The Elf ½ ([info]elfwreck) wrote in [info]metametameta,
@ 2008-04-20 23:24:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry

Celebrating Slash, Chan & Other Squicky Topics
Crossposted from my journal.
So, someone at LJ hates slash. Or maybe that's an overstatement: dislikes slash, and hates chan, incest & RPS. She wishes she had a "safe place," somewhere she could read genfic with maybe a hint of het, without running across Sam-and-Dean in bed banners and the like. (And she's got comments turned off. So presumably, she knows the screed is likely to be widely linked and commented on.)

On the one hand, I can understand a wish to avoid one's squicks, and if one's squicks include incest, then dayamn, SPN is a hard fandom to be in. And I can understand being annoyed at clicking on a no-squick-warnings story--and getting caught by a banner featuring a major squick. (Got a friend squicked by het. When she clicks on a Snape/Harry story, I'm sure she doesn't want to see a manip of nekkid Snape wrapped around nekkid Hermione.) So, umm... be polite to people; when linking, try to add ?style=mine or ?format=light to the end of the URL. (Especially if the layout is image-heavy. Be nice to dialup users even if there's no squicky images. And to the hard-of-seeing who can't read tiny grey text on a black background even if no images are involved.)

On the other, though... GAAAH! I am sick of the implication, sometimes the outright claim, that an interest in a "dark" topic (slash, chan, incest, torture, non-con, bdsm, RP, whatever) in fic is the same as promoting it in real life. That we have a sick, nasty hobby that shouldn't be allowed in the presence of Decent Folk. That Decent Folk only write fic about the worlds they wished they lived in, because by writing or seeking these ugly, painful, disgusting topics, we are somehow making life worse for everyone.

Do murder mystery authors ever face this? Ever get told they are contributing to the downfall of society for supporting an industry full of violent and immoral themes? (Ans: not that I've seen, except by extreme kooks, the kind who think piano legs need ruffles to hide their shame. Examples otherwise are welcome.)

But... murder is "clean," compared to some of the themes we deal with. Everyone understands greed or rage, and how they can get out of hand. There's sadness in a deliberately-caused death, but no confusion, no true shock. Stories about murder are often about finding out the details of who-did-what-when, not why--because we know why people kill each other.

We don't know why they rape each other. Nor why they'd torture children. Nor why sometimes, someone develops insane lust for a co-worker, and other times, in what looks like the same kind of circumstances, same kind of personalities, they just don't. We don't know why some parents seduce their children, why some siblings play sex games together, why some don't stop at playing. Why some people enjoy inflicting pain just to watch the reaction it gets. Why some can't enjoy life unless someone else is miserable. We just don't. To any reasonable person, to anyone with a shred of compassion, these are not only mysteries, but prove that the universe is much, much bigger and more complex than any of us can comprehend.

And we must at least try to comprehend it. These are baffling and frightening truths--that such people, such situations exist, is an affront to our notion of humanity. It is wrong that such things happen. And yet... they do happen. They happen more than any of us want to think about. We'd like to believe the majority are caused by ignorance of various sorts, that child rapists believe the children enjoy it, that torturers think they are "freeing" their victims from repression, that those who manipulate their colleagues into bed believe their lust is returned. And sometimes, that's probably true. Maybe even most of the time.

But sometimes, everything we can find out says it's not... that this person knew the desire was unwelcome, that she or he revelled in the very violation being comitted. And the mind recoils from that discovery.

We can't keep recoiling. We can't run away forever; we can't fix what we don't understand. We can't prevent what we don't expect, and we can't expect what's alien to us. In order to fight these horrific events... we must first learn how and why they happen. We must know what kind of person makes the mental leap from "she said no" to "she meant maybe" to "she wanted to say yes." And we must know when someone will jump straight from "she said no" to "that means she'll struggle beautifully."

These fics, these worlds we play in... they're a safe way to explore these ideas. A way to find out what rings true, what dark twists in a character might be hidden from public view. A way to to try to understand.

But, I hear objectors say, we glorify these things. We don't show the villain being destroyed; instead, he gets to keep his 11-year-old love slave. We don't show the rapist killed or castrated; we show his victim falling in love with him. We don't execute the torturer; we place him in service to the Dark Lord where he ravages to his hollow heart's corrupt version of joy.

Yes, we do. Because we have our weaknesses, our limits, as well... and having brought these monsters to life, having made them talk and think and commit atrocities... we need some kind of balance to the horror. And killing off the bad guy doesn't fix anything. Doesn't make the pain he caused go away; doesn't bring back to life his dead victims. Castrating a rapist doesn't unrape his victim.

This is the part where we move to fantasy, where we switch from "explore the concept" to "finish the story"... if there were a world wherein a father could seduce his son (whether that son will grow up to be a wizard or a demon-hunter), and it weren't a violation of basic human rights, what would that be like? What would they be like? If this weren't horrific, how else could it be?

We aren't condoning atrocities; we're splashing holy water on our demons. We're finding out what parts of the taint can be removed, and what parts remain corrupt no matter what we do with societal mores or hypothetical setting. And we're hoping... hoping that, even in the worst situations, the most terrible desecrations of the human body and spirit, that something good can come out of it. That some shred of joy is possible even in the darkest and foulest aspects of the human condition.

Because when we look to these atrocities in the real world, we will need to build our solutions on joy and hope, not on pain and fear. Because whatever the answer is, to these shadows that have always haunted us, it's not "kill them/lock them up/drug them insensible." We've tried those; they don't work.

I don't have answers. I have questions. And fiction is how I explore those questions.


DISCLAIMER: I am not meaning to imply all slash explores evil themes, nor that all fanfic on these topics is written with this focus in mind. Sometimes it's about shrugging off society's stupid ideas of right & wrong, and sometimes, it's just about Teh Hawt Secks. Someone else can write a rant for those.

Credit: Thanks to [info]perfica for an excellent response to the original post.


(Post a new comment)


[info]yourlibrarian
2008-04-21 06:44 pm UTC (link)
I can't comment much on the topic because I tend to avoid darkfic and themes myself, so I have nothing to offer on the "why I write/read" aspect. However given she's discussing SPN I have to nod along with your opening. I do feel sympathetic to someone trying to avoid these things in SPN fandom, and your comment about being polite to people (and her comment about icon usage) reminds me of a case that got on my nerves some time ago. It wasn't a squick, nor was I offended, but I remember feeling irritable at seeing one person's icon which was a flashing image of an actor's ass. The problem to me was that it was never contextual, because it was her default icon. So no matter what post she was commenting on, on whatever community or journal, there it was. And it seems to me part of this issue is exactly what you put your finger on, which is that the ways we use this virtual space (and by "this", I'm talking about LJ/IJ spaces) or even conceptualize it, are different. Because on the one hand the LJ platform is incredibly useful in allowing all one's interests and people to be blended together. On the other hand, most people do compartmentalize their lives, and it becomes problematic when you're in a space that doesn't. So you have people treating communal blogs as if it was their own LJ, or people linking into someone's LJ without really thinking about the fact that the space comes with all sorts of context that you don't (or no longer) notice but someone else does. I think part of the problem is that there is really no "front door" to journals. Even if all the content is locked, for example, the layout and default icon and links and various other parts of the journal are still visible. Right now the Adult Content barrier does block that (I think), but if you're logged in, it doesn't. To me it's both a technological as well as social problem.

Of course the funny thing to me about this discussion is how each fandom has its own problems. For example, I remember seeing rants about darkfic or fic themes that squicked in Buffyverse fandom as well, but they tended to focus on "quality" issues. So there were complaints about the writing, or the characterization, or the abundance of this fic around making it hard to find the "good" stuff, etc. Probably because the verse was fairly dark to start with (and Angel focused on a character with an incredibly dark past) it was difficult to complain about fic with dark themes because technically a lot of fic dealt with it and the "quality" hammer was as likely to be used on fluffy, frivolous fic that didn't have any dark in it (and was criticized for that!)

On the other hand, what goes unmentioned in the linked post is what a haven SPN is for gen writers. In so many other fandoms the gen writers bemoan the fact that there's hardly any written or what is written hardly gets read, etc. However thanks in large part to this shared squick a lot of people have about Wincest, a lot of very good gen gets written (and read) in this fandom. In fact I have to say, personally, that I tend to prefer the gen because so much of the slash doesn't deal with the incest issue particularly well (or at all) and I have to take the characterizations of Sam and Dean with a pretty heaping help of salt as a result. And at least half the RPS I see (which, I admit, may not be representative) is completely AU, so it's pretty removed from any real-life connections other than names (and the characterization thing applies double for the RPS), and in itself is more heavily written than in many fandoms due to the same Wincest aversion! So she may not be noticing that she's actually got more company in SPN than she might have elsewhere.

Because whatever the answer is, to these shadows that have always haunted us, it's not "kill them/lock them up/drug them insensible." We've tried those; they don't work.

This made me think of this article that I read today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24231824/

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 05:31 am UTC (link)
I've used Adblock to hide icons I don't want to see. (I love Firefox. I don't know how I used to survive without it.)

And while I know almost nothing about SPN fandom, I'm aware that Wincest is controversial--unlike, say, Weasleycest or Malfoycest, which seem to get much more of a "*shrug,* not my thing" from people who don't like them. (Malfoycest gets some squick arguments, but a lot of that seems to tie into chan/cross-generation issues.) Incest in the Potterverse may be easier to tolerate because it's about "aliens" of a sort--a culture that has different rules, different expectations; Wincest may trigger more problems because they know people like like Sam & Dean. (They do not, we assume, know wizards who fly around on brooms. So whether or not wizardly brothers are shagging each other doesn't worry them.)

I'm not sure Twincest even gets warned for, in some fics, if it's in the background. Which has gotta bother some people.

I think the objection in this case is less "ewww, I keep running into wincest!" and closer to "ewww, I keep being reminded that wincest exists! And people like it! And they think it's acceptable! How dare they not agree that my squicks are proper standards for all decent people!"

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-22 10:30 am UTC (link)
I think one difference is that Wincest isn't just one of many pairings. It is THE pairing. It's also the pairing that doesn't have any competition in canon because of the lack of other characters.

And because the show is structured so heavily around these characters, maybe that influences how people cope with it. Also, for many people Wincest isn't just something they write because it's some sort of kink, you also have the people who seriously say "They are soulmates, their love is so canon, I don't even consider them a ship anymore because they are so obvious". Not to mention the occasional crazy who talk about how they are convinced that people should get active in removing the legal obstacles to consensual incest (and that loving Wincest made them realize that; check fandom_wank on the subject).

I think the difference is certainly that it's not a minor occurrence, not a minor pairing of many and not minor characters of many. I think it's more comparable to Harry/Hermoine vs. Ron/Hermoine with both sides accusing each other of breaking the other's brain.

That doesn't mean that I agree with the OP. You shouldn't allow somebody else's POV to break your brain or your view of canon. But that might explain why the attitudes are different than it is about cest in the HP fandom.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 09:06 pm UTC (link)
I don't mean at all "SPN should be like the Potterverse, and incest shouldn't squick people." Nor even "how weird--those people are squicked by incest!" Just noting, different fandoms, different standards; HP's light-and-fantasy tone encourages slapstick exploration of a lot of themes that more gritty fandoms are cautious about.

Hadn't thought about it being the central and only stable pairing in canon; yeah, that makes a difference. (The Potterverse has no central pairings and even the canonific ones get played around with.)

I had picked up that some of the the pro-Wincest crowd can get awfully dogmatic; if the Twincest crowd does that, I hadn't noticed. (Also, the twins are known to be troublemakers and rule-breakers; it's an easy jump from that to sexual experimentation. Sam & Dean aren't firmly law-abiding, but they also don't go out of their way to look for rules to break.)

I sympathize with some of the OP's sentiments. Especially the "comment please" parts. And I'm all for warnings on fic and on links. But I'm not willing to agree that I should be ashamed of having interests that squick some people.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-22 09:09 pm UTC (link)
"Easy jump" from practical jokes to incest? What the hell?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 09:35 pm UTC (link)
Easy jump from rule-breaking and secret projects, to sexual experimentation with each other as kids.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]yourlibrarian
2008-04-22 04:59 pm UTC (link)
Ah, that would be handy! Although thankfully I've rarely run into a case like that.

Yeah, I definitely think the level of fantasy makes a difference, not to mention, as in many anime fandoms, the level of it in canon to start with! I also suspect that the level of dysfunction in the characters could make it even more so, because an incest reading would tie into why they are the way they are, which makes potential consequences more real as well.

And people like it! And they think it's acceptable!

One thing she wrote there that did ring a bell was the issue of people's reactions to what they're reading. I remember some metanfandom posts in the past that talked about how disturbing some of these responses were to rapefics, in typifying them as romantic, or somehow desirable, especially when it seemed obvious this wasn't the author's intent in writing them. I could imagine how jarring that would be, and really more so than the stories themselves where intent may be ambiguous. However, the problem is that once a story is created and released, there's just no telling how people are going to take it. After all, the creators of all these canon texts never imagined all the possible interpretations their work would launch! It seems learning one's own views aren't universal is part and parcel of being in fandom.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]carpet_diemon
2008-04-22 02:42 am UTC (link)
Hmm. I like what she has to say about commenting... And I can understand the squicks about RPS.

A very good piece of literature that explores these, well, kinks, "darker themes", what have you, helps us understand the minds of people who do it. And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with wallowing in fictional incest. Two for the price of one?

Too often, I do see fic where "darker themes" are just dropped in to show how miserable a person is. And that worries me, that a person thinks, "Hmm, how to make this guy look like he's had a tough life. Ooh! I'll make him raped by his older relative." That kinda scares me. Darker themes are heavier themes, and, as such, I think they should be used carefully. (I have to admit, I'm somewhat inconsistent about this: when they're in a PWP, who cares? It's just sex. I think that, in that context, these darker themes aren't really dark at all...more like, uh, leitmotifs. )

(Reply to this)


[info]madame_meretrix
2008-04-22 04:56 am UTC (link)
I am sick of the implication, sometimes the outright claim, that an interest in a "dark" topic (slash, chan, incest, torture, non-con, bdsm, RP, whatever) in fic is the same as promoting it in real life. That we have a sick, nasty hobby that shouldn't be allowed in the presence of Decent Folk.

God, yes. i read the post you linked to, and clearly, turning comments off seems to be a bastion of the righteous. of course she shouldn't be subjected to anything the 'freaks' might want to say.

and the funny thing is? she's totally allowed to like what she likes. she seems quite justified in her beliefs, and no one - especially not the perverts - would tell her she couldn't. yet she, by her very beliefs, would never extend the same courtesy to anyone else.

man. i LOVE it when certain categories of experience and fiction are condemned wholesale. love being told what i can and can't like. because that's totally fair.

and i'll say this: you may be more noble than me. i can't even say why, exactly, i'm interested in 'darker' subjects. i don't even think of most of those things listed as 'dark.' i'm sure my interest is sheer prurience, with no redeeming value whatsoever. but you know what? that's the beauty of the internet. everyone gets to have what they like.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 05:21 am UTC (link)
I've got no problems with "My journal is a ______-free zone." No problems, also, with rants about "dammit, I can't click on a link without running into ______! Damn, I'm tired of it!"

