[ 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)]

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."