For future reference.

[randomling]

“When I try to explain slash to non-fans, I often reference that moment in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan where Spock is dying and Kirk stands there, a wall of glass separating the two longtime buddies. Both of them are reaching out towards each other, their hands pressed hard against the glass, trying to establish physical contact. They both have so much they want to say and so little time to say it. Spock calls Kirk his friend, the fullest expression of their feelings anywhere in the series. Almost everyone who watches that scene feels the passion the two men share, the hunger for something more than what they are allowed. And, I tell my nonfan listeners, slash is what happens when you take away the glass. The glass, for me, is often more social than physical; the glass represents those aspects of traditional masculinity which prevent emotional expressiveness or physical intimacy between men, which block the possibility of true male friendship. Slash is what happens when you take away those barriers and imagine what a new kind of male friendship might look like. One of the most exciting things about slash is that it teaches us how to recognize the signs of emotional caring beneath all the masks by which traditional male culture seeks to repress or hide those feelings.” — Henry Jenkins, “Confessions of a Male Slash Fan,” SBF 1, May 1993

Comments

[pretty_panther]

;___; yes. all of this

[randomling]

I know, right? Beautiful quotation.

[italiceyeball]

I always thought it was about, y'know. Sex.

[randomling]

Actually it's about way more than that. Sex is of course a part of slash, but it's not the only part of it. (The reason I saved the quote is I'm writing an article about the value of slash, so watch this space, I guess?)

[italiceyeball]

Well, sex can't be the only part, of course. That would make it porn. A genre is generally classified according to some criteria, though, else it wouldn't be a genre.

Could you write a slash that depicted no sexuality whatsoever? Would it still be slash? I thought that was kind of, what it IS. Like writing a mystery novel without mystery.

[randomling]

The thing about this question is that it's a huge one, and there are many possible answers to it. I think that's almost always the case when you try to define something: different people have different, but overlapping, definitions. So defining slash is not easy.

I'll talk about my personal definition of slash. But first I'll note that sex is not sexuality, and sexuality is not sexual orientation. Let's take those one by one.

You can definitely write a slash story without any sex in it - there are plenty of those.

Without sexuality or sexual feelings being involved? Well, slash stories are frequently romantic ones - though they're still not exclusively that. And sexuality is usually a part of our romantic lives, so yes, sexuality is usually involved in some way. But there are still some slash stories that don't involve sexuality. Usually they address issues of identity. For example, many slash stories are coming-out stories. Many of these stories do have a romantic element, but not all. So sexuality isn't a required component.

What about sexual orientation? Here, I'd argue, is where we find one possible definition of slash as a genre. Slash tackles issues of sexual orientation and of sexual identity. Sometimes that is about directly tackling sex, sexuality, and romantic relationships; sometimes it's about exploring and expressing our identities; sometimes it's about finding community.

I also like Jenkins' definition, above, that slash (and specifically here we'd be talking about romantic slash, which covers a large percentage of the genre) is about intimacy, rather than sexuality per se. Of course, Jenkins also reduces slash to relationships between men, which is certainly not the entirety of the genre these days.

But more important than my personal definition, really, is the point that slash doesn't necessarily fit one simplistic definition. (Think of the shifting boundaries of genres like "fantasy" or "science fiction", for example.) It's far too large and complex for that.

[italiceyeball]

Slash tackles issues of sexual orientation and of sexual identity.

That's a good starting point, I think. So, stories about sexual orientation and sexual identity can certainly have sex in them, but don't have to. And by that definition, slashfic is definitely about sexuality if not necessarily the portrayal of a sexual act. Yes, no?

As for intimacy vs. sexuality... Have you read "Quarantine" by Greg Egan? Some interesting thoughts there, including a cis male/asexual(biologically, smooth parts and all).

Blurry lines in genres are all well and good, but there are boundaries here. We can say that all genres have blurred lines these days, but I can pick certain works and say, "Well, this is NOT a fantasy novel, and this is NOT a poetry anthology." A story about me walking to the store to pick up some milk, thinking about Heidegger, narrating the broken sidewalk- would probably not be slashfic.

(I'm keeping the deconstructionist bastard in his cage... I am... he's not getting out)

[randomling]

And by that definition, slashfic is definitely about sexuality if not necessarily the portrayal of a sexual act. Yes, no?

I think we're operating on slightly different definitions of the term "sexuality" here. When I read the word "sexuality", I think of a person's... I don't have a good phrase here, but I guess "sexual being" is a fair one. The part of a person that has sexual thoughts and feelings, that responds in a sexual way, etc etc - that to me is their sexuality. To me, it's not synonymous with "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity", which is a more abstract concept, and covers more than just one's sexuality, most importantly issues of culture and community and where one belongs.

So I don't think that because slashfic is about orientation and identity, it's always about sexuality - I think those two concepts are distinct. Of course, many slash stories do concern sexuality (though I'm not sure that a story including sexuality is the same thing as its being about sexuality); but not all.

I haven't read that Greg Egan book. But I do know that sexuality and intimacy are separate things, though they're often confused and/or conflated in fiction and in real life.

