[ 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 think there are a couple more things going on in this discussion than just what you've listed.

For example, I don't think just tagging "Trans [character]" really addresses the problem OP is talking about because the fact that one character (or both) is trans doesn't actually imply PIV sex -- there are many ways to write a trans character having sex with someone that DOESN'T involve the cis man's penis going into the trans man's front hole. However, the overwhelming number of M/M fic featuring a trans character does have what is essentially a PIV sex act (you can replace the "V" in your mind with alternate, possibly gender neutral terminology but the sex act essentially remains the same). I think what we actually need is a more standard way of designating that explicit fic involves PIV sex acts, which is orthogonal to the question of whether there is a trans male character involved or what relationship category is selected on AO3 (even if there is correlation between these phenomena). Whether the character is trans or not isn't actually the issue, although it is true that trans characters are a common (but not the only) source of the problem of essentially untagged PIV (mentally replace with gender neutral version, if such a term exists). For example, I am in a fandom with a lot of alien characters and hoo boy do a lot of male aliens have pussies. Some people tag this but it's been kind of a mess especially since the fandom has created elaborate fanon terminology for certain species' anatomies that basically amount to "this guy (cis male alien) has both a penis and a vagina" but that is not obvious from the tagging unless you're in the know.

I think another issue that seems to be going on in the comments is that people don't like having the kind of sex they read/write called basic or heteronormative, even though PIV sex is certainly basic and could be seen as heteronormative as well (kind of debatable but it doesn't seem clear-cut one way or the other in my mind). As someone who writes pretty basic PIV sex a lot and also a lot of less basic sex acts but with dubious accuracy due to inexperience, I don't really think there is anything wrong with writing basic or heteronormative sex, but I do think people who have a lot of investment in their LGBT+ identities might take such an accusation quite personally for reasons I understand, and to me that seems to be an additional dimension going on here too. Calling PIV sex with trans characters "het sex" is definitely objectionable on transphobic grounds, but I think there is another point here that is "if I wanted to read about a penis going into a vagina, they're a dime a dozen in the M/F section"; this point about the commonness or "straightness" of certain sex acts isn't strictly about transphobia (IMO) but also about how "basic" or "alternative"/"progressive" such a sex act is, regardless of what pronouns the characters involved have, and that itself is another very contentious claim that it seems like people are arguing about in the comments or might at least be part of their emotional reaction to OP's complaint.