Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2012-03-23 07:01 pm
[ SECRET POST #1907 ]
⌈ Secret Post #1907 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

[Disney's Gargoyles]
__________________________________________________
08.

[X-Men: First Class]
__________________________________________________
09.

[keanu reeves]
__________________________________________________
10.

[keanu reeves]
__________________________________________________
[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]
11. [SPOILERS for Death Note]

__________________________________________________
12. [SPOILERS for Kuragehime]

__________________________________________________
13. [SPOILERS for The Walking Dead]

__________________________________________________
14. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]

__________________________________________________
15. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________
16. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________
17. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]

__________________________________________________
[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]
18. [TRIGGER WARNING for sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________
19. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________
20. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]

__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #272.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - hit/ship/spiration ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-03-24 06:23 am (UTC)(link)Or if you're not happy with that...
If getting a divorce is not necessary for the end of a marriage, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for the end of a marriage either.
If emotional blackmail is not necessary for spousal abuse, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for spousal abuse either.
If aggressive trolling is not necessary for getting a forum ban, I don't see why it should be automatically sufficient for a forum ban either.
You want me to keep going or have I made you look stupid enough?
no subject
Chocolate chips are not necessary for cookies, so I don't see why it should automatically be sufficient for cookies.
Still doesn't really prove anything.
I don't think a specific sex act should be declared as the be all end all of whether or not your a virgin. This is because the concept of virginity is so mutable.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-03-24 06:42 am (UTC)(link)Yes, but unfortunately for you you're still wrong.
Chocolate chips are not necessary for cookies, so I don't see why it should automatically be sufficient for cookies.
Oh, *tsk* You changed the paradigm dramatically and that won't work. We're talking action and consequence, not ingredient and construct. Try again! I'm sure you can come up with a better example this time!
I don't think a specific sex act should be declared as the be all end all of whether or not your a virgin. This is because the concept of virginity is so mutable.
Fine you want it fucking specific, here you go!
If women sharing a double dildo is not necessary for sex, I don't see why women sharing a double dildo should be automatically sufficient for sex. I think some lesbians would like to disagree with you. :)
I don't think a specific sex act should be declared as the be all end all of whether or not your a virgin. This is because the concept of virginity is so mutable.
Penis in vagina sex is sex enough to lose your virginity by any fucking definition (pun a happy accident) you care to find, m'dear.
no subject
Which would mean that it can be sufficient if the specific person involved believes it to be sufficient, but doesn't have to be sufficient if they believe it isn't.
And I know that any definition I look up is going to consider penis in vagina sufficient. What I said in the first comment you replied to was "I don't see why it should". Which is me expressing my dissatisfaction with this, not me saying that other people don't consider it sufficient.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-03-24 07:11 am (UTC)(link)And you are ignoring the fact that you couldn't come up with a counter example using action and consequence.
And I know that any definition I look up is going to consider penis in vagina sufficient.
So you admit how ridiculous it was?
What I said in the first comment you replied to was "I don't see why it should". Which is me expressing my dissatisfaction with this, not me saying that other people don't consider it sufficient.
Backpedal harder! You spent two comments trying to defend your flawed logic in the face of all reason. You don't get to call it opinion now. Besides opinions can be provably wrong (and by coincidence yours is!)
However, I'll take this comment to mean that I was right and your logic was horrible to the point where you can no longer defend it, but your own hubris is preventing you from realizing your mistake. So hooray for me! I won the internet fight!
no subject
Also, since you can, in fact, go back and look at the first comment I made in this thread, it always was opinion. Just because you say I'm backpedaling doesn't make it true.
I started debating the examples you came up with because I didn't think using death as an example was fair given it's *comparatively* strict definition. (You're right, it's not quite a dead/not dead dichotomy, but it's still more strict.)
My next argument was admittedly weak.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-03-24 07:45 am (UTC)(link)Give me something better in the morning!
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-03-24 01:48 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-03-24 07:32 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
A woman or girl who has never had previous sexual activity and been raped is completely within her rights to define herself as still being a virgin, and say "I'm a virgin until I choose to have sex with somebody."
no subject
(Anonymous) 2012-03-24 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)Without a single, overarching definition that describes what virginity is, that means it's pretty much a free-for-all as to what does and does not "count" as losing virginity.
It's a person who has not had sex, generally speaking. I can see the "virgin until I decide to have sex" too.
A woman or girl who has never had previous sexual activity and been raped is completely within her rights to define herself as still being a virgin, and say "I'm a virgin until I choose to have sex with somebody."
I can accept that as a personal (as in valid, but not the default) definition, no problem! :D I'm also okay with "born-again virgins" where someone has a sordid sexual past that they decide to leave behind and have a "second virginity." Even though the default assumption is probably "no sex ever." (If I knew a friend had been raped and then talked about herself as a virgin, I would be surprised, but I'd roll with it no problem!) It's