What got me was the "those freaks should've stayed in the shadows where they belong; how dare they pretend to be normal, especially since people might think I have something in common with them, and eeewwww! No! I'm nothing like those people!"

Because, of course, her belief in the "gen/slash" polarity of types of people is totally more important that John Q TVWatcher's belief in the "just watches/writes fic about" polarity.

On the topic of "prurient interest"... I think the whole concept is suspect, is tied into Puritanical moral standards based on the premise that enjoyment of life is a frivolous and probably sinful pursuit. Which doesn't mean I think there's no such thing as an unhealthy interest or obsession--but the idea that "this is wrong because the only think I like about it is that it gets me hot" is based on religious, not psychological, principles.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]pinkmouse
2008-04-23 06:43 pm UTC (link)
I think another problem is that the religious mind-set is all about magical thinking: trying to make things come true through the power of belief itself.

So when we write a believable story the religious see this as a magical attempt to make it come true, utilizing the same mechanism they use themselves. They cannot accept that our story has no intrinsic power to change things because to do so they must accept the pointlessness of their own practices.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-23 08:53 pm UTC (link)
I'm in one of those "Magickal thinking - to - manifestation" religions. I do think these stories have the power to affect reality.

But... and here's the clincher... I don't think they can, nor are trying to, create the reality they describe.

They are trying to change things. They're trying to make a sex-positive world where people are aware of the lines between squick and crime. Where personal sexual preferences are acceptable or not based on whether they require informed consent, not whether someone is disgusted by them. They're doing this--with their admittedly very small effort--by raising people's awareness, by showing us what we can enjoy in the right setting, by allowing us to think through all the ramifications in fiction instead of finding out which actions cause damage to living, breathing people.

And so on.

Key part: they may be trying to create a reality. They're not trying to create the one they depict.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-22 09:06 pm UTC (link)
The problem is when people describe incest and chan as "hot". If people didn't find it hot, nobody would be complaining. If it really was about "look how messed up this is, and wouldn't it be interesting if these characters had to deal with that", then it would be okay. But instead we get "if you don't approve of incest, you're just close-minded!"

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 09:34 pm UTC (link)
I'm sorry that some people say "if you don't approve of [incest], you're a close-minded prude." Or "obviously, the only reason people object to this is because of outmoded fears of going to hell." I don't think that all open-minded people should love non-con, or incestfic, or explicit slash with lots of graphic details.

But complaining about what someone else finds "hot" is about as bad. Our desires and interests are personal; being told "it's disgusting that [X] turn you on" is of course going to get strong backlash. Especially when X is obviously a turn-on for thousands of people of diverse backgrounds.

Mainly, I'm objecting to the "All Proper People Agree About [X]" concept. And usually, I take the weird-and-kinky side of that debate; I may have to consider writing something from the other side, pointing out that squicks are not necessarily demons to be overcome. Shmoopy romance with nothing more explicit than a kiss is not a literary failure.

Don't like? Don't read. Don't insist that other people should agree about what's pleasant to read.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mhari
2008-04-22 09:40 pm UTC (link)
Sometimes it is hot. To a lot of people, it's disturbing precisely because it is hot. Sexual response is not inextricably tied to "I want a relationship just like this!".

Also: We're finding out what parts of the taint can be removed, and what parts remain corrupt no matter what we do with societal mores or hypothetical setting.

Sometimes people write or read that kind of fic in order to figure out why it turns them on, when they know perfectly well that it's sick and wrong. What part of this dynamic am I responding to, what does that say about me, do I really want to fuck my brother or am I just weirdly fascinated by the power imbalance?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dharma_slut
2008-04-24 02:59 am UTC (link)
You mean-- you get some people saying that. I've seen it, I am not belittling you.
But that's ridiculous! And you have every right to say so. I like to phrase it thusly;
That's a very youthful and overexcited statement to make, don't you think? :)

AS several other people have pointed out though, you don't get to tell me that I may not find my kinks hot because you don't. I am not asking you to approve. I don't expect you to understand, and I won't insult you by trying to explain. I do not allow you to dictate to me, however. I go past your limits? Not Your Problem.

If people describe Chan and incest as hot to them-- and you try to tell them that it must not be hot to them-- that's close-mindedness. I suggest that you read those objections more closely, and see if that is what they've been saying all along.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]melusinahp
2008-04-22 09:07 pm UTC (link)
"I am sick of the implication, sometimes the outright claim, that an interest in a "dark" topic (slash, chan, incest, torture, non-con, bdsm, RP, whatever) in fic is the same as promoting it in real life. That we have a sick, nasty hobby that shouldn't be allowed in the presence of Decent Folk. That Decent Folk only write fic about the worlds they wished they lived in, because by writing or seeking these ugly, painful, disgusting topics, we are somehow making life worse for everyone."

God, yes. So damn much.

(Reply to this)


[info]glossing
2008-04-22 09:18 pm UTC (link)
I'm disturbed that you've included slash and BDSM with chan, incest, torture, and non-con.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 09:25 pm UTC (link)
The OP implied they were all linked; I was trying to follow her logic. I think.

I wasn't talking about "those things which we mostly agree are horrific in real life but some of us enjoy in fic" (although I'm sure I did come across that way) but "those things which squick people in fic because they find them disgusting in real life"--a different but overlapping category.

There are people who claim that BDSM is a sign of a sick mind, that all gay people are "broken" and need to be fixed. The definition of "chan" varies according to local law & custom. "Incest," ditto; while sib/sib and parent/child are always incest, and aunt-or-uncle/niece-or-nephew usually are, cousins can marry in most of the US, and other categories are blurry.

And so on.

But I think you've got a point, and maybe I need to sort out some thoughts about "non-con"--not specifically nonconsensual sex, but the activities that are bad because someone didn't consent to them, or in cases of chan, wasn't able to appropriately consent.

Thanks. This is probably more reaction than you expected from a one-line comment.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Here via metafandom
[info]veleda_k
2008-04-23 12:58 am UTC (link)
I had the same concerns as the above poster, and I want to say that you've put those concerns to rest really well here.

Anyway, I like this post a lot and find it really interesting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 11:41 pm UTC (link)
Secondary thought: it occurs to me that when I mentioned "BDSM," I was thinking of particularly dark fics where the BDSM was less than consensual, but possibly not entirely non-con (say, a case where someone agrees to be a slave to free someone else). Where one character dominates another, or inflicts pain on him for his own gratification (or seeks pain without regard to the giver's wishes), without any SSC or RISK arrangement.

On re-reading, it looks like my words could be taken to mean that I think of BDSM as an activity that people should avoid in real life. Which I don't. Although my connection to the community is fairly thin, it's a very friendly connection.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Here Via Metafandom
[info]dreamingjewel
2008-04-22 10:51 pm UTC (link)
It really is offensive to have queerness and consensual BDSM lumped in with chan,incest,noncon and rape. Its bad enough right wing idiots lump LGBT people in with rapists and pedophiles,but when fandom does this it pisses me off.

Why can't some factions of fandom understand there is a difference between kink and someone's life. Didn't the whole miscegenation debacle give a clue.

I lurk in the HP fandom my favorite ship happens to be snarry. I do not however enjoy underage Harry fics nor any story that has Harry being victimized.
I would never try to tell anyone what they should or should not read or write for that matter. As long as a story has clear warnings I can avoid what squicks or doesn't interest me.



(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Here Via Metafandom
[info]elfwreck
2008-04-22 11:35 pm UTC (link)
If I came across as conflating lifestyles with crimes, I'm sorry. I was trying to write about the reactions of those who seem to say "whatever makes me go ugh, that should be hidden from view and I should never have to deal with it"--whether the subject is kinks or atrocities.

