![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Things are aardvark in a food mixer insane at the moment. I will update properly and answer comments in due course I promise.
During the meanwhile all UK flavoured people rejoice for Lo! The Texan Bar has returned to us. Verily have I missed its chewy goodness and I rejoice that I shall once again have the chance to lose a filling while munching on it's chocolatey goodness.
Oh and Darth Rich sent me another great bit of animation which I thought I'd share. It actually reminds me of my own response to post on particular subjects in fandom. Infact I could really use that as an icon for whenever I read any of the following:
1. Any description of a character's eyes which utilizes the words "jade", "orbs" "greens", "tawny", "golden" "pools", "amethyst", "moss coloured", "chocolate", "mahogany" etc etc: - Please just stop. I get that they have eyes. I get that their eyes are pretty. Now shush.
2. The assumption that being a bottom and/or submissive is a character flaw and makes you weak. Usually accompanied by the argument that writing [insert character name here] as a bottom and/or submissive is feminisation of that character and grossly OOC:- Usually spouted by people with little or no actual knowledge or experience of D/s or power exchange play. One of these days I shall write a learned response about how a preference for vanilla sex clearly indicates a repressed sexual preference for necrophilia, low self esteem as well as a delusional view of equality in relationships.
3. [insert pairing of choice] is the only possible and acceptable pairing. Any other pairing is immoral, wrong and gross character abuse: - Stop justifying your choice in porn. No one cares.
4. BDSM is abusive, unnatural and immature. All dominants are evil sadists: - I'm still at a loss as to how people can make comments like this and then be surprised when I am offended? Please also see response to Point 2.
5. [insert fandom of choice] was so much better back in the day when [insert name of various well known writers who left the fandom 2 years ago] were writing. This goes hand in hand with the 'I remember when it was all zines/mailing lists/hand carved stone tablets and I hate this move to [insert latest fandom medium]' conversation: - Just kill me now. Seriously.
6. I don't read slash for the sex:- Bzuh! No really? What do you read it for then? The relationship? But isn't that just sex with a prettier wrapper and less squelching noises? The close friendship between two men? Um, isn't that gen fic? I dunno, maybe I'm just not intellectual enough to grasp all the layered meanings behind it all..
7. Gorilla rape stories and lactating men:- I am scarred emotionally for life. Nuff said.
*grins*
And on that note I leave to go watch Whisper of The Heart
During the meanwhile all UK flavoured people rejoice for Lo! The Texan Bar has returned to us. Verily have I missed its chewy goodness and I rejoice that I shall once again have the chance to lose a filling while munching on it's chocolatey goodness.
Oh and Darth Rich sent me another great bit of animation which I thought I'd share. It actually reminds me of my own response to post on particular subjects in fandom. Infact I could really use that as an icon for whenever I read any of the following:
1. Any description of a character's eyes which utilizes the words "jade", "orbs" "greens", "tawny", "golden" "pools", "amethyst", "moss coloured", "chocolate", "mahogany" etc etc: - Please just stop. I get that they have eyes. I get that their eyes are pretty. Now shush.
2. The assumption that being a bottom and/or submissive is a character flaw and makes you weak. Usually accompanied by the argument that writing [insert character name here] as a bottom and/or submissive is feminisation of that character and grossly OOC:- Usually spouted by people with little or no actual knowledge or experience of D/s or power exchange play. One of these days I shall write a learned response about how a preference for vanilla sex clearly indicates a repressed sexual preference for necrophilia, low self esteem as well as a delusional view of equality in relationships.
3. [insert pairing of choice] is the only possible and acceptable pairing. Any other pairing is immoral, wrong and gross character abuse: - Stop justifying your choice in porn. No one cares.
4. BDSM is abusive, unnatural and immature. All dominants are evil sadists: - I'm still at a loss as to how people can make comments like this and then be surprised when I am offended? Please also see response to Point 2.
5. [insert fandom of choice] was so much better back in the day when [insert name of various well known writers who left the fandom 2 years ago] were writing. This goes hand in hand with the 'I remember when it was all zines/mailing lists/hand carved stone tablets and I hate this move to [insert latest fandom medium]' conversation: - Just kill me now. Seriously.
6. I don't read slash for the sex:- Bzuh! No really? What do you read it for then? The relationship? But isn't that just sex with a prettier wrapper and less squelching noises? The close friendship between two men? Um, isn't that gen fic? I dunno, maybe I'm just not intellectual enough to grasp all the layered meanings behind it all..
7. Gorilla rape stories and lactating men:- I am scarred emotionally for life. Nuff said.
*grins*
And on that note I leave to go watch Whisper of The Heart
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Not reading slash for the sex.
But most explicit sex scenes, even by good writers, are uninteresting.
From:
Re: Not reading slash for the sex.
From:
*grins*
Yeah, you see, you got it. All I was trying to do was point out that when people say sex they should really say explicit sex scenes. That I can totally get behind as I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who can write good explicit sex.
My understanding of slash was that it was a story with a focus on a homosexual relationship. Now that relationship can be as explicit or as implicit as you like. There does have to be desire (even if never acted on)to get hot and sweaty in there somewhere though, otherwise it's not slash it's gen, surely?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
OMG, that pisses me off so much! I write quite a bit of BDSM (almost exclusively these days *G*) and gah... I heard that much too often :p (about mine and about other characters). What's even worse, are those writers that feed that cliche, you know? In a few RPGs I've encountered character that are written like... well like the author thought "he's a sub, so he will have to cry every time someone looks at him the wrong way". Without a backstory/good enough characterisation to back this up (which is possible, I've seen it done *G*).
Do I even make sense? *G*
4. BDSM is abusive, unnatural and immature. All dominants are evil sadists
dot dot dot. Sure, there ARE evil sadist dominants, or else this wouldn't be so much fun to write, but... man. This comment makes me want to hit them over the head. Esp. when they also think like that of BDSM in RL, which makes me want to hit them even more! I'm not getting abused, thank you very much.
7. Gorilla rape stories and lactating men
!!!!! WHAT?!
From:
no subject
gaaaahhhhh I can see why you get pissed off with those.
Nice anime Darth xxx
From:
no subject
I was right with you up to this, but no - I don't agree with you here, Em. I don't read slash for the sex, because the sex on its own is pointless. What makes it worth reading *is* the relationship - and a good writer can convey the sexual intimacy without being explicit. A good writer can also make explicit sex interesting and carry the story along, and help us learn more about the people - all too often, the sex is just punctuation. It's really rare for me to read a sex scene in detail, and I hardly ever remember a story on the strength of it.
A gen story can be slash - sorry, I disagree with you there too. I don't like smarm, or stories where the guys are cuddling and slipping each other tongue and yet we're supposed to believe they are both straight! (Or even worse, "we're not gay we just love each other" - yeah, of course you're not gay). But categorising stories merely by the level and explicitness of sex, or saying slash readers are just there for the pron, is pretty much as ignorant as saying submissives are pathetic frail wimps, and doms are all guys.
I don't know who or what provoked your comments, and maybe they are or it is as stupid as you're portraying them, but don't lump everyone together - slashers, readers *or* kinksters.
(Or maybe I'm misinterpreting your sarcasm? If I am, and you're actually saying *you* don't read slash for the sex either, then I apologise)
Gorilla rape stories exist to prove that however bad one's own writing is, it could never be as bad as *that*!
From:
no subject
Thing is, I view any story whith a focus on the sexual relationship between two people as being ultimately about sex. I'm not talking about explicit sex scenes but there has to be a desire to get hot and sweaty in there. You don't have to have any explicit sex scenes at all. Infact the desire may never be consummated, but it has to exist or we are talking about something completely different.
If you remove any sexual aspect of the relationship then you have two people who are close friends and that's a gen story.
Why should you treat a homosexual relationship as different to a heterosexual relationship. If you mention completely incidentally that a male character and a female character are a couple in your fic would you then have to label it het?
I know people don't read slash just for the porn and I never said that. I understand that a lot of people don't like explicit sex scenes. What I was getting at is more the willful refusal in some parts of fandom to acknowledge that sex does have to play a part somewhere. *grins*
From:
no subject
I think you worded things confusingly. As re-expressed, I don't have a problem with your view, but I resist any idea that slash == sex, because slash is about the *people* (and the gender of the people). I loathe people calling slash 'porn' in all seriousness. There is a shitload of slash which your maiden aunt could read out loud to her Sunday School class (if you have a broadminded aunt and one of the more liberal wings of an enlightened church :) ). There is a shitload of het (actually labelled 'gen' because omigod no pooftahs!) which is positively squirm-making to read in the privacy of one's own bathroom!
If you remove any sexual aspect of the relationship then you have two people who are close friends and that's a gen story.
*If* the content of the story doesn't otherwise make it adult. Because sex is not the only fruit :)
From:
*grins*
Actually I worded like that deliberately to provoke this kind of reaction. It really depends on your definition of sex and I've already explained that.
I'm a little confused by the comment about it being about people. Gen fic is about people. Slash is about people who happen to be of the same sex who are sexually attracted to each other. Het is about people of the different sex who are sexually attracted to each other. As I said you have to have the sexual attraction in there. You don't have to be remotely explicit about it. Hence the use of the word sex not porn in my original point.
Although now I'm wondering about the definition of people and where aliens and tentacle hermaphrodite sex fits in. *starts laughing*
ANYWAY. I consider slash as porn for a whole different set of reasons that are personal to me and my own sexual peccadilloes. That's a whole 'nother ball game and one I am aware I don't share with others :)
From:
Re: *grins*
Gen fic is fic suitable for general audiences. Slash can be gen, and still be slash as you and I both define.
Slash - and indeed, any decent story regardless of rating or pairing - is about the people, because if the characters don't involve, convince and beguile you, who the fuck cares how many times they slip each other the sausage? If you are writing slash, then the story has to be about the people, and their relationship *first*. The sex is secondary to that because unless it grows from the relationship as described in the story, it's pointless - in fact, that's when it just becomes a porn story.
You seem to be use gen as an antonym to slash - which is contrary to what turned_earth said and what you seemed to be agreeing with elsewhere. Gen is an antonym to adult, slash is the antonym to het. You can have gen slash, adult het, or any combination you like. Just don't pretend your loving gay guys aren't boinking off-screen, because, like, they *are*!
From:
no subject
Actually yes. I skip most of the sex in slash. I'm not interested in it. By this rationale, I should say that sex scene-less slash stories are in fact, gen. I like that idea heaps and bunches.
From:
You see..
That would make more sense to me as my understanding of what is slash is that it's a story with the focus on the relationship between a homosexual pairing.
If you take out any sexual aspect of the relationship then surely you do have a gen story. Why should a homosexual relationship be singled out as something separate? If you had a story where the heterosexual couple was incidental to the story would it still be defined as het?
I should also add that I do know people don't read slash for the explicit sex but as jacquez states, they should make that clear. For me when your talking about a sexual relationship between two people the whole thing comes under the blanket of sex. UST can be more erotic the the actual physical sex act. Bottom line is that the relationship has the desire for getting hot and sweaty as a background, regardless of whether that actually happens in the story or no.
From:
Re: You see..
But slash means that there has to be more to the relationship than just friendship, whether we see it, whether it's just a wish, or we get the full down and dirty details. If people say they want slash but don't want to accept the sexual side (potential or realised) or the relationship, then they're just fucked in the head. That's different from saying that actually reading the sexual stuff is not particularly interesting - a lot of time, it's not because it takes talent to make sex sexy, and a lot of otherwise good writers just don't have that skill.
I'm with turned_earth - I rate stories as gen if they are suitable for general audiences. That is determined by the level of offensive content, explicit sex or violence, or possibly, adult themes. Having homosexuals/bisexuals in a story, in a relationship to the forefront or otherwise of a story, does not in itself make it not gen (or adult) regardless of moronic archivists across fandoms. But if a story includes explicit sex, regardless of the genders of the boffers/boffees, then it's an adult story. If the boffers and boffees are the same gender, then it's adult slash.
From:
Re: You see..
Well I don't, so Ner! *sticks tongue out* I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
I'm with turned_earth - I rate stories as gen if they are suitable for general audiences. That is determined by the level of offensive content, explicit sex or violence, or possibly, adult themes.
You see I thought turned_earth was saying that she disliked the fact that gen has come to mean something without sex or squick or whatever. I always view the definition of gen as 'any story which does not have as its focus a particular sexual relationship'. The content such as violence or explicitness is defined by the rating. Thus an explicit torture fic would X or NC-17 rated gen.
I like your definitions though and under that scheme I can see how you can have gen slash. I would refer to it as G or GA rated slash though. This has opened an interesting sideline on labels for fic though. Cool Beans :)
From:
speaking of Texans...
From:
Re: speaking of Texans...
What a fab link. I want to read some of these books now :)
From:
Re: speaking of Texans...
From:
no subject
I myself read slash purely for the squelching noises. It's an aural fixation.
From:
*smooch*
I love you.
So does the 'Ah Ah Ah, more, more YES' get you or do you prefer the 'Oooh, yes, give it to me big boy'?
*grins*
From:
Re: *smooch*
From:
no subject
Oh, I so agree with this comment. I am personally a switch (I can top or bottom), but I much prefer being a bottom. Does this make me weak or *gack* feminine? I don't think so. On a day to day basis, I run our family, a private practice in psychotherapy, and most of the folks around me. There is research in psychology that indicates that being a bottom in a BDSM relationship affords the same benefits as practicing meditation. It takes one out of one's self and allows one to transcend normal every day concerns. In actually, the person who is playing the bottom often has more control than the top. The ideal top is exquisetely attuned to the bottom and is most concerned with givng him/her what they want.
"BDSM is abusive, unnatural and immature." I don't *think* so. There is a fine line between pain and pleasure, and there is nothing like the endorphin high of pain.
I agree with you, Em. I don't criticize vanilla, but there is something to be said for extremes of experience.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Am now traumatised, and it's HARD to traumatise me. Very hard.