isn't as wildly accepted as being straight is by far, so by very vague technical standards it technically is more kinky on average.

[(Anonymous)]

A lot of us work really hard to normalize our same-sex relationships against a lot of social messages that we're unhealthy, deviant, kinky, and easy in bed.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

I understand how you might feel that way personally and I'm not going to tell you you're wrong.

But this is the exact same logic that dictates that queer relationships in fiction in general should be fluffy, positive, functional, uplifting, nice, etc, etc, etc. And I don't agree with that logic in general. And it's an argument that is generally rejected emphatically around here when it's applied to fandom in just about any other context.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT: It's not the same logic at all, since what's at issue here is calling oneself sinful or dirty for shipping m/m fluff or vanilla.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't quite get the distinction you're making.

If the goal is to "normalize our same-sex relationships against a lot of social messages that we're unhealthy, deviant, kinky, and easy in bed" then it seems like that applies just as much to depictions of fictional relationships, as it does to using words like "sin" to describe those fictional relationships.

[(Anonymous)]

To describe real world examples of what I'm talking about: Rebecca Sugar, Noelle Stevenson, and Dana Terrace all described in the last year how producers considered g-rated LGBTQ content to be inappropriate for family television. And that's not a one-off, that's part of an big pattern of marginalization where the dryest of LGBTQ content was routinely coded as "adult."

When people say that they're dirty and sinful for liking art where m/m ships hold hands, that sounds like the same double standard we face all the time.

[(Anonymous)]

If "sin" were used as much to describe het relationships as gay ones, then you would have a point, but that's not what's going on.

[(Anonymous)]

+100: I'm living in a country where people routinely ask to put a cardboard kids book about male penguins raising chicks on the adult shelves FFS.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeppppp. Just because fandom spaces are more queer-friendly doesn't mean the world is, and in a hell of a lot of places, we're talking actual sin, not some fun ironic fandom joke.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not just that. People have been glomming onto minorities for clout since at least the Roman era. For some people, it really is down to conspicuous displays of "not like the others."

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Perfectly said! I really wish I could understand the POV of the people who just can't see it that way to be completely honest. Especially when it comes to examples like you listed. Like Christmas for example, (and I wrote about a thousand words before I figured it was best not to get into that OT) you're natural thought is of a big jolly man in a red suit, not Jesus. And "using the lords name in vain" like, it's an expression, not a prayer.

I just can't fathom how someone can't separate them, or condemn any use of a word when a majority of the people who use it don't mean it that way.

[(Anonymous)]

Cultural/secular Christianity is still Christianity, though. These concepts aren't "separated from their origin", you just accept it as a neutral default when it's not.

[meadowphoenix]

they have not been separated from their context AT ALL, it's just their context is very very very normalized as universal, which is culturally accommodating as a rule.