fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2341 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2341 ⌋

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

01.

[David Mitchell]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Carry On]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Jay and Silent Bob]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Simcity Societies]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

[Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Noel Fielding]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Doraemon]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Uninhabited Planet SURVIVE]

__________________________________________________

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

12. [SPOILERS for Star Trek: Into Darkness]

__________________________________________________

13. [SPOILERS for Arrow]

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILERS for Naruto]

__________________________________________________

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

15. [WARNING for pedohpilia]

[Neon Genesis Evangelion]

__________________________________________________

16. [WARNING for ]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #334.
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

Straight people can't win, can they? If a gay character moves on after his partner dies, it's all "OOOH HOMOPHOBE YOU THINK ALL GAYS ARE PROMISCUOUS!!!" If a gay character tries to hold his relationship together after his partner dies, it's all "OOOH HOMOPHOBE YOU THINK ALL GAYS ARE NECROPHILES!!!"

How is being faithful to your dead partner nechrophile? That's true love, not necrophilia. What the hell.

Being faithful? Once they are dead, no one has a duty to stay single. And it is possible to have true love twice. No one has to move on and be with other people, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with moving on, and it doesn't make the relationship with the dead person any more or less true love.

I don't know, I think that if you truly love someone, as in that person being your soulmate, the one for you, you don't stop loving them just because they are gone. Or at least that's my case

No, you don't stop loving them. But you can love someone else as well. The love will be different, but doesn't mean it is weaker.

My father died when I was 15. My parents were what I'd call soulmates. They clearly loved each other deeply. Mother remarried when I was 21. My stepfather is an amazing man. My mother loves him. Their relationship is different, but no less strong.

My mother got a lot of flack for daring to remarry, especially from my father's parents. So maybe this issue is a little personal for me.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to not move on. But it also isn't wrong to do so. And finding a new love says nothing about the strength of the previous relationship.

You don't stop loving them, but that doesn't mean its cheating.

DA

I do believe you don't stop loving someone after they die, but I also don't believe a person will continue loving someone in the exact same way after a period of time after their death.

If your soulmate dies at 19, are you really saying you will never be in any non-platonic relationship for the 50+ years of your life?

Yes, that's what I'm trying to do. But in my case my soulmate wasn't my partner but my best friend, so I suppose is not exactly the same that losing a partner.

well I'm sorry for your loss. but please consider the impact that your commentary has on other people. not everyone may be able to or choose to have your particular mindset. it doesn't mean we didn't love the people we've lost.

I apologize, I never intentnded to imply that. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that people that move on didn't love their deceased ones.

No, you don't stop loving them. As Reese Watson said in an episode of Designing Women, "Julia Sugarbaker, you just keep all the memories and pictures of Hayden McIlroy that you want to because, quite frankly, I don't think I'd want to be with a woman who stopped loving her husband just because he died."

But love is one of those things where loving one person doesn't mean that you can't love another. It isn't a commodity that gets used up and disappears. This is why parents are able to love more than one child, for example, or why people can deeply love more than one friend.

I definitely think you can *choose* not to fall in love again, and if my husband were to die, I don't know if I would choose to build a relationship with someone else. But I don't think it would be impossible or morally wrong for me to do so just because I loved him first and still.

nayrt, but i just wanted to say that this is a really good comment, and a really insightful way to look at this issue both personally and in the context of the book, and many others

also i fucking love designing women and i had totally forgot about that line

I love Designing Women hard. Julia Sugarbaker is my role model. LOL

Probably wasting my time replying to obvious troll bait, but in the books Loras clearly never gets over Renly's death and says of him "when the sun has set, no candle can replace it," clearly rejecting the idea of settling for anyone else. Whereas in the show not only has he apparently totally ok with banging other guys, he doesn't even seem to be grieving anymore, which is just really off-base from his book characterization and disappointing from what is pretty much the only visible queer character on the show atm.

I mean hell, Jamie of all people considers Loras to be completely true/faithful in a way that he hasn't seen in a long time.

And let's be honest, Loras's life goes to SHIT after Renly dies and keeps just spiraling downward. The kindest thing GRRM could do is kill Loras, but he won't. Instead he does what he did in the last book.

There are characters on the show that didn't even exist in the book. The show will probably outpace the novels anyway, so don't get too hung up about "book characterization".

Well, you sure told me, anon. I guess I'll stop considering the relationship between an adaptation and the work it's adapting. I guess I'll stop criticizing ALL the shitty and offensive choices D&D make constantly, too, while I'm at it.

It isn't the sex that is bothersome. At this point in the book Loras is INCREDIBLY still torn up over Renly's death. There are two very overt references to it. When he's first talking to Sansa, being cordial and nice, she brings up Renly and how horrible it must be for Margaery to have lost her husband, he just goes "...yes. For her." And then drops her hand from his arm, and becomes cold and distant. Sansa can't really figure out what hte hell she did wrong.

Second, Tyrion talks to him, and when he expresses that he isn't interested in marrying, or having children, Tyrion asks, "And what of love?" to which Loras replies, with his most famous line, "When the sun has set, no candle can replace it." Tyrion makes a bit of a jape against that line, and Loras reacts badly, prompting Tyrion to call him "prickly".

Yes, having sex doesn't mean he's stopped mourning--people reach out in their pain physically, sometimes. But at this point in the book he's still very upset and devoted to Renly and his memory. In the show, he seems to have completely moved on ~~they seem to have dropped his best fucking lines~~. Which is completely out of character for him.

When the sun has set no candle can replace it? Seems show!Loras just needs a glade plug in.

asjlnvlnksvk;

can't believe 75% of replies to this comment took it seriously. come on people. recognize an obvious joke.

Poor straight ppl :(

[ SECRET POST #2341 ]

no subject

no subject

DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject