fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2071 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2071 ⌋

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.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Important: I'm really sorry about this, but I accidentally misclicked and deleted the submission post from last week instead of saving it. Managed to save the first page (25) of secrets, but the rest (about 100 or so) are gone.

If you submitted something last week (Aug 26-Sept 1), please resubmit it here.

The submissions post for next week is below as usual.

Secrets Left to Post: ?? pages, ??? secrets from Secret Submission Post #296.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Wait, I'm confused...what isn't just limited to orientation? Or did you mean to reply to another comment?

whoops. I meant queer isn't limited to orientation, attraction, what-have-you.

Ah, okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I've always seen it used in relation to orientation so that kind of confused me. If it's not limited to orientation then what is the actual definition? Anything gender or orientation related that's unconventional?

Other than the dictionary one, there kind of isn't a specific and established one. Since it was often used as a slur (and still is!) against gays and lesbians, it was retaken. Then it expanded to include bisexuals, and then trans*, and intersex too, and what about polyamory too!, and etc.

If calling it unconventional works to make sense of it, why not. Pretty much if it's outside heteronormative I guess.

I don't know that asexuals are automatically not heteronormative though. Obviously they can not be but I don't think it's a given, at least as I understand it. I always thought heteronormativity referred more to gender roles and relationship dynamics, and I don't see why an asexual person couldn't have a traditional relationship in that respect. For example, I don't see a difference between two non-asexual people in a traditional sexual relationship and an asexual person in a traditional sexual relationship with a non-asexual person, where the asexual person has sex with their partner to make them happy. I don't think the fact that the asexual person isn't necessarily getting anything out of it makes the relationship not heteronormative if those people are of the opposite sex.

But then of course there are situations involving asexual people that I would say definitely aren't heteronormative, so obviously it depends on the individual person/situation.

I guess I just hesitate to call something queer if it doesn't involve same sex attraction in some way because I've seen so many people get jumped on for ~appropriating LGBT culture or whatever.

Just don't paint everyone as queer, or any label, unless they identify as such. Similar to how people in the lgbt community can reject it for themselves because of the uncomfortable background of it being used as a slur, it's going to mean different things to different people, and saying it's strictly this or that only serves to make it a rigid definition when not everything in the gender/sexuality spectrum (or lack of one) has a clear qualifier.

For instance, does a queer-identifying bisexual woman count as queer if her current partner is a man? Of course. But then you'd have folk arguing that because she currently passes as straight, she has no right to the word. I'm sorry I find it ridiculous that there's so much in-fighting already regarding policing about who gets to id as a relatively neutral word for "other," and playing oppression olympics.

Like you said, it's on the individual person/situation. Their call imo.

As far as appropriation goes, I agree about people not claiming the same political fights, or discrimination of a specific group, as their own. But that's taking up queer as more than just an id, and pretending it's a cause as a whole, as if any member of L, G, B, or T can claim the same problems of the other as their own.

That all makes sense, so thanks for the clarification. I guess I'm used to dealing with words that have a specific definition so it's kind of confusing but I think I get it. Since "queer" doesn't really have an "official" definition, like you said, it's up to the the individual person to decide if it fits them or their situation, right?

When it comes to things like this I'm kind of always nervous that I'm going to say something "wrong" and get attacked for it, but I guess there are always going to be certain people that are going to find something wrong with whatever you said no matter what.

Yeah, it's pretty much a given that whatever you say is going to ruffle someone's feathers. Best thing to do if you're jumping into conversations is not assume anything about anyone or the subject matter.

it's not even just an sjw backlash thing. Like this post about GaymerCon being successfully funded. Going by the angry comments, you'd think the actual post was about promoting the "gaaaay agendaaaaaaa D:". Meanwhile, a negative game review is all about the reviewer's total playstation bias
oh, internet. always with the putting the evil subtext into everything forever ♥

[ SECRET POST #2071 ]

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT