[ SECRET POST #2250 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2250 ⌋

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

01.
[Stan Lee]


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Pusher II]


__________________________________________________



04.
[nigahiga]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.
[code lyoko evolution]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________
















[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]
















10. [SPOILERS for Homestuck]



__________________________________________________



11. [SPOILERS for Kuroko no Basket]



__________________________________________________

















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

















12. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for rape]

[SNSD/Girls' Generation]


__________________________________________________



15. [WARNING for dub-con]



__________________________________________________



16. [WARNING for sexual assault]

[One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest]


__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #321.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

09. http://i.imgur.com/zBXDL1D.jpg

[sugar_spun]

I highly doubt you're serious, but first, a little kid's perception of sexuality shouldn't be judged, second, the Thundercats are not animals, they are furry people.

[iggy]

Isn't that was most furries are though?

[kaijinscendre]

Because human with animal traits = horse. One of these things can give consent, the other can't (unless we are talking about Mr. Ed).

[visp]

Please don't bring Mr. Ed into this conversation.

[feotakahari]

I think the defining factor is sapience. Animals, like children, can't give meaningful consent.

(I'm tempted to play devil's advocate against that argument--after all, animals have sex with each other all the time--but let's face it, not even I want to go there.)

[ill_omened]

It's an interesting ethical path to go down.

We could also switch it around and point out the incoherence in suggesting we fundamentally cannot strip animals of consent, when we eat them or keep them in slavery.

[republicanism]

but can trolls have sex with humans? because im pretty sure you're fucking with us

[diet_poison]

It took me a second to figure out you weren't talking about Homestuck trolls...which have sex with humans all the time in fic. And maybe even in canon.

[illiadandoddity]

I'm just going to put it out there that none of the Thundercats looked like animals as much as they did 80s glam rockers.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait does this mean we can blame David Bowie for furries?

[visp]

Yep.

[lunabee34]

Heeeeeeeeee. Where's the hair metal AU?

[(Anonymous)]

Cheetara has a voice and an understanding of the situation and can tell you what the hell she does and doesn't want. An animal can't. The issue isn't with species, it's with consent.

[(Anonymous)]

ENUMCLAW in the house! Representin' the town where a man was FUCKED TO DEATH by a horse! Home sweet home.

[iggy]

Yeah... I'm not a fan of furry stuff, but crushing on an anthropomorphic, sentient (and usually bipedal) 'animal' is not the same thing as fucking a horse.

[(Anonymous)]

What if I am a furry and bestiality still squicks the hell out of me?

I prefer my porn to be consensual, kthnx

[rbhudson]

There's a big difference between being attracted to anthropomorphic characters and wanting to violate any innocent animal that can't consent. I judge you, OP.

[lynx]

I'll be there making popcorn and hoping for a wank to explode. Does anyone want to come over?

In any case, you're doing a poor favor to furry fandom by comparing them to zoophiliacs, OP.

[kallanda_lee]

Cheetara (in the original series that is), never really read as animal to me. She was a humanoid alien with cat-like features.

So to me, it would be much more on par with having a crush on an alien in the Star Trek universe, than having sexy feelings for your cat. I also really don't get how you're can't see the difference between crushing on something with human-like sentience and body type versus on being into actual animals.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm choosing to believe this is a troll because I like to imagine there is no one who doesn't find actual bestiality morally repulsive.
(at least in this community. please, leave me my illusions)

What show/movie is the poster for?

[nyxelestia]

I'm assuming it's a movie (or a TV show?). I tried to look it up but "zoo" is just too vague for Google to give me anything definitive.

*not contributing to the conversation at all*

[(Anonymous)]

... Apparently, I have rant-level feelings on this. Apologies in advance.

If I understand this secret correctly, you are drawing an equivalence between wanting to have sex with a horse, and wanting to have sex with Cheetara. Who, from what little I remember of Thundercats, was essentially a strongly catlike alien woman.

Am I to understand, then, that you're saying Cheetara is an animal in the same way that a horse, or presumably a cat, are animals? And that she should be treated as such?

Because, to bring up the most immediately distressing implications of treating the character as an animal ... Animals can be bought and sold. Animals can be killed. Animals can be spayed. Animals can be forcibly bred together by outsiders for the purposes of bloodlines.

(Sidenote: I am aware there is a very powerful argument that animals shouldn't be treated as we treat animals. But just to keep this rant mostly focused on animal-like characters who are portrayed as people, for the moment).

If you consider Cheetara equivalent to animals such as horses ... do you also consider these things appropriate in relation to her? The character as presented on the screen. You think these are things that could or should legitimately be done to her?

And if not ... if you are treating her as an animal in issues of sex and desire, why, specifically, do you think she shouldn't be treated as an animal in other areas?

Cheetara is a person. The fact that she has catlike attributes is rather less important than the fact she has will and sapience and desires of her own. This is a thing that consistently bugs me in things like werewolf fiction and the like, where the fact that the character in question has animal attributes seemingly trumps things like consent and the basic fucking dignity owed to them as a person, that their choices and desires are suddenly less important than whatever biological imperative the author has decided goes along with whatever biology they have. If I have to read one more story where a character who has been socialised more or less as a human is forced to, I don't know, sleep with the entire pack or sleep with the alpha male or automatically submit to things they don't want because that's how animals do it, I think I may scream. They're not animals. They're not necessarily human either, but they're also not animals. And treating them as such is really, really starting to annoy me.

Sleeping with an animal is abuse because that animal cannot consent. Treating a person as an animal because of how they look or what their biology happens to be is also abuse, based on current standards of treatment of animals. And also since it seems like in 90% of fiction it apparently means treating them as though their ability to consent or not consent no longer fucking matters.

I have no problems whatsoever with people who desire Cheetara. So long as the desire they feel is towards her as a person, not as a furry doll whose feelings on the issue don't matter.

It's not the species of the people in question that's the problem. It's treating the object of your desire as nothing more than an object for it.

[blunderbuss]

By this logic, if someone ever got a crush on a character from any of the Megaman series then they're not allowed to judge someone who fucks a toaster.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a world of difference between an animal and a talking, speaking being who happens to be furry.

I hope you realise that, OP, and are not fucking dogs.