(no subject)

[swatkat]

Lovely post here that you all might want to read. I'm definitely one of the Cold Pricklies the OP is talking about. *g* "All slashers make the homoerotic subtext of their canon explicit, but not all think it's appropriate to also make the emotional subtext explicit" - this articulates the very reason that a *lot* of the fic in my favourite pairings (slash *and* het) have me gritting my teeth and pressing the back button.

Comments

Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

See, the problem with most of these discussions is the over-generalisation and the refusal to accept *any other interpretation* save their own. Sometimes, not enjoying m/m is just that... not enjoying m/m. And the same goes for not wanting to read m/f or f/f. It's personal preference.

Swatkat

Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Or just, somehow, perhaps even without consciously meaning too, privilleging their own preferences as the 'better' preferences, the 'cooler' or more 'refined' tastes. Even the more passionate tastes.

One of the things I've been struggling with, personally, in the whole slash/het meta pile of ramblings, is once the m/m slashers sieze on the "slash is an expression of female desire for men" idea - it feels a good deal like it closes off the possibiliy of female desire for men, mine in particular just fer example, from being fully realized in any other form. That somehow, female desire for men is expressed in its highest, purest form *only* in m/m erotica aimed at women - the stuff without all the extraneous focus on the clit. I honestly do believe that presented like this, most would reject it as their intended meaning......but, then you're back to pointing out that in the absence of identifying markers of authorship or intended auidence, m/m erotica doesn't have any women *in* the stories, so how would one necessarily leap to the conclusion that *female* desire is the subject and the object of the story?

If that's hard, and it is, the even bigger trick is to accept that having made your preferences known, in isolation from the rest of you, people will draw conclusions from that about "who you are." Or, at least, who-you-are fannishly. Conclusions you may not like or be comfortable with. And who likes that?

Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

One of the things I've been struggling with, personally, in the whole slash/het meta pile of ramblings, is once the m/m slashers sieze on the "slash is an expression of female desire for men" idea - it feels a good deal like it closes off the possibiliy of female desire for men, mine in particular just fer example, from being fully realized in any other form.

But I think a lot of these statements have been sparked by a defensive reaction on behalf of slashers. No one ever asks that het justify its existence the way slash must constantly explain its legitimacy -- some people may criticize or even look down on het, but no one ever demands to know why women would write such a thing.

If that's hard, and it is, the even bigger trick is to accept that having made your preferences known, in isolation from the rest of you, people will draw conclusions from that about "who you are." Or, at least, who-you-are fannishly. Conclusions you may not like or be comfortable with. And who likes that?

Oh, absolutely. I know exactly what you mean. No one knows me in fandom at large, so I feel I have to really watch what I say so as not to create a bad first impression.

Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

But I think a lot of these statements have been sparked by a defensive reaction on behalf of slashers. No one ever asks that het justify its existence the way slash must constantly explain its legitimacy -- some people may criticize or even look down on het, but no one ever demands to know why women would write such a thing.

Absolutely. And some have turned the question around and asked 'why het?' I'm reasonably sure that my answer wouldn't satisfy, because it's hard to explain even to myself.

Re: Oh, boy. Can of worms. Opened.

[swatkat24.livejournal.com]

But I think a lot of these statements have been sparked by a defensive reaction on behalf of slashers. No one ever asks that het justify its existence the way slash must constantly explain its legitimacy -- some people may criticize or even look down on het, but no one ever demands to know why women would write such a thing.

Word. This is reason there are so many over-generalisations.

Swatkat