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

[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.