[ SECRET POST #2523 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2523 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Carnivale]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.
[Madame LaLaurie from American Horror Story: Coven]


__________________________________________________



05.
[David Duchovny/The X-Files]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Lorax]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________
















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





















09. [SPOILERS for Blacklist]



__________________________________________________


















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





















10. [WARNING for rape?]



__________________________________________________



11. [SPOILERS for Once Upon a Time]
[WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for incest]

[The Raven Cycle]


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6911/ftdj.png

[(Anonymous)]

People just hate it on it because they look for an excuse to diss Twilight. If this was Harry Potter they'd be all over it.

[(Anonymous)]

Basically yes. The problem with Twilight isn't that it has problematic concepts but that it declines to treat those concepts as problematic. Given that, I can see how 'grown-ass man in love with baby' can be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[kaijinscendre]

But how would you determine what a soulmate is? Someone who is obsessed with you? Because if you are a baby and someone hangs around you your entire life that is really going to fuck up your perceptions.

Is it actually love or is it just the fact this person in a position of power has told you they are your soulmate your entire life.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're taking the concept of soulmate too literally tbh.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you mean ONE true love. I can believe in true love just fine. I don't believe in soulmates.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. You take issue with the idea of "true" in "true love." As in, if a love is true, it should be able to transcend all boundaries. I can agree with that.

However, I would say a newborn baby is not something you can "love" romantically. It has no distinct personality, thought process, or even awareness of self. So there is no possible "romantic love relationship" there. A baby is simply not eligible to take part in a romantic love, true or not.

[(Anonymous)]

Not everyone who believes in true love equates it with soul mates.

[(Anonymous)]

see, the thing is that the books make it incredibly creepy like when they talk about how the girl doesn't have to be with person who imprints on her but since she's been doted on her whole life by him, why would she want anyone else? it's things like that that made the situation seem a lot like child grooming. there's just not really a way to spin the concept of a grown man who constantly spends time with a child who he's pretty sure he will eventually bang one day into something...well, not creepy.

[(Anonymous)]

I question your ability to think critically.

[klutzygirl]

It was so gross. And I hate Bella (and the movies in general) but I like that she called Jacob out on it.

[(Anonymous)]

If this is someone's version of "true love" then I feel sorry for them. They don't even love the person for who they are, which is part of how I define love. They just are obsessed with this person. Who they are as a person and what their personality is like doesn't even matter at all to their "soulmate."

[writerserenyty]

To me, I like the idea of "true love" but not in a "these people are 100% tied together from their birth" way?

The most romantic thing to me is two people who are "tied" together in that the other person is the one person they trust more than anyone else in the world/universe. It doesn't mean that it's predestined at birth or whatever, but through joint experiences they love the other person completely.

Idk, I just think any couple where one is a child and one is an adult and there's the expectation that they'll get together later on is VERY VERY creepy.

[(Anonymous)]

except we only know of jacob's pov. in his mind the baby is his but what about the baby? does she have any say about being his 'one and only'?

the whole thing with pedophilia is that children are not capable of knowing what romantic love and can be easily manipulated. after all, who at the age of five can say they know what it is to crush and yearn for someone; it's just not in their brain processing capabilities.

im also assuming imprinting is based off of sexual and physical desires due to werewolf nature? and that is extremely creepy. you can say that baby will probably be your one and only in the future, but until she is old enough to understand her own emotions, marking someone as your own is inappropriate and excludes the other person's freedom of choice.

[(Anonymous)]

So are you going to defend child molesters in real life because ~they might be soulmates~ and we shouldn't judge?

[saiika_von_maou]

Yeah, it was really grossly-handled...as much as I dislike the concept, I don't really get why so many people feel the need to call Jacob a pedo over and over again. The concept for it was that neither he nor the baby had any control over it, which is actually what skeeved me out more than anything else. It's brainwashing is what it is.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought it was icky, but more than being icky it was that same irritating strain of 'pair the spare' used in Harry Potter, only in a really twisted way. I hate it when an author has to pair everyone up (or at least all the main characters) by the end of the story. That's how people think and write when they're twelve. I know these books aren't meant to be literary classics, but seriously. If you're so desperate for everyone to have someone, at least give the guy someone who isn't a frickin' baby.

[(Anonymous)]

That only works with platonic love. With romantic love that has sexual undertones is creepy as fuck.

[(Anonymous)]

Well believing in soulmates and thinking critically don't generally go hand in hand, do they.

[(Anonymous)]

No. You can believe in true love AND believe in the capability to love more than one person. It is perfectly possible to be truly in love with someone but unable to be with them for whatever reason (one being THEY ARE A BABY AND IT IS FUCKING DISTURBING), and it is perfectly possible to later fall in love with someone else, and be truly in love with them too.

Also, true love/soulmates would require two consenting beings returning mutual feelings for each other. A baby can't do that.

[(Anonymous)]

The ONLY PURPOSE THAT SERVES IS TO MATE. It makes NO SENSE that you would imprint on someone that can't mate yet. It's even more disgusting when you take into account the only woman who ever was against it got mauled. It's not a good idea.

[gabzillaz]

...nah

[(Anonymous)]

By starting with the "soulmate" nonsense you already lost me. Nonsense nonsense.

Even the concept of soulmate is annoying to me, it's a cheap cop-out in fiction (which as amny things, can be pulled off with enough suspension of disbelief) and an fallacy in real life at worst, a cute moniker for a relationship that stood the pass of time at best.

Now try to justify grooming a baby to be your lover with the concept of soulmates and I'm flinging all my shit on you.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't believe in soulmates, but if I did? I would think that being soulmates means you get born somewhere in a range of circumstances that allows you a chance at real love, not pedophilia. That someone is your one and only because they're actually somewhat compatible with you.

I mean if being 'soulmates' means a couple could have been born at ANY TIME relative to each other than what's to say they were even born in the same lifespan? Maybe my soulmate was a literal renaissance man, whoops.

[(Anonymous)]

Or some of us thought he wasn't her soulmate so much as he forced being her "soulmate" onto her before she could consent and pretty much took away all her choices in life. For you to argue about "true love" and "soulmates" and how one must strive for it and protect such a thing, no matter the consequences, you must also have a solid basis to believe they actually are soulmates. Without that basis, which I feel is a foundation I find Twilight lacks security in, all you have is a disgusting manipulation.