I don't think, in this case, anyone was claiming or implying that LGBT has any connection to rape or child molestation, just that some people consider them equally objectionable topics in fic. (Or similarly objectionable.)

I do think some of the "awful" categories are less concrete than a lot of people imagine--chan, for example; in Australia, it's under 18; in the US, it's 16 or so (depends on state); in Japan, it's 13. Stories focused on "below age of consent" depend on local laws, and in a fantastic or sci-fi setting, it could be an irrelevant concept.

But the philosophy of "age of consent" has nothing to do with personal squicks and preferences. I fully support people finding the stories they want to read and avoiding the ones they don't.

And I'm aware that commentary on them should keep conscious of the various social realities; if I gave the impression that I think it's acceptable to treat queerness or BDSM as comparable to rape (except potentially to put them in a mental category of "I don't want to see pictures of it"), I apologize.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Here Via Metafandom
[info]greenjuly
2008-04-24 04:57 pm UTC (link)
Well said - I had the same thought as the poster above, so thanks for clarifying what you meant. However, referring to queer sexuality as a "lifestyle" does kind of irk me ...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Here Via Metafandom
[info]elfwreck
2008-04-24 05:20 pm UTC (link)
I'm tripping over phrasing, trying to shove too many concepts into a scant handful of words.

BDSM is often a "lifestyle." (Or a hobby. Or whatever.) Being attracted to & having relationships with one's own gender, perhaps only a "lifestyle" if one makes it a focal point; some do, some don't. (Some people define themselves by their relationships; some define themselves by their employment; some by their family; some by their hobbies; some by their possessions, and so on.)

Not sure what to call someone's [identity and choices relating to a specific subject], other than "lifestyle." (If I call it a "expression of individuality," people will give me funny looks.)

No offense intended; clumsy phrasing probably caused by not wanting to throw a paragraph of background explanation in the middle of another clarification of meaning. (Happy to sort out the semantics, but they need to be done in small, individual pieces, or it all gets muddy.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Here Via Metafandom
[info]greenjuly
2008-04-25 03:36 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for your reply. =) I did know that you meant no offence - I didn't take it that way at all, but I did just want to point it out. I agree that BDSM can be considered a lifestyle, though I'd say it's more in the kink category for most people - I guess it would depend how into it you were, and as you said, whether you define yourself by it.
Queer sexuality ... it's an integral piece of a person's identity rather than a lifestyle. You wouldn't say that being black/Jewish/Christian/heterosexual/etc is a lifestyle, you know? I think it is the wrong word. But I agree with you that it's difficult to find a good umbrella term to use.
That's my 0.02$, anyway!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Here Via Metafandom
[info]elfwreck
2008-04-25 04:46 pm UTC (link)
There's "identity," and there's "identity expressed as a central part of public interaction," or lifestyle. Sorta. IME. YMMV. And so on.

Do I have a "female lifestyle?" Hmmm.

I do have a "parenting lifestyle." And a "spouse lifestyle." And those are also aspects of my identity. They're aspects defined by my relationships to other people. Which may be where I'm placing the concept of "lifestyle"--those aspects of identity that vanish if you remove everyone else on the planet.

Queer sexuality--which I may or may not have some of myself, depending on where we twist the definitions (I neither claim the word nor avoid it)--disappears if there aren't any other people. Unlike religion, race, culture and gender, it's something that not only affects, but is based on, one's interactions with other people. Religion & culture are blurrier parts of that; some parts are integral, and some are social.

I haven't got any firm conclusions on this; I'm very much still sorting out what I think of as a "lifestyle" as contrasted with (not "opposed to") an "identity."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

here via metafandom
[info]kindkit
2008-04-23 12:51 am UTC (link)
an interest in a "dark" topic (slash, chan, incest, torture, non-con, bdsm, RP, whatever) in fic is the same as promoting it in real life.

