Neil:
Pseudo-lesbian porn, made by men for a male audience, exists to do more than merely titillate. It serves to distort, corrupt, contain,
ridicule
and ultimately deny the reality of the single biggest challenge to
patriarchal
hegemony. Lesbianism threatens a fundamental axiom of patriarchal
ideology,
the dependence of women on men, and the pornographic depiction of lesbianism deliberately seeks to subvert that threat by reconstructing it within ideologically permissible limits. Homophobic? Not as such. Heterosexist? Yes, very. Oppressive? Definitely.
This all sounds very nice, but... A woman doesn't have to be lesbian not to depend on men. Surely dependence has a lot more to do with bank balances than sexual choices. Moreover, pornographic distorted depictions of lesbianism do nothing to contain the threat to patriarchy of real independent women, whether lesbian, bi or straight. (Always assuming one considers that western society constitutes a patriarchy.)
This is nothing less than subversive. Slash is political dynamite, and my single biggest reservation about it is the cavalier way in which its afficionados tend to handle explosