[ 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)]

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.