Um, one of these things is not like the others. Slash is not "dark," nor is same-sex sexuality something anybody should worry about "promoting" in real life.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: here via metafandom
[info]kindkit
2008-04-23 12:52 am UTC (link)
And as I see the commenter above has pointed out, consensual BDSM doesn't belong in the same category as rape and torture, either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

"Dark" from reader's hypothetical perspective
[info]elfwreck
2008-04-23 02:08 am UTC (link)
I firmly agree that slash is not dark, and that there is nothing wrong with promoting same-sex sexuality in real life. Would be in a different religion if I did.

However, I don't think that enjoying reading about it, or writing it, is the same as advocating it in the physical universe. Whatever "it" is. And there are people who write slash and think gay sex is evil and wrong. (At least, I'm told there are. There are areas of fandom I try not to get too close to.)

There are people who do indeed lump gay sex and consensual BDSM with torture and child molestation, who ask the same questions of people who like those topics in fic: how can you enjoy reading about something so awful? And if the answer isn't, "because this is my life, this is who I am," and isn't "because I think it sounds hot even if it doesn't appeal to me personally," it could be, "because this is how I try to understand the subject."

This includes both people who think gay=evil and those who are just confused by it, and have no idea what the attraction could be.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-23 06:54 am UTC (link)
Here via the Metafandom LJ; well said. Thank you.

(Reply to this)


[info]enderwiggin24
2008-04-23 03:19 pm UTC (link)
not the most articulate answer but:
she wants a safe place!??!
life isnt exactly the most safest thing alltogether, so how should fandom be different?!
slash fans gets attacked all the time, so gets het fans, i assume.
and the average fanfic writer, no matter what they write, gets to hear all the time, that they could use their time productive.

maybe its the safest thing not to read at all, and just watch tv?!?!
eerr, wait, i dont think, thats safe, too :D

(Reply to this)

here from metafandom
[info]dharma_slut
2008-04-24 03:04 am UTC (link)
I noticed in her post that she's responding to her flist who tell her that she's an oasis for them. This has moved her to tears, and believe me, I am not condemning her for that!

But I doubt that it's occurred to her that her audience is self-selected. Of course they are gathered at her safe place-- they wouldn't be anywhere that wasn't safe. And her flist that also reads slash etc, won't care enough to say much.

(Reply to this)

here via metafandom: fic and real life
(Anonymous)
2008-04-24 06:37 am UTC (link)
And we're hoping... hoping that, even in the worst situations, the most terrible desecrations of the human body and spirit, that something good can come out of it. That some shred of joy is possible even in the darkest and foulest aspects of the human condition.

Yay!

I really appreciate your post. I like the above, especially, because the beam of hope we're always looking for, no matter what the situation, just shines in it.

But even if a dark situation doesn't advertise hope and redemption, it may still be valuable to experience it (fictionally or otherwise), as you indicate.

When people encounter uncomfortable things, particularly when right/wrong is involved, they seem to get very black-and-white in their thinking, which usually isn't the kind of thinking that helps them interact helpfully or humanely with the situation at hand. I think one of the best things dark fic or slashy fic or chan fic can offer us is the chance to familiarize ourselves with reality--the things that actually happen in the world, that we may actually encounter at some point in our lives. To make it so our brains don't turn off when we encounter something that falls squarely outside our ideas of "what is okay," whether that thing is queerness or extreme (real life) dysfunction like rape or incest.

When you "just can't tolerate" something, that leaves you with a pretty limited repertoire of reactions to it. If some people say that writing chan is the same as advocating sexual abuse, I am hard-pressed to understand how their slash-squick is not, by the same token, "advocating" homophobia.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us!

--Prophetic (http://prophetic.livejournal.com)

(Reply to this)



[ Home | Update Journal | Login/Logout | Search | Browse Options | Site Map ]