fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2056 ]

[ SECRET POST #2056 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2056 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 110 secrets from Secret Submission Post #294.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - titc ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

No, because that wasn't what you said at all in that first comment.

I just really don't see that character being able to let go of his pride like that.

Right there, you are assigning a sexual position based solely on a personality trait. Which is not only stupid, but carries some pretty gross heteronormative overtones.

Heteronormative? IDTS. The character may take pride in not submitting to anyone or anything and if that character takes pride in that, for them to enjoy doing the utter and total opposite would be OOC.

In no way was that a generalization of "all subs/bottoms, ever, have no pride." WTF even. If a character takes pride in being indomitable, then it applies to that character and that character's pride. Not every proud character, there are obviously proud bottom and sub characters out there.

Conflating receiving penetration with submission is gross heteronormative bullshit. It's misogynistic as hell and I wish people would get out of that mindset.

The character may take pride in not submitting to anyone or anything and if that character takes pride in that, for them to enjoy doing the utter and total opposite would be OOC.

THANK YOU ANON.

This is what I had in mind. A character who I think of feeling this way. That I think he feels this way does NOT mean I agree with him. Just that I think he does.

Also don't know where the fuck pearl-clutcher-nonny is getting the idea that I conflate submission with bottoming simply because I think A PARTICULAR CHARACTER would.

Christ on a cracker, people.

Edited 2012-08-20 23:55 (UTC)

Eh. I see why you're saying that, but again, I'm talking about characters. Characters are flawed.

I don't want to read about people who are perfect. I want to read about people whose personalities influence what they do -- and I definitely appreciate when writers take the care to show how their personalities influence their sex lives, for better and for worse.

The "heteronormative" thing I'm not touching unless you, yourself, are queer. I'm tired of straight women bitching about depictions of queer sex and pretty much done with white knights.

So... are you queer, nonny?

And what exactly does being flawed have to do with how a person likes to fuck? A preferred sexual position is not a goddamn personality trait. You're treating it like one, and then backpedaling like Lance Srmstrong on speed when you're called out.

I am a queer, actually. But, you know, thanks for assuming shit about me because it makes you more comfortable to subscribe to the misogynistic mindset that receiving penetration is "submitting" and proud people just don't get fucked.

Whatever. You answered my question, I guess. You really are that fucking stupid.

For some people it is a personality trait. For others it isn't.

Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it isn't for some people. And also, CHARACTERS IN STORIES. Stop talking to me like you know about my life because I said something about A CHARACTER in A STORY.

Also, if we're talking about mindsets... what the hell exactly is wrong with submitting? Because you keep talking like it's gross, and that's really insulting.

For some people it is a personality trait

No, it fucking isn't. Full stop.

Stop talking to me like you know about my life because I said something about A CHARACTER in A STORY.

Says the person who assumed I'm a straight person because I disagree with you? Fucking lol.

what the hell exactly is wrong with submitting? Because you keep talking like it's gross, and that's really insulting.

Absolutely nothing. But I never implied that. You did by insisting it's the opposite of proud.

At least you're an amusing idiot, I'll give you that.

I didn't assume you were straight. I asked if you were straight. I said that i wouldn't be interested in engaging straight white knights, because honestly... I'm not. I'm tired of people who don't actually know anything about real-world queer culture (especially spaces that do involve kinks based on role, such as queer leather) talking in broad generalities about a culture they are not personally acquainted with and have no personal investment in.

I really think you need some evidence for "No, it fucking isn't." Burden of proof is on you for making the claim that no one for whom it is a personality trait exists.

But I never implied that. You did by insisting it's the opposite of proud.

Again, I see why you read what I was saying that way. I don't think I can convince you it's not what I meant. But it really is not what I meant. I was talking about a character who I have a hard time imagining bottoming because I think HE WOULD FEEL that doing so would be an insult to his pride. I was saying that for that character, or others like him, I have a hard time going along with fans characterizing him differently and therefore want characterization that either a) convinces me that he doesn't actually tie these things together in his head or b) shows him changing his mind.

I said nothing about characters who are bottoms or submissives. I meant to say that if the character is similar to the one I'm thinking of, I can imagine also feeling like I wouldn't buy him switching without character development.

I do agree with you that it sounded like I was making some larger claim. I can only assert that I was not, and hope you'll understand I'm not lying. But I don't know if at this point you want to engage with me; you seem to prefer the "idiot" you assumed me to be.

real-world queer culture

Yeah, fuck you right there, you miserable little shit. There is no such thing as "queer culture". Who you fuck is not a culture and if you think it is, you are what's wrong with this planet.

