[ SECRET POST #2433 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2433 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 073 secrets from Secret Submission Post #348.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think this would have come across better without the part about body-shaming men and what-have-you.

That is, if you weren't looking to start wank.

[(Anonymous)]

1. I don't really see any wank, at least yet.

2. Why is body-shaming okay sometimes but not others? Women get it a whole hell of a lot worse in our society, but what actual value is there in any context to the idea that conventional attractiveness is positively correlated with moral virtue or value as a human being? Moreover, what value is there in implying that only unattractive guys can be creepers? Conventionally hot guys can also have disgusting attitudes toward women; it's just easier to dismiss because they don't have neckbeards. Is that something we want to encourage?

ayrt

[(Anonymous)]

not that body-shaming and gender double-standards aren't worth talking about, it's just that those two are the obviously easier/larger targets when it comes to wanky internet arguments, and to bring them in, however related, will mean that the meat of the argument ("reprimand/attack the actions of the creep, not the hair on his neck") will inevitably fall to the wayside in the process