[ SECRET POST #2056 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[stainless]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[stainless]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[stainless]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[stainless]

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.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, they do conflict. And as I've already explained to you why at least twice, I'm not going to run in circles and do so a third time. Instead, I'll just consider my original question answered: yes, you really are that fucking stupid.

[stainless]

And I'm inclined to say that you're missing a bit of nuance here.

I'm not sure why the name-calling, though. I thought we'd progressed to a discussion.

Ah well.

[(Anonymous)]

There is no "nuance" here. You're contorting and tripping over yourself trying to defend a really stupid, shitty line of reasoning that does not deserve to be defended. There's no point in "discussion" with someone who happily contradicts themselves in every single comment and calls it "nuance".