Burden of proof is on you for making the claim that no one for whom it is a personality trait exists.

As soon as you provide some proof that real-life people develop temporary DID from changing sexual positions (because that's what OOC would mean in the real world). Since you made that claim first.

I do agree with you that it sounded like I was making some larger claim. I can only assert that I was not, and hope you'll understand I'm not lying.

No, I think you're backpedaling because facing that you said something shitty makes you uncomfortable. Which is just as bad.

Yeah, fuck you right there, you miserable little shit. There is no such thing as "queer culture". Who you fuck is not a culture and if you think it is, you are what's wrong with this planet.

Um.

You seriously don't think there are any subcultural aspects to any queer spaces? At all?

I don't think we're even living on the same planet if you don't think explicitly queer spaces exist.

Not everyone's big on them -- I'm very much not, at this point. But denying that they exist is weird. Advocating that people not bother with them, all right, though that seems a little, er... getting too involved in other people's lives, to me.

PS. There's no such thing as "OOC" for real people. Real people != characters

Edited 2012-08-21 00:30 (UTC)

That's what I figured you thought. I see your point, and it's why I generally don't partake of that stuff myself. But personally I don't see it as some sort of pernicious stain on existence, just as something I'm not interested in. And I've got to admit the leather community is fun. Though I'm not one who would exclude straight leatherfolk, so yeah, I guess I'm kind of with you there?

for some people, it's a personality trait

Which I do think it is. I've known people who vastly prefer to be penetrator or penetratee, and/or who vastly prefer to dominate or submit. (Sometimes these are not the same people, as you point out -- there are submissive tops and dominant bottoms.)

I don't think if these people do something different it changes who they are, so I don't know where the DID comment came from. I just think they have marked preferences.

You'll probably go right back to loathing me (if you ever stopped) for saying this, but I suspect that preference is innate for some people. That's why I call it a personality trait for those people. I sometimes suspect it might have something to do with hormones (like in those famous rat studies) but I'm not at all sure of that.

I can do something against my general personality without developing DID. So can a character, but as I said, I'd personally prefer to see the whole context of that when reading fic.

Edited 2012-08-21 00:54 (UTC)

I don't think if these people do something different it changes who they are

Then it's not a personality trait. A preference for a certain position can definitely be innate. But that does not make it a defining quality of a person so much that they "aren't themselves" if they just happen to bottom instead of top (for any reason, or even no reason at all; people don't need complex reasons to do something different in bed one night). The DID comment came because you acted as if changing sexual position was analogous to changing their personality. Since that's what makes something a "personality trait" rather than a quirk.

Calling position preference a "personality trait" is defining someone by their sex-life, and the reason I hate it so fucking much is because that is exactly the kind of shit I get as a queer every fucking day. To the rest of the world, I'm defined solely by who and how I fuck, and I'm tired of it. It's dehumanizing. It's fetishistic. It sucks.

I think you and I define "personality trait" differently. I'm thoughtful and quiet, but that doesn't mean I never have fun being loud. I'm blunt, but that doesn't mean I am somehow incapable of being diplomatic.

You seem to consider personality traits as things people slavishly adhere to or follow, and that's really not a definition of the word I've ever seen before. I see them as describing how a person generally is, such that if they go against that trait it's notable. That's all.

But that does not make it a defining quality of a person so much that they "aren't themselves" if they just happen to bottom instead of top (for any reason, or even no reason at all; people don't need complex reasons to do something different in bed one night).

We disagree about nothing, then.

All I said was that when I read a fic about a character who I think markedly prefers one role, I sometimes find it jarring to see them in another. I was saying only that when I've noted that about characters often portrayed as dominant tops, the response tends to be "well, people are often exactly the opposite in bed as in regular life." My point was that while that's sometimes true, I find it to often be a cliche, and I prefer that people either avoid cliches or write richly enough that i find myself believing it.

But again, what I like to read in fic is not necessarily what I think people do in life. I don't see why those two things should be conflated. I'm not one of those people who think what people do or like in stories necessarily reflects how they see real life (which is why I tend to be more skeptical of "this genre is misogynistic" type claims than many others are, who tend to see media as shaping or at least reflecting us.)

Calling position preference a "personality trait" is defining someone by their sex-life

That's not what i mean by it. I mean that a person's sex life is not necessarily independent of their personality. That their personality can impact their sex life and, I would argue, vice-versa. I don't think people's sex lives are wholly independent of their values and identity. Whether a particular preference is or isn't depends on the person, and on whether it's something personally important to them or just something they find themselves fantasizing about. But in general, I don't think how people are in bed is any less (or any more!) related to who they are as people than anything else is.