There are, of course, hard boundaries. (I'd struggle to give the story you describe a genre at all, but even placed in the wider context of fan fiction, and with a character somewhere on the LGBT+ spectrum, it probably wouldn't be slash.) And at the same time, something like a fictional genre is a large and in many ways subjective beast. We can draw broad strokes - whether that's "stories based around hard-to-solve crimes" or "fan fiction about sexual orientation and sexual identity" - but the decision on which stories are and are not good examples of the genre will be different from reader to reader. Hell, isn't that a common flamewar topic?

I want to make a related point here, which is that LGBT+ relationships and identities do tend to get painted as "about sex" in a way that straight relationships and identities do not. As a queer person myself, I get really frustrated sometimes with that tendency in the world. (It's the reason that straight kissing is everywhere, and gay kissing tends to only show up on late-night TV, and the reason AllOut.org are having to petition the President of the Europe Broadcasting Union not to censor a lesbian kiss from Finland's Eurovision entry. It's the reason that many people strongly oppose including LGBT+ identities in sex education classes. It's the reason many people outside slash communities equate "slash" with "porn", and even more think it's "about sex".)

I want to point this out, because slash-in-general (or specifically, romantic-slash-in-general) is really no more preoccupied with sex and sexuality than romance-in-general. Like romance, romantic slash has subgenres that range all the way from "sweet and fluffy with nothing racier than hand-holding" to "basically just an excuse for a bunch of sex scenes". Including queerness sometimes means more direct engagement with the process of discovering, exploring, questioning, and expressing one's sexuality - but that isn't a given in slash, either.

The problem here is the cultural notion that "straight people have relationships and gay people have sex" (hat-tip to John Corvino). One thing slash is doing - one of the many things slash is doing; I'm writing an essay on it for a reason - is challenging that assumption by showing not just queer sex but queer relationships in all their exciting, complicated, messy glory.

[italiceyeball]

So I don't think that because slashfic is about orientation and identity, it's always about sexuality - I think those two concepts are distinct.

I don't understand this at all. It's not about orientation and identity in general. For instance, slashfic isn't about spatial orientation, it isn't about political orientation, it isn't about secret vs. superhero identities, it isn't about ethnic identity. If it's about orientation and identity, it's about sexual orientation and sexual identity. Am I dead wrong here, or are my definitions too narrow, or maybe a bit of both?

I hope I don't come across as painting the genre in any way whatsoever. All I can do is pull from my admittedly limited exposure to it.

As for cultural mores, rampant homophobia(and genophobia!)... Yeah, humans are largely fearful creatures who tend to lash out at differences. I'd request that you assume I'm so far left of center it puts me out by the kuiper belt. However, I'm cursed with an inquisitive and pathologically rational mind, and that is what motivates my comments here.

Looking forward to the essay!

[kaberett]

"Pathological" is a good word choice here.

It is patently untrue that "all you can do is pull from [your] admittedly limited exposure to [the genre]". You have an expert here in comments who is very, VERY patiently explaining things to you.

You appear to be treating this conversation as though You Are Inherently Correct and Need Convincing Otherwise, rather than taking the more rational approach that randomling is an expert on the topic and you'd do well to listen and explore, rather than challenge in an attempt to undermine.

[italiceyeball]

It was not my intention to present myself as rude or attempting to undermine. I'm fantastically ignorant about the vast majority of things, and hungry to understand most of them. I was enjoying the conversation and insulting you was the furthest thing from my mind. Apologies for my clumsy language and lack of tact, when I disagree with people I present my arguments and enjoy hearing responses. To me, this is the basis of a good conversation and hopefully I learn something from it.

I realize that not everyone is comfortable with that sort of interaction, so again, my apologies.

Thank you for your responses.

[randomling]

Thanks, I'm glad you're looking forward to the essay! It might be a while coming as there's lots of research to do, but I'm looking forward to writing it.

I think the problem is that your definitions are narrow, and that they always include sex, even when that's not actually useful or appropriate. If you think of slash as the process of queering otherwise-heteronormative narratives - another of the many things slash does - then it's actively harmful to that process to characterise it as "all about sex".

On sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexuality: what I'm trying to get across is that these concepts are distinct, and that a story about one of these isn't necessarily about either of the others. They're connected, of course. It's difficult to figure out your sexual orientation and sexual identity without exploring your sexuality to some degree, for example.

Let me try to explain by example. I'm going to take two different identities and compare them, and hopefully this will clarify somewhat. (Both of these guys are entirely hypothetical and made-up. I'm a woman, and I didn't really feel comfortable trying to express these things for myself in short paragraphs; the advantage of made-up identities is that they can be fairly simplistic. Suffice it to say that real-life identities are of course far more complicated than Steve's or Dave's.)

Sexual orientation
Steve: I'm a gay man.
Dave: I'm a straight man.

Sexual identity
Steve: Argh, that's complicated. I'm kind of butch - I like football and messing around with cars. And I'm happy to watch the game with straight friends, or work with my brother on his latest fixer-upper. But for conversation and connection, I feel much more comfortable with other gay men, no matter what the topic of conversation.
Dave: What? (As a straight guy, Dave has likely never thought about his sexual identity before, unless perhaps he has an uncommon gender presentation or gender identity. But though he probably doesn't think he has one. He does - but because he's a straight man, he's never had to think about it. His sexual identity is "the default".)

Sexuality
Steve: That's a personal question! I guess I tend to go for guys who are a little androgynous or femme-y most of the time. I like a good smile and I have a thing for nice hands, for some reason. In bed I tend towards the dominant, I really like oral sex (both ways), and I enjoy a little pain now and then (both ways, but mostly giving).
Dave: Hm. I tend to go for more masculine women - I like short hair, and I like a woman who knows how to get her hands dirty and do practical things. I really like red hair. I love going down on a woman, but I can't usually come from oral sex. I like to be the active partner in bed, but I also like it best when I'm giving as much pleasure as I can.

I've tried hard here to make "Steve" and "Dave" specific rather than general - to give them traits that are personal, rather than traits that might be expected to apply to all straight men, or all gay men, or all men. My point is that these things overlap, but that they shouldn't be conflated.

I think another thing that's coming up here is the wider question of who gets to define something like a fictional genre.

Personally, I feel like a genre (and I mean any genre here: slash, science fiction, mystery, film noir, whatever) is best defined from within. That is, by the readers and writers of the genre - the people who care passionately about it. Any definition handed down by outsiders (perhaps a good example would be an academic who has no personal interest in the genre) will be by definition incomplete. That definition will likely miss some stories that should be included, and include some stories that shouldn't be.

So what I'm saying here is that a limited (and from what I'm reading between the lines, an outsider's?) exposure to slash is wildly insufficient to understand what the genre is really about. This would be true for any genre you weren't familiar with. You can see from the outside that Westerns are about pioneering and gun battles, but talk to a fan and you'll find much more complexity and nuance in the tropes and recurring themes. That's part of what I'm trying to convey here.

kaberett refers to me above as an "expert", so let me be clear here about my background. I've been reading and writing slash, and participating in slash communities, for more than fifteen years. In that time, as you might guess, I've read quite a lot of stories over a decent number of fandoms, and written a fair few myself. I've had countless discussions with individual fans about why we do what we do. And I've observed my own process while writing and my reactions while reading. I think I've earned that word.

I also think it's disingenuous to describe yourself as "pathologically rational" when you are repeatedly looking for gaps in my argument where sex might fit and trying to make it fit there. That's not rationalism; it's twisting the facts to fit your assumptions.

[italiceyeball]

I'm really interested in the subject. The way that I figure stuff out, the way I start to understand how people think about things is by asking them questions and challenging them when I disagree. This is a mechanical process for me without a lot of emotional attachment except for enjoyment in conversation. I apologize for coming across as disingenuous or argumentative. I was really enjoying the conversation and was hoping you were as well. Again, I apologize for causing offense.

Thanks for the responses, you've given me some food for thought.

[kaberett]

To the extent that most storytelling is, yes.

[italiceyeball]

I kind of get what you're getting at. But... And I'm no expert on anything, least of all writing subcultures... it seems to me, from my limited exposure to the genre, that it leans more heavily on sexuality than many (most?) other forms of storytelling.

[kaberett]

Yep, queer lives tend to be portrayed as All About The Sex pretty generally -- see every conversation, ever, in which it's suggested that discussing queer sexualities automatically requires detailed discussion of ways to have sex, so we can't possibly have books about Emma & Alice & their offspring Sam in the schools because will no-one think of the children.

Pretty much every fairytale I know is about sex. Pretty well every Shakespeare play is about sex. Pretty much any TV series you care to name, that's about telling a story, will have Compulsory Heterosexuality bolted on. Wanting stories about queer people doesn't mean we want stories about sex, but wanting stories about sex isn't wrong, and it's not somehow more prevalent, just because the people involved happen to share a gender.

[italiceyeball]

The vast majority of the (admittedly small sample) slashfic I've read has had plots that are predicated on sexual relationships, whether those relationships are explicitly narrated or not. To me, this seems like a genre defining trait, much like how a mystery novel invariably involves some kind of mystery, a western bases many scenes in the west with, y'know, cowboys and gunfights and horses, etc. for whatever genre we pick.

Now, sex is huge. Its effects pervade(heh) every aspect of the psyche. I can agree that in any work you care to name we can find sexuality, often blatant and obvious, sometimes buried and symbolic. However, it certainly doesn't define every genre. Otherwise every genre would be a flavor of some sexuality, and while I could play devil's advocate for that position(...) I think I'd find myself reaching a bit.

Take your average bodice ripper, for instance. Fabio on the cover, lots of sighing and coy looks. That's a book defined by the sexuality it portrays. Now look at, I dunno, "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy. Is there sexuality in there, somewhere? Sure. Is the book defined by that sexuality? No.

Wanting stories about queer people doesn't mean we want stories about sex, but wanting stories about sex isn't wrong, and it's not somehow more prevalent, just because the people involved happen to share a gender.

Not sure where that came from, but yeah, agreed.