[ SECRET POST #5229 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5229 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03. https://i.imgur.com/uhxEF9T.jpg
[OP warned for NSFW image, illustrated sexual positions]


__________________________________________________

















04. [WARNING for discussion of abuse]



__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of rape]



__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for discussion of abuse]

[Persona 5 Strikers]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #748.
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

[fscom]

05. [WARNING for discussion of rape]
https://i.imgur.com/6PKSjBR.png

[feotakahari]

This was the joke behind that Dan Harmon “What if Dexter was a serial rapist instead of a serial killer?” sketch that offended the hell out of everyone.

On that note, I would love to see someone argue that shows where police beat up suspects in custody are intentionally eroticizing the violence. It makes as much sense as that “slasher movies are about gay sex” argument that goes around sometimes.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean

Surely whether or not a show is etoticizing violence is a question you can only answer by actually looking at the specific show in question? This is something that seems like it comes down to cases. There are absolutely slasher movies that have an erotic dimension, and slasher movies that don't.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Not only the show, but the characters in question, the chemistry between the actors, and where the viewer is coming from/how they may perceive a scene.

[(Anonymous)]

It really depends on the specific anti in question. There are plenty who don't even draw the line at fapping/kinking on dark or problematic shit, they draw it at dark and problematic shit even existing...but only when it's sexual in nature, of course.

That said, there is definitely a general problem with both 'sides' just...throwing random arguments at each other without bothering to stop and think whether they're actually addressing the other person's argument.

[feotakahari]

Also, it seems to be really arbitrary what they consider to be kinking on something. Sometimes they accept you as a comrade who consumes problematic media in a healthy way, and sometimes they insist you must be kinking even if you tell them you’re not.

[(Anonymous)]

Conclusion: everyone is annoying.

[(Anonymous)]

Still comes down to the inherently puritan idea that enjoying something sexually is worse than other ways of enjoying it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. And when you point out that their "argument" (people can't separate fiction from reality and being into this kink means you're enabling sexual abuse) is extremely similar to the video game violence argument, they twist themselves into pretzels to claim it's different, but it's... not. They're both arguments about the masses being unable to consume fiction without turning into a monster. Same hat.

I don't know, man.

[(Anonymous)]

I have seen some weird things about the age gap between Hannibal Lecter and Will Graham from Hannibal. Which is one of the few unproblematic things about the relationship, since they are two adults over the age of thirty (I'm not entirely sure how big the age gap in the show is supposed to be, the actors are about 10 years apart). I am entirely unsure how you can pass by the serial killer thing, the many attempts at murdering each other, the therapist/patient thing, the gaslighting thing, the many different betrayals (true or perceived betrayals) of each other, the cannibalism thing (both intentional and involuntary), and some other things I'm sure I'm forgetting, and land on an age gap as your problem with this ship.

Re: I don't know, man.

[(Anonymous)]

Real argument I've seen: Hannibal is ART and all of these things are serious commentaries.

[(Anonymous)]

The murder argument is usually in context of 'depictions of X will lead to NORMALIZING X/more people doing X/grooming kids to be okay with X' - and antis are 100% incapable of distinguishing between something that is actually erotic and something which is intended to be horrific or repulsive but contains sexual content, so even though I'm actually fine with nasty problematic shit whether it's erotic or not, the point that 'people don't just copy media uncritically, see murder shows' is a meaningful counter to a specific thread of anti discourse. IDK if it's still a *popular* thread since I try to curate my dash these days, but it was definitely a major piece for a while.

[(Anonymous)]

I remember when the new Animal Crossing game came out last year there was an influx of sexual furry art with the characters. One anti found foot fetish Tom Nook art where he had a boner and infamously edited it to remove the boner claiming they'd "fixed it"... But it was still very clearly erotic foot fetish art. The fact they thought removing the boner made it non-erotic was WILD.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly this. I mean, sure, somewhere there's a team of psychology students working up a thesis project about people who decide to take a break from mainlining fiction that glorifies serial killers to dox some kid over their sexy teacher role-play fic. But that's not what the specific argument OP is worked over is actually about.