To the rest of the world, I'm defined solely by who and how I fuck, and I'm tired of it.

That does suck! But I don't see how that relates to what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that a person's sex life is not some free floating thing that's disconnected from the rest of them. If they're different in bed than out of it, that's still got something to do with their personality. What exactly will depend. For some I'd say it's that people bottle up hidden emotions and let them out in private. But that, too, is a certain kind of person -- the kind who presents different facets to different people in a marked way. Some other people don't really parcel themselves out. Someone who tries everything may be someone who's generally adventurous. Etc., etc., etc.

Edited 2012-08-21 01:27 (UTC)

So if someone whom you think is mos def a "top" informs you that they were on the bottom last night, do you require that they give you a full two pages of explanation before you call bullshit on them? Because being a top is part of their personality and they can't just change that on you without explaining why? Because that's pretty much what you're saying here, and yes, it sounds just as ridiculous.

No, not at all. Because they are not a fictional character.

But you just got done both saying and denying that you apply this reasoning to real people, too, by saying people's sex-lives are part of their personalities. So which is it?

And no backpedaling about how that ~wasn't what you meant~, either, because that's exactly what you said.

I'm saying two things:

One: I think people's sex lives, in general, are part and parcel of who they are. This is why I'm inclined to want fic to be well thought out -- because fiction is not "every day in Brian's life," it's "stuff that happens to Brian that's important to this story about him." Unless it's PWP.

Two: I don't think every sex act anyone performs is a referendum on his or her personality or values. This is why if someone tells me they tried something different in bed I wouldn't find it weird. Humans live quite a long time, and even the most routine-oriented humans are prone to boredom or caprices.

These two things don't conflict. I don't see why they would.

Hence, in fic, I'm more inclined to side-eye certain characters breaking type if it's not written well. I'm not going to side-eye my friends for doing whatever (other than wondering why the TMI.)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-08-21 02:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

stainless - 2012-08-21 02:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-08-21 02:50 (UTC) - Expand

I think this "culture" you speak of is nothing but a case of identity politics and people being stupid and assigning more importance than they ever should to something that really shouldn't matter. That doesn't make it a "culture" in any way. There is no such thing as gay music, gay food, gay dress, gay customs, gay mythology, gay traditions, etc.

...The ever loving fuck?

There is. By definition, culture addresses the belief systems, discourse, standards, norms, and principles. And there is in fact, queer culture. It deals mainly deals with us with having our presence acknowledged, our rights not being trampled over, being able to associate with other LGBT people. It's not big, but it still counts as culture, a subculture, if you really will, so take your angry shit-eating bullshit elsewhere and stop implying that you represent what defines a queer person in real life, because the last few posts, you seem hell bent that your interpretation is the one and only true standard to abide by and if other queers don't fit that scope, they're just perpetuating a stereotype you think is abhorrent.

Stop speaking for me. I have a preference and a strong leaning to one sexual position and have zero desire for the other, and although it's not a personality trait, it fucking well influences how I interact with who I damn well want to sleep with.

Go eat shit you fucking overbearing moronic pile of fecal matter.

lol, no, it is not and never will be a culture. Just a bunch of idiots wanting to be special snowflakes while at the same time treated like everyone else.

I have a preference and a strong leaning to one sexual position and have zero desire for the other, and although it's not a personality trait, it fucking well influences how I interact with who I damn well want to sleep with.

And you can go back to first -grade reading comprehension once someone changes your diaper.

I have a preference and a strong leaning to one sexual position and have zero desire for the other, and although it's not a personality trait, it fucking well influences how I interact with who I damn well want to sleep with.

If you're one of those queers who defines everything by how gay you are, you can kindly eat Perez Hilton's asshole and stop giving the rest of us such bad press.

Thank you, anon. I could not agree more.

I have a preference and a strong leaning to one sexual position and have zero desire for the other, and although it's not a personality trait, it fucking well influences how I interact with who I damn well want to sleep with.

Also, THAT. Right there.

(I wouldn't say "zero." My life is not absoluteville. But what I might like 1% of the time? Does not define me. What I like most of the time? That can. Does, personally. Sheesh oh minnie.)

Edited 2012-08-24 11:06 (UTC)

Oh piss off, dipshit. Anyone who defines themselves by their sex life is too fucking stupid to sleep with anyway.

No. You can fuck right off and be the miserable piece of festering dung matter you really are. Where does he/she say that their sex-life defines him/her?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only