edmund
I Blame the Dutch mpoetess
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Why I Like M/M Slash, by Mad Poetess, Grade 19-and-a-thingummy
Because Mr. Ostrich put it there, to keep in the little pixies.

twistingflame

2004-10-24 07:27 pm (UTC) (Link)

::smootches::

sockkpuppett

2004-10-24 08:45 pm (UTC) (Link)

Is this, like, a test or something? We all have to tell why we like slash or else we fail the fandom slash exams?


mpoetess

2004-10-24 09:40 pm (UTC) (Link)

the_dark_twin posted an essay about why she in particular likes m/m slash, that tries to take on all the reasons she's seen women give for it, and say which apply to her. It's an interesting essay (though I think she blows her thesis at the end by implying that ha! She's been talking about why het women like slash, after all, not just why she does), but it's got people nattering right and left about empowerment vs. misogyny this and co-opting the gay experience that, and it's political/it's not political the other, and I done seen it before and thought it was just as annoying then as I do now.

sockkpuppett

2004-10-24 10:13 pm (UTC) (Link)

God, I'm so shallow. I slash because I like slash.

I read that essay. Someone on my FL linked to it earlier today. I was bored and thought that maybe I shouldn't have been bored. Now I feel better. :)

lilithchilde

2004-10-24 10:40 pm (UTC) (Link)

Well, I know who you are: you're Merlin, the Happy Pig.

(Had to. Mmm. Yes.)

mpoetess

2004-10-25 12:54 am (UTC) (Link)

Look, do you lot want to hear about this goblin, or not?

lilithchilde

2004-10-25 06:11 am (UTC) (Link)

See the little goblin, see his little feet.

mpoetess

2004-10-25 10:30 am (UTC) (Link)

See his little nosey-wose, isn't the goblin sweet!

drax

2004-10-25 09:34 am (UTC) (Link)

YES!</b>

robintcj

2004-10-24 11:37 pm (UTC) (Link)

"Boys pretty" isn't a good enough reason? Damn, there goes my slasher street cred.

mpoetess

2004-10-25 12:58 am (UTC) (Link)

No. There must be pixies involved!

robintcj

2004-10-25 01:00 am (UTC) (Link)

Well...dammit. FINE. *moves to the Spuffy Brigade*




*shudder* I take it back. I take it BACK.

slanted_truths

2004-10-25 12:27 pm (UTC) (Link)

You know, at one time in my life, I liked Spuffy. Then, I discovered slash. Now het just doesn't do it for me. Huh, I guess after the men of Buffy, everything else was ruined for me.

robintcj

2004-10-25 01:07 pm (UTC) (Link)

I was a B/Aer before I discovered the slash, but I never could get into Spuffy. I didn't mind it, in season 5, when Spike loved Buffy but Buffy didn't love him, but something about Marti's catharsis-through-television not-so-borderline-abusive relationship thing, it just wasn't my thing. I saw the character of Spike change too much from the time I liked him best, and while I understand the reasoning for the relationship and that the characters had to grow up and what better way to do that than a horrible relationship, it just went a step too far for my view on plausibility. Not that I minded naked!Spike in all his scenes, but he woulda made a better match with Xander. ;)

ilovedoyle

2004-10-25 01:52 pm (UTC) (Link)

lol!
i agree w/ sockpupprt and robintcj tho.
like slash 4 slash and pretty boys!!
do u NEED another reason?!
and with the pretty boys and the glaringly obvious subtext in programmes such as buffy, angel and smallville, u can't really miss it!!

mpoetess

2004-10-25 06:22 pm (UTC) (Link)

do u NEED another reason?!

Yes. Pixies. That's all I'm sayin'. There need to be pixies involved.

dragovianknight

2004-10-25 04:54 pm (UTC) (Link)

I'm still chewing over "gay boys=teh hawt but femmeslash is icky" dichotomy.

Mind you, I'm not saying gay boys aren't teh hawt. I would never ever say that.

mpoetess

2004-10-25 05:30 pm (UTC) (Link)

[wank]
I dunno -- I see some logic to (some) women being squicked by descriptions of girly parts from the *outside* -- it's not that they don't enjoy having them, but that they don't have much of an interest in seeing someone else's in action.

I have seen writers say almost literally in the text of their m/m stories "Eww, icky girlparts! Man 1 was never *really* interested in that string of girls he dated (or that woman he was lovers with for 120 years...), and he hated every minute of it until Man 2 came along and showed him the Light of the Gay!" Those stories (and authors) get a big "WhatEVah, what are you, five?" from me. There's a difference between not being turned on, or even being turned off, by reading explicit sex scenes that involve one's own gender, and denying the existence/history/value of women in the men's lives, period. Or worse, vilifying the canonical women.

But I don't get the jump from calling an obvious whackjob an obvious whackjob to this big gender-politics thing that keeps coming up in fandom, where if you're just not as interested in girlslash (or het) as you are in boyslash then there's something wrong with your womanliness, or if you're bi/lesbian and you're not especially turned on by most girlslash then your dyke cred is in question.

Some days it seems like if I read one more word about my apparent vagina-hatin' self because I prefer reading about fictional gay sex to reading about fictional het sex or fictional lesbian sex, I'm going to be hard put not to tell the lovers of the much-sinned-against fictional snatch who think I have to get off on reading about it in order to prove that I'm not ashamed of having one or might be interested in licking one, that they can suck my fictional dick. [/wank]