![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Just to say
Let who will lay upon the stone
of the run-over child a wreath
inscribed: Dei voluntas. I will not, for there is a mystery here
not given to any, yet, to understand
The printed shadows of Hiroshima, do they
point their evaporated hands at us
or you? How could it have been you?
This is a thing so evil that
it could have come from nowhere save a mind
capable of inventing the idea of evil.
If you read fandom meta, especially slash that's based on western live-action stuff, I suppose you must be prepared to find white female middle-class culture expressing itself. The sizable majority of slash fandom is exactly that- and one happy eyeopener at the first shoujocon was how unhomogeneous the fans were compared to yer average slash con. But the eyeopener now is how odd that view reads to me these days, because it doesn't apply within the context of Japanese-based fandoms. Suddenly what was common sense to me a decade ago looks like the most entrenched parochialism.
But if they are having sex, they are gay. That is the definition of the word, that's the label. It is what we are stuck with, in this less than perfect world. And there isn't anything wrong with it!
Yes there is. There's the applying of a label in the first place. Taxonomy is not the same thing as description: in the case of human behaviour it obscures it. The easy reassurance of a label puts a finis to the messy multiplicity of the human reality. It's like injecting formaldehyde into the veins of a living creature, and I can't think why people insist on doing it.
I am, for example, constantly surprised by the number of slash fics I encounter with disclaimers in which the author writes, "I know homosexuality is wrong... but I like to make the boys (or girls) kiss! *giggle*" And it never ceases to offend me.
Now when I was first exploring these waters I assumed that an interest in m/m must mean that the woman reader in question was gay, because surely only a gay person would be interested in gay sex. Well, one lives and learns. Now if the fandom in general could get over the impression that an interest in slash means the female reader in question is pro-gay, we'd be a lot closer to accepting the idea that fantasy is fantasy and, whether for good or ill, does not reflect reality at all.
Never thought to say I could get tired of liberals, but I am. I know that south of the border liberals may be the last best hope for common sense. But the view from here is that that construction of the world has almost as many limits as the conservative one; and what's needed is a post-liberal mindset that does a bit more considering of realities.
of the run-over child a wreath
inscribed: Dei voluntas. I will not, for there is a mystery here
not given to any, yet, to understand
The printed shadows of Hiroshima, do they
point their evaporated hands at us
or you? How could it have been you?
This is a thing so evil that
it could have come from nowhere save a mind
capable of inventing the idea of evil.
--George Barker, Anno Domini
If you read fandom meta, especially slash that's based on western live-action stuff, I suppose you must be prepared to find white female middle-class culture expressing itself. The sizable majority of slash fandom is exactly that- and one happy eyeopener at the first shoujocon was how unhomogeneous the fans were compared to yer average slash con. But the eyeopener now is how odd that view reads to me these days, because it doesn't apply within the context of Japanese-based fandoms. Suddenly what was common sense to me a decade ago looks like the most entrenched parochialism.
But if they are having sex, they are gay. That is the definition of the word, that's the label. It is what we are stuck with, in this less than perfect world. And there isn't anything wrong with it!
Yes there is. There's the applying of a label in the first place. Taxonomy is not the same thing as description: in the case of human behaviour it obscures it. The easy reassurance of a label puts a finis to the messy multiplicity of the human reality. It's like injecting formaldehyde into the veins of a living creature, and I can't think why people insist on doing it.
I am, for example, constantly surprised by the number of slash fics I encounter with disclaimers in which the author writes, "I know homosexuality is wrong... but I like to make the boys (or girls) kiss! *giggle*" And it never ceases to offend me.
Now when I was first exploring these waters I assumed that an interest in m/m must mean that the woman reader in question was gay, because surely only a gay person would be interested in gay sex. Well, one lives and learns. Now if the fandom in general could get over the impression that an interest in slash means the female reader in question is pro-gay, we'd be a lot closer to accepting the idea that fantasy is fantasy and, whether for good or ill, does not reflect reality at all.
Never thought to say I could get tired of liberals, but I am. I know that south of the border liberals may be the last best hope for common sense. But the view from here is that that construction of the world has almost as many limits as the conservative one; and what's needed is a post-liberal mindset that does a bit more considering of realities.
no subject
Often helps to provide a link to the meta in question (though I'm guilty of shirking it myself at times).
I assumed that an interest in m/m must mean that the woman reader in question was gay
Huh. Whereas I have never assumed that, like ever. But then, I don't tend to ponder locations or hues or orientations overmuch unless it provides fodder for poking at people. Even so, it is generally safe to make the assumption that the person in question is female. This gets the m/m fanboys huffy and puffy and offended, but that doesn't change reality. And why this is reality has been munched on extensively elsewhere and is beyond the scope of this LJ comment, she said, ripping off academic tropes.
We will also leave aside my urge to crush women who type *giggle* under a few tons of ruffles and rocks.
Now if the fandom in general could get over the impression that an interest in slash means the female reader in question is pro-gay, we'd be a lot closer to accepting the idea that fantasy is fantasy and, whether for good or ill, does not reflect reality at all.
