Fanfics with slash & sex...I don't get it

[ER <ression@hotmail.com>]

Queer-as-John wrote -

>See, "typical" and "usual" are language which is not loaded. This is 
good
>language to use. Talking about "normal" orientation *is* loaded, 
because it
>comes with the inherent implication that what is "normal" is "good" 
and
>"desirable". I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

Well I certainly see it, but I'm not sure I agree! Normal, typical 
and usage are just similar words as far as I'm concerned. Obviously 
I'm not coming at it from where you are, but it seems a bit of jump 
to consider me homophobic because of it (if that is your thesis). 
However, if it offends you, I will certainly try to  avoid use of the 
word normal when talking to you, strange as it seems to me.

"Normal" and "good" - my PC normally crashes, it normally rains in 
England, the taxman normally wants money from me - these things I do 
not consider good (except when the garden could do with a drop of 
rain).


>Well, I *refuse* to grin and bear it [snip] the right to not be 
fired or otherwise discriminated against at
work based on my sexual orientation, and so on and so forth.

You serious? Speak to your lawyer, you may never need to work again. 
This is against the law. Period.


> (And for the record, I SO feel your pain on the extra legroom 
thing. That's why I fly American as much as I can, because they just 
added three extra inches to their coach seats. Not comfy-comfy, but 
at least my knees don't touch the seat in front any more! :D)

Bad - it's going to make it harder to sue the asses off them for 
DVT :)


>> We can of course disagree on what the majority are offended by (I
>> guess a few hard facts would be useful, but I fear they will be 
hard
>> to come by) but, if a majority votes (say) for warnings for
>> heterosexual sex/kissing/cuddling or whatever, that's fine by me,
>> I'll go with the flow. My vote would be against such warnings, but
>> maybe I'm in the minority.

>I'm curious ‹ how do you go about finding that majority, and that 
vote? And
>who gets to vote? What is the electorate here? Members of a 
fanfiction site?
>Anyone who wanders along and clicks? Is the voting tied to IP 
address or
>not?

Pass - that's why I said they'd be hard to come by. One way to get a 
handle on this might be to trawl a few thousand Fics and see which 
ones got slated for slash content (why 'slash' BTW) and which ones 
got hammered for het content. And maybe see how many sites explicitly 
require authors to warn of slash (as opposed to adult) content. Just 
a thought, I see no easy way of doing it. And certainly a vote 
wouldn't be a good idea since the "losing side" would just 
cry "ballot stuffing".


>> I note that you cite the over-13 readership - it's my opinion that 
a
>> substantial portion of the readership are under-14. And I think 
they
>> need warnings. 

>No, they need responsible parents who monitor their internet usage. 
See my
>reply to Diana's post.

In an ideal world yes, but it ain't going to happen and we shouldn't 
(where practical) subject the child to the failings of the parent 
when we can so easily (from my POV) avoid it.

>> If we were talking face-to-face these misunderstandings either 
wouldn't occur
>> (body language, etc etc) or there'd be a raised eyebrow and a quick
>> clarification. And quite probably nobody would notice a particular 
use of a
>> word anyway (e.g. deviates).

>Yes to the first sentence, no to the second. I would have picked you 
up on
>the words "normal", "deviate", "majority" and so on, and you'd have
>clarified 

You obviously feel this deeply, but at the risk of upsetting you 
again, I feel aggrieved at the thought of being told which perfectly 
good words I can and cannot use. BTW, would you object to me calling 
you queer, or is that now acceptable? It would have been a word I 
would have avoided, but I'm beginning to see a Humpty-Dumpty world 
opening up in front of me. Gay seems to have been well and truly 
hijacked, but I hate to see other words going the same way.

>Or, alternatively, as our admin files suggest, people could be more
>selective with their use of overly-loaded language.

But only if one knows (or indeed agrees) what is overloaded. Short of 
a direct everybody-would-agree-it's-nasty attack, I still maintain 
the immediate lack of feedback means the aggrieved party should at 
least attempt to seek clarification. If not, we'll reach the point 
where all posts are of the "See Spot run" variety (OK, tell me Spot 
is homosexual slang for something :)


>> I do know people who object to (or are at least offended by) 
descriptions of
>> homosexual pairings but I don't know anybody who objects to inter-
racial
>> coupling. It's not to say that such bigots don't exist, but I can 
only speak
>> from my own experience.

>Right, it's here that I will ask for clarification. Your words make 
me think
>that you believe that someone who objects to inter-racial coupling 
is a
>bigot, but someone who objects to descriptions of homosexual 
pairings is
>not. If that is what you meant, that is an UNBELIEVABLE double-
standard. I
>refuse to pander to such a double standard. Hate is hate. Bigotry is
>bigotry. 

Nope, not what I meant, nor what I said. I just said that hatred 
based on race is bigoted. You're (IMHO) being touchy again. At least 
you asked for clarification this time :)

 
>Once again, it would be very helpful if you refrained from 
using "normal" rhetoric. Perhaps, instead, "gay people are not in the 
majority"? But then, unfortunately, you would lose your justification 
for things not being in the spirit of the story. 

You've lost me here - explain please.


>Because society *likes* minorities, and frowns on people who *don't 
like* minorities.

Do you think that society as a whole (not just the educated liberal-
minded portion) likes homosexuals (as in actively likes as opposed to 
doesn't care/never gives it a thought) and frowns on people who don't 
like them? I'd be surprised if this is true. More generally is there 
any reason why people should _like_ minorities? Being in a minority 
doesn't seem a very useful criterion for liking somebody. Torturers 
are (one hopes) in the minority, but one really shouldn't like them. 
People should be liked because of themselves and how they conduct 
their life. By your argument you're preaching love of the BNP (read 
Klu-Klux clan in America). This obviously isn't what you mean, but 
perhaps you could clarify what you do mean.

>I *don't* feel that fics should be warned simply because they 
contain gay
>material. Pairings, yes. But "random gay people in the background", 
or "male
>character occasionally has thoughts about other men"? No.

Agreed, if it is adult fic, but not if it is young fic. I guess we 
just must disagree here.


>One is often accused of being oversensitive when objecting to 
language with
>loaded implications like "deviate". Less than fifty years 
ago, 'treatment'
>for 'deviates' like homosexuals included electro-shock therapy. I'm 
sure you
>can understand why the loaded implications attached to your words 
made me
>object to them.

I can understand, but you must agree it is very difficult, in a 
practical sense, for me to know in advance what you regard 
as "loaded". Today is the first time I've heard a homosexual object 
to my language or use of the word "normal". Though equally today is 
the first time that I've ever being involved in a written exchange on 
the subject with a homosexual. I'd still disagree with your earlier 
comment that you'd have picked me up on these words in face-to-face 
conversation :)

>> And, while I've got your attention, I think the (Tyke) phrase
>> is "There's nowt _so_ queer as folk". Just though I'd mention that,
>> it keeps grating on me, quite prepared to be proved wrong, it's 
your
>> sig, do with it as you will :)

>*grins* D'you know, that's why my inner Tyke told me too, but the 
Oxford
>Dictionary of Quotations proved me wrong.

Sheesh, you don't believe what you read do you ;) What would 
Southerners know about it! Go with your inner feelings!


ER, who is not going to write anything after his signature.