[ SECRET POST #2571 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2571 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Revenge]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Vatta's War - Trading in Danger]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Dirty Rotten Scoundrels]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Sherlock]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Mass Effect]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Sleepy Hollow]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11. [tb2]


__________________________________________________



12. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #367.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Ehh, I'm straight and one of my most serious relationships was with a woman. No, I don't consider myself bisexual (just open minded at best?), she was more like an exception.

So I don't see anything SJW about saying sexuality is fluid. I know I'm not the only one out there with an experience like this.

[comma_chameleon]

Agreed. The 'only gay for you' trope exists for a reason. While there are obviously (probably?) people on both ends (heterosexual and homosexual) who would consider themselves staunchly 'unfluid', there's still a helluva lot of people in that middle wibbly wobbly 'maybe if it were the right person' zone.

[(Anonymous)]

and we call those people bisexuals.

[comma_chameleon]

I dunno. If someone was equally (and I use this term loosely) attracted to men and women I would consider that bisexual, but if someone's only attracted to one single person that is the opposite of their self-presumed sexuality, I hesitate to call that bisexual.

Of course, what those individual people label themselves as is their decision, but one exception to a rule to me doesn't seem on par with full 'equal opportunity' sexuality.

[(Anonymous)]

bi doesn't mean 50/50, it means 2.

[(Anonymous)]

Why would you refer to the Kinsey scale when, in your sexual expertise, you scorn the notion of sexuality being fluid? bitch, now you're just trolling.

[comma_chameleon]

And that's why I said equally loosely. Obviously even identifying bisexuals aren't going to be attracted to exactly 237 men and 237 women.

However, if someone ONLY has an attracted to one single person outside their self-identified sexuality, to me (as stupid as the term is) they're 'only gay for them'. It's an exception in my opinion, not a change in sexuality. Maybe they're attracted/in love with that person in spite of their sex?

Anyway, just saying, sexuality is pretty damn fluid in my opinion, and so are the labels for it.

[(Anonymous)]

Not if they call themselves straight, we don't.

[(Anonymous)]

2 bad.

[(Anonymous)]

^Only people who know nothing about sexuality.

An exception or two, or experimenting with (or fantasizing about) your non-preferred gender, doesn't make you bisexual.

If it does, then there are far fewer straight people out there than you think.

[(Anonymous)]

I was about to say, that would probably remove minority status from GSM.

[(Anonymous)]

It's pretty SJW to decide what to call someone else's sexuality ("if you're "straight" and date someone of the same gender once, you are bi/pansexual and calling yourself anything else is contributing to bi erasure")

[(Anonymous)]

aaaaand this is exactly why I hate labels. I think it is entirely up to the invidual to decide what their orientation is.

I can only ever see myself being sexually intimate with women but that doesn't mean that if I happened to have a deep emotional or intellectual attraction with someone of the opposite sex I'd have to immediately hand in my lesbian card.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 thank you.

As somebody who identifies as gay I had no problem with Irene. I get why its problematic in a wider social sense but as a lesbian who totally believes that sexuality can be fluid and that hates labels, I was really ok with Irene.

(This makes me "self-hating" apparently)

[(Anonymous)]

I'm like Irene in that I'm a lesbian, consider myself pretty much gay, that is, but I've had an occasional fling with a guy that I don't regret. So I don't mind Irene in theory.

But when there aren't enough gay characters on TV, it's hard to escape the "straight man is so awesome even the lesbians love him" ickiness. It did bug me about that episode, even though I don't actually think her situation was offensive or impossible. There just aren't enough gay characters - and surely not enough on Sherlock, though the gay jokes are plentiful - to make that kind of portrayal classy, I think.