Soit. Humans come equipped with extreme abilities to rationalize what we do. (Whee, me too!) However, I think we ought to acknowledge that people who do come up with statements like the one cited are functioning with a few fundamental levels of disconnect. That is, if you believe that the homos are teh sinnahs yet you write the homo fanfic, you are a bit of a nut. If you really wanted to wade into the wanky, you could say (and people do say) that it is THE SAME as people who generate rapefic or shotacon or whatever: you must believe that rape and AMBLA are a-okay!
So I'd merely draw my own distinction between knowing that you're a bit of a nut versus simply adopting your nut views in a wide-eyed, unquestioning way and assuming they're the norm for all.
no subject
That is, if you believe that the homos are teh sinnahs yet you write the homo fanfic, you are a bit of a nut
See, I don't believe that. The disconnect is only between reality and fantasy, where I'd hope to God there *would* be a disconnect. The difficulty seems to come when it's sexual reality and fantasy, which seems to enjoy some kind of special status in the west mercifully denied to other areas like romance or crime. As has been said frequently, few people have problems with the disconnect between fantasy /violence/ and reality. Someone who wouldn't harm a fly can read murder mysteries or massacre legions of pixillated warriors without a qualm, and to date I've never heard anyone say these people are wacko for making the distinction. So why is it particularly nuts to enjoy a sexual scenario whose reality squicks you, whether the hot topic is homosexuality or rape?
no subject
See, I don't believe that.
Not a requirement that everyone believe what I believe. Not yet. (My plans for world domination are on hold.) But I do think that there's a double disconnect at work with this particular scenario. Let's see if I can manage coherence for a change. Identify the nut:
A. Rape is wrong, but rapefic is hot.
B. Gays are wrong, but slash is hot.
C. Bathing is wrong, but tub-sex is hot. (<-- courtesy Jessamyn West :)
There's an implicit understanding with Writer A that rape is wrong -- that's why it's relegated to 'taboo fantasy' turf. Writer B sees homosexuality exactly the same way. Writer C is all about embracing the odor -- unless evil erotic water is involved.
Writers B and C see their "squick" as equivalent to Writer A's. They aren't. That is disconnect 1.
Writers A, B, and C expect their readers to feel the same way. For Writer B, that is disconnect 2. Although it is true that sex and violence do intersect at various points, most people don't consider el-ordinary "gay sex" in itself to be a fantasy taboo equivalent to violence. (Um. "Most people" excludes fundamentalists.)
I don't think most would have any problem identifying C as a nut. So why can't B be judged using the same criteria?
to date I've never heard anyone say these people are wacko for making the distinction.
*cough* Actually. Y'know, that example . . . I've watched first-person shooter games; I'm deeply squicked by them. I view the people who enjoy them to excess* with a certain amount wariness. Decidedly nuts. *That would be my brother, for instance.
no subject
Why not?
I think they're exactly the same. Our values hold that rape *really* is wrong and gay sex is just fine, so thinking of one is a guilty pleasure and the other is just life as usual. But for someone who believes that gay sex is as wrong as rape, A and B are exact equivalents.
Bref, I think someone may be a nut for thinking homos are teh sinnahs, but not for finding homosex a hot and forbidden fantasy. Because mutatis mutandis I do exactly the same.
no subject
Not. Even though each author perceives them to be equivalent, that doesn't mean they are. In life.
It's not that I don't see the underlying point here. Maybe in some past space and time I might have joined hands and sang the "Everyone gets an opinion, everything is relative, kumbaya dammit!" song. However, fanfic doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's part of a larger societal context. Responsible Citizen Me is older and crankier and makes value judgments and hangs on to them even when inconvenient. My Nut Brigade membership card is good for that, if nothing else: "I am a nut. But you are a NUT."
Bref, I think someone may be a nut for thinking homos are teh sinnahs, but not for finding homosex a hot and forbidden fantasy. Because mutatis mutandis I do exactly the same.
Well, yeah, but only "forbidden" in terms of canon, where teh sex0r in any form seldom if ever comes up. *scratches head*
But then, I don't really know much about the fanfic written for the shows / manga / anime that come with rampaging sex onboard 'cause I tend to avoid those -- i.e., the only ones that leap to mind at the moment are not shows of interest (e.g., cable TV offerings) or are hideous badfic conclaves (e.g., Viewfinder).
no subject
But that's been true since the 60's down here! Didn't you know that?
liberals want to restrict what people can do for their own good, conservatives want to restrict what people can do because they ought to conform (or to save their souls, if you want to be a cynic about the mainstream religious fanatics).
Either way you end up with problems.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-08-08 10:25 pm (UTC)(link)American liberals want the government to spend more money, it's true. (I had a friend who was the classic east coast liberal, my taxes should be higher so we can feed/educate the poor, but not his taxes. LOL!) The other part of that liberalism is things like: no one should have guns because someone might get hurt (can't argue that one, really), pron denigrates women so pron should be prohibited, Xmas religious songs are not allowed in public school winter holiday programmes because (gasp!) someone in the vicinity might find it WASP-ily oppressive, etc.
Any 'ideology' can be pushed to ridculous extremes and Americans seem to be very good at testing those edge cases. (And darn this administration for taking a perfectly good word like ideology and over using it by pasting it on everything with reckless abandon.)