[ SECRET POST #6036 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6036 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #863.
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)]

I'd say the OP and a lot of people in the comments honestly see PiV as one thing - one of the characters in the scene has a penis and the other has a vagina, and they have sex by putting the penis in the vagina. People who backbutton out of unwarned PiV are not looking at it in terms of which way the characters identify. They're avoiding a kind of sex that they don't want to read.

If you want to make the argument that not being able to tell PiV with trans people is different than PiV without trans people, go ahead? Sincerely. But I don't think just claiming that calling it het sex "is transphobic" will get us anywhere.

[(Anonymous)]

Did you forget some words at the end there? Your last three sentences don't make a lot of sense.

[(Anonymous)]

I did, sorry. Trying again:

If you want to make the argument that PiV with trans people is different than PiV without trans people, go ahead? Sincerely. But just asserting that calling it het sex "is transphobic" won't get us anywhere.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't matter if the physical act is different or the same. If we take a hypothetical scenario in which there were two rooms with a couple having sex in each -- Room 1 with a gay couple with a trans person and Room 2 with a cishet couple -- and both couples ended up going through the exact same identical PIV motions from start to finish, the couple in Room 1 would still not have had het sex, and calling it so would be transphobic. Because "het" means a man and a woman, and trans men aren't women. THAT is what makes calling it het transphobic.

[(Anonymous)]

The reason that I think "all PIV is het" is because it would mean that PIV sex between two gay men is het, which seems to me to imply that you don't accept the gender identity of the people involved.

SA

[(Anonymous)]

Whoops, skipped a crucial word here.

The reason that I think that saying "all PIV is het" is transphobic is because I think it implies you don't accept the gender identities of the people involved. That's why I think it's a transphobic thing to say (maybe unintentionally so).

Re: SA

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Thanks for replying. I am thinking about this.