Is slash homophobic?

[emmagrant01]

Okay, I am finding this discussion on bubonicplague's LJ *very* interesting.

An excerpt:

I have said more times than I can count that I don't have a problem with slashfic. [...] What I do have a problem with is the trivialization of homosexuality in society today. [...] But it just ties into the fact that the only way mainstream society accepts gay men is as the oversexed pretty-boys of their fantasies."

How is this "Dance for me, gay boy!" fetish of straight female writers any better than the constant, sappy idealization of lesbians as glittery, bikini-clad mud wrestlers to fulfill male fantasies? And why is it somehow okay to degrade the issue by using the same ammunition?

So now I'm thinking about this, and I'm also thinking about clara_swift's recent post on m-a about slash and homosexuality. And I don't know what I think about what bubonicplague is saying here, except that she seems to be basing this on a a fairly stereotypical view of slash. If most slash I read was like she describes, clearly trivializing homosexuality and gay culture, then I probably wouldn't read it, honestly. I would find it disturbing for the precise reasons she describes in her post.

However, I tend to read slashfic that's about relationships. The sex is just the icing on the cake, and it's meaningful sex, not smut for smut's sake. It's keeping the cameras rolling instead of fading to black, like tamer profic or a movie would tend to do. I rarely find myself enjoying PWPs that are nothing but graphic sex with no characterization or setting of any kind. I find them boring, honestly.

Perhaps I'm so selective that I can't see the forest for my own particular grove of trees?

Comments

[clara-posts.livejournal.com]

Interesting it is - and *so* different to the discussion that we've been having on the same subject.

I don't believe that slash trivialises homosexuality at all. And I think gay men enjoy reading well-written slash as much as we do. The biggest compliment that I have received for one of my fics was from a gay friend who said how perfectly it described the relationship between a gay man and his much younger lover - the balance of loving and fathering in the relationship. And Qui is not your typical gay pretty boy at all - things like the age difference and their mentor/student relationship deepens O/Q slash.
She is taking a very narrow view of slash and being confrontational... I think I'll stick to the MA discussion :o)

Now let's just choose a pretty boy icon.... and post :o)

[mayree.livejournal.com]

I agree:
I tend to read slashfic that's about relationships. The sex is just the icing on the cake, and it's meaningful sex, not smut for smut's sake. It's keeping the cameras rolling instead of fading to black, like tamer profic or a movie would tend to do. I rarely find myself enjoying PWPs that are nothing but graphic sex with no characterization or setting of any kind. I find them boring, honestly.
You said it perfectly!

[coconutswirl.livejournal.com]

I think bubonicplague is generalising. She even states further on in her discussion that she is reacting against mainstream depiction of homosexuals.

To me, slash has never been nor ever will be mainstream. Sure there are many PWPs out there - but that is not exclusively slash. Slash does not automatically equal NC-17. I like to think of slash as providing a 'different voice' or an 'alternative voice' - not everything is deep stuff, but the very fact that people are questioning token heterosexuality of characters is subversive.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Where do you guys find these interesting discussion? And who the hell is bubonicplague?

I think she makes a legitimate point, one that is at least as legitimate as what I speculated on in my slashy baby shower essay, and what Clara speculated on about portrayals of homosexuality in slash fic and general culture. Bubonicplague is *not* making a blanket statement about all slash. Furthermore, she's talking about other fandoms, not SW, so we don't know what it's like in those other fandoms. She's just raising a question about what all this means, and I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do -- something I wonder often, myself.

One gal responded saying, "there is nothing 'natural' about our kinks that is less natural than our predjudices." That's a little awkwardly phrased, but a good point. It's *never* just about sex, however much we may think it is. Our attitudes and our behaviors about sex are shaped by culture as much as they are shaped by "natural" impulses. I have to agree with her about the possibility that mainstream depictions of homosexuality often pander toward stereotypes in order to make them more acceptable. I've only ever seen one complete episode of "Will and Grace," and I have to say I found it unappealing because it seemed like a gay stereotype. On the other hand, I have gay friends who love the show. As for "Queer Eye and the Straight Guy," I also find it a bit problematic for the same reason of stereotypes, both of gay men and of straight men. (On the other hand, I adore "Priscilla: Queen of the Desert," but I hate "To Wong Foo.") I'm not saying these shows are homophobic and that people shouldn't enjoy them. I'm just saying they didn't appeal to me. There's a fine line that I can't always define for myself.

Bubonicplague was raising the issue of whether this mainstreaming of homosexuality might also be behind an increase in slash's popularity. I can't really comment because my experience is limited to MA. But it does seem like more articles about slash are coming out in mainstream news sources. The difference, I would say, is that TV shows and movies are produced for consumers, whereas slash is produced by consumers. Slash represents a subversion of what TV and movies hand to us. Slash is not and was never meant to be an accurate depiction of the gay experience. It does represent an appropriation by (frequently) straight women, but it's also a way for us to explore our voice and our sexuality. I have never seen anything wrong with white men writing about Japanese women, or black lesbians writing about straight Swedish fishermen or whatever.

The problematic part, as in the minstrel shows she referred to, is when the straight-appropriated depiction of gays is passed off as a true reflection of what homosexuality is; when gays are only allowed to be visible when they pander to a stereotype; when gays are allowed to be visible only as a source of entertainment (and economic exploitation) by straight people. I don't think any of these things is really true of slash. But that doesn't mean slashers are never homophobic or heterosexist.

Whew! She raised many other interesting points, as did Clara and her subsequent discussion on both the old MA and the new MA. I kept wanting to responnd, but there was too much. This will have to do for now. But I'm so late, who will ever read this except Emma? Maybe I should post something somewhere else, too?

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Okay, somehow or other I managed to trace back to where bubonicplague got wanked on that fandom-wank thing. Not that i read much of it, but one of the things people wanked was apparently the fact that the discussion on bp's lj was rather civil. Excuse me?

The three times or so that I have *ever* read anything on f_w, I was just completely...well, let's say "unimpressed." Looks like interesting discussion can come of it, but meanwhile there's a whole lot of BS and people thinking they're better than other people. Who in the hell needs that? The world is uncivil enough as it is.

On the other hand, it might be kinda cool if I got wanked sometime. Not saying that I'm asking for it, but still -- it's gotta be a weird sort of status symbol.

Meanwhile, let's return to our own civil discussions of interesting topics.