andrewducker

Slash

I've been thinking about Slash ever since I opened my mouth without bulletproofing myself.

Having read the Schindler's List Fanfic/Slash a little later, it's not actually that bad. Well, it's not terrible writing, and it's not offensive.

Except.... except it's solidified something that's been nagging at me for a while - the thing that I've realised I don't like about Slash.

It started with a link that Yonmei sent me to a FAQ page about Slash-writing, which gave various examples of relationships between people, and then said "They sounded romantic, yes? But we changed the genders around, and the people in each case were both men!" (and yes, I'm parapgrasing from memory, as I can't find the page again). This had the implication that as these relationships _could_ be romantic, therefore reframing them as romantic was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

And I then realised that the problem was that the Slash people seem to think that it's impossible for any relationship to be non-sexual. That if one person cares for another, it must be because they want to have sex with them. If a person enjoys another's company it's because they are desperate for sweaty lovemaking with them. If a person loves someone else, it's because of lust.

Taking the relationship between Oskar Schindler and Itzhak Stern and saying that they worked together to save thousands of lives because Oskar couldn't get Itzhak's sexy looks out of his head takes an incredibly noble act and a great friendship and reduces it to animal attraction. And while I have nothing against animal attraction (it's great!), it's as bad as the idea of Aragorn fighting for Middle Earth because Arwen is threatened - suddenly he's not a hero fighting for all mankind - he's just some guy protecting his girlfriend.

It's reminiscient of the people that think that Men and Women can't be friends, because Men want to shag any woman they know - apparently men and men can't be friends, because deep down they want to shag.

(Oh, and all of the above applies to male/female relationships too, 'Het' fiction annoys me just as much.)

Threaded | Flat

Why does it _reduce_ it to animal attraction?

I suppose that the difference between Men and men is that men understand how to be friends, but Men just want to shag? *grin*

I dunno, I've never understood why wanting to boink someone precluded being friends with them, m'self. It always seemed to me like that sentiment was the first step down the road of 'she wanted it, look how she was dressed, how was I supposed to resist that?'

Except that what you're saying isn't "I don't like slash" but "I don't like some sexual fanfic". Slash is only the same-sex stuff (including stories about same-sex relationships which exist in canon), and your objection isn't to the same-sex-ness.

Personaly, yeah. I don't like fic which assumes that all relationships have to be sexual. Actually, it bothers me more with het than slash, because (as someone else said first) in a heterocentric world, there's less reason why the mixed-sex relationship wouldn't be played out on screen if the chemistry existed.

Dammit. My comment is 600 characters too long. I think I'll post it on my own livejournal and link to your post - I can't face editing it down.

[linked here by

yonmei]

And I then realised that the problem was that the Slash people seem to think that it's impossible for any relationship to be non-sexual.

Slash doesn't necessarily assume that the close relationship on screen *is* sexual in nature. Sometimes slash is just "what if it were".

When I read (or watch) LotR, I don't actually think that Merry and Pippin are getting it on. But I slash them because I like to think they they are. When I read Hitchhiker's Guide, I don't think that Ford and Arthur are sparking with sexual tension, but I've slashed them because it was fun to do.

OTOH, Mulder and Krycek, Buffy and Faith -- yeah, there was definite sexual tension there, on the screen. Buffy and Willow, though, have a close relationship that I don't think is at all sexual, despite Willow being canonically gay.

I don't only write slash -- I like het too. And gen, though I write that more rarely.

A lot of the time, it's up for interpretation. And since no lives are at stake, I tend to choose the interpretation that's the most fun for me, that's all. I suggest that everyone else do the same.

I read slash. I've written slash.
It's good for a giggle.
But gods I can still see the actual way it's supposed to be! If somethings good and noble and wonderful about a story why change it?
I swear if I hear one more Sam and frodo comment I'll strangle them. Tightly... with shaking. Maybe their neck will snap first... >.<
but yes well said!

I've got to admit not a day goes by without the thought of Oskar Schindler's powerful hands all over me.

*cough*

Some slash fans would insist that their interpretation is in fact canon (for whatever fandom), but those are generally the true fanatics. I know a lot of apparently rational people who read and write slash fic, but most of them recognize and acknowledge that they are reading/writing something that takes some small and insignificant detail and uses that as a "what if" jumping point.

I read slash fic, pretty much only in Buffy fandom, but it has never even remotely occurred to me to believe that the pairings in slash fandom bear any resemblance to actual relationships that existed on the show. I would never, for example, say that Xander and Spike (on Buffy) had the hots for each other ... but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading fics in which they do. It's entertainment, not an assertion of fact.

*applauds*

Emotional closeness doesn't mandate sexual closeness. And some of us are also capable of being friends with someone we're sexually involved with instead of the sex forcing it into becoming a Serious Relationship(tm). Hell, emotional closeness plus sexual closeness doesn't always become Twu Wuv, either.

The problem is that to most of the anti-slash people, anything that implies that any canon character might be other-than-heterosexual is automatically slash. That basically covers everything I've written, except for one or two stories where only one of my Original Characters is coded as queer.

And I'm never going to give up on the idea that Action Heroes don't have to be white, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied and male all at the same time. So I'm a slash writer. Even when there's no sex in the story. Even when there isn't even a single thought of sex in any character's head in a story.

Gina

"And I then realised that the problem was that the Slash people seem to think that it's impossible for any relationship to be non-sexual. That if one person cares for another, it must be because they want to have sex with them. If a person enjoys another's company it's because they are desperate for sweaty lovemaking with them. If a person loves someone else, it's because of lust."

Nail. Head. Agreed. And that's why I don't like slash. ALL slash. Because while I'm not a homophobe in any shape or form (or I wouldn't keep tickling Greg when I walk past him ;+), as Yonmei would like to think I am, I quite simply find no enjoyment in reading about same-sex, well, sex. It just doesn't do it for me.

If slash didn't have the sex, it wouldn't be slash. It'd be Mills and Boon....

I definitely have to agree with that. ^_^ I'm yaoi-friendly myself(just in case you don't know, yaoi is slash that doesn't involve real people--anime characters, video game characters, etcetera). And while I do enjoy the occasional smutfic if it's well-done--which can be very hard to find--I for the most part prefer stories that either don't have any sex in them at all, or that have sex but don't make it the main focus. The sex is nice, but it's not what makes the relationship or the people involved interesting, so I want to read about more than that. I see too many stories that have five or six chapters leading up to, drumroll please, SEX, & it bothers me...mainly because all the leadup makes it seem like the sex is the most important thing in the story. And then, quite often, the story cuts off--the characters have had sex, there's nothing more to see, it's all downhill from here.

I don't think anyone with real respect for writing, whether they're a slash/yaoi fan or not, likes to see stories that emphasize sex as the most important & indispensable factor, because people with respect for writing also generally have respect for realism--& in real life, there are quite a lot of things more important than sex.

I was linked to you by

theferrett, by the way.

-Callisto

Who the fuck writes Schindlers List porn?!

I basically completely agree with Andrew, and reading all the responses led to a couple of other thoughts:

(1) If slash is about exploring possibilities, why does it appear (based on the comments-- I haven't read slash myself) that the main possibility people want to explore is sexual tension or activity? You know, there's quite a lot of that on TV already. Even same-sex sexuality is explored by network TV innuendo now, plus Queer Film Festivals from San Francisco to Minneapolis explore both serious issues and porn. So, my question is, why not explore less-frequently-explored possibilities? What if Harry and Sally in When Harry Met Sally had decided to stay “just friends,” and one of their later spouses got jealous of their friendship and they had to stand up for each other? That might be a good plot. Or what if after Frodo took his ship to that faraway land, it turned out to have a culture like America, and men thought he was "hitting on them" if he showed affection in friendship; maybe he got gaybashed for kissing some fellow the same way he kissed Sam in the movie, and maybe he found some romantic interest over there (you pick the gender) and they both got fed up with it and came back to the Shire for a happy reunion?

(2) It seems that "same-sex relationship" and "gay relationship" are conflated in so much discussion of the topic. They aren't the same thing. The majority of same-sex kissing and hand-holding worldwide is between straight men or women as an expression of friendship. Men and women around the world have Frodo-and-Sam moments with their best friends too-- I remember reading a news story about a couple of Mexican friends who grew up together, and later traveled north together to find better jobs to support their families. They traveled together as friends, and, as a result of tragic errors by a smuggler, died together as friends.

Isn't that a better story than anything about Oskar Schindler having gay sex? Throw in some scenes of childhood friendship, and something heartbreaking about their families losing their farms due to "trade liberalization," written by somebody far more articulate than myself, and you've got yourself a good plot for a tragic drama.

Moving beyond fiction-writing for a second, why is the real-life gay rights movement only defending the sexual and marriage aspects of my rights to same-sex love? I don't see movement people even talking about the fact that some of the practices that are seen as "risque" public displays of affection by gay couples here (such as cheek kissing or holding hands) are actually normal for straight people all around the world! Hey movement folks, if you're so hip to protecting my right to express same-sex love, why not do something about that? You know, my ex-boyfriend was not the guy I loved most so far, it was my best friend from college, and he ran away because his wife was jealous of our "too intense" friendship. A little public education about the fact that MOST people worldwide have the occasional intense (albeit nonsexual) same-sex relationship, would have gone a certain way towards creating a cultural environment where he wouldn't feel "bad" for having strong feelings about his male friends, and his wife wouldn't feel threatened. Oh, but I guess you were too busy getting mad because the Minneapolis park board took away your anonymous-cruising ground to build a bike path (one of many silly local gay issues I have run into). Too bad, so sad! So much for protecting my interest in "same sex love"!

dave

Now, my mistake was to refer to public crusing advocates in Minneapolis as "silly," which opened me up to similar namecalling which you have sent to me. Correcting my own mistake, I admit that although I, as a queer person, see no need to express my sexuality in parks or riverbanks that are reserved for public, nonsexual recreation by the City of Minneapolis, others may have different views and I should debate with them on logical points rather than calling them "silly."

You have made the same mistake as me, though. Why are my proposals that the gay rights movement educate people in respecting a broad range of same-sex affection (including nonsexual affection between straights, very common throughout the world), "silly"? It is no more silly than most of the mainline issues of the gay movement were considered to be at one time. Consider: homophobic sentiment can generally be summarized with the idea "You don't always get what you want, you can't marry someone of the same sex, now grow up and get with the program, and form a family which society accepts." And the same idea is behind gay people who look down on bi people for "not being able to make up their mind," or on trans people, or who ridicule the new asexuality movement (www.asexuality.org) out of the belief that "everybody is sexual so those who say they aren't must be mentally ill." And devaluing friendship is based on the same logic of "my relationship form is the only sacred type" that is used by straight homophobes. Throughout the development of the "LGBT" acronym, each group has looked down on the newcomers in much the same way that straight people had previously looked down on them.

Gay marriage, the cause celebre of the present-day movement, has every reason to be suspect in this regard. Straight people have been using their marriages as excuses to abandon youthful commitments to friends, look down on single people, and write laws that provide benefits only to other married people like themselves, for ages. How do we know that gay-marriage advocates aren't looking to do the same thing? My attitudes about friendship (www.celebratefriendship.org) may seem silly, but if you grant two men who are having sex with each other a legal covenant for visitation or shared health benefits or a religious ceremony in front of a church, because of the putative "sacredness" of that sexual relationship, exactly what points can you present that make it different from a nonsexual relationship between people who feel just as strongly? You reprinted part of a "Dykes to Watch Out For" comic strip, and of course, the Dykes are a communal household including both lovers and friends. Should only some of them be able to visit the others in the hospital, based on having a "suitable" sexual/romantic relationship? If so, why? Or, if gay people should have the right to confer health benefits on their partner, why shouldn't a single person be able to use their "spousal benefit" for a friend without insurance? The official argument for the former is "equal pay for equal work"; the same argument applies to single Dykes as well as partnered ones.

A queer person from a communal household could throw the ball back at you by claiming that gay marriage is itself "silly." You can already gain many of the legal benefits of marriage through documents like wills, power of attorney, etc. So why do you need marriage? And if I am expected to not care if my culture dismisses the importance of my lifelong friendships, and distrusts my motives, then, why should I care if the culture dismisses the importance of your gay partnership and won't celebrate it in a mainline church?

If you want me to support your rights in, say, a gay partnership situation, I feel I have the right to expect a movement which supports broader diversity than just marriage, which is mostly what my point was about. Otherwise, the homophobes are right in saying you want "special rights"-- you want to have partnered queers join the "mainstream" while every other type of alternative family gets shunted back in the closet again.

Dave
www.celebratefriendship.org

Resources for an expanded version of family diversity:
- www.atmp.org
- www.celebratefriendship.org
- www.asexuality.org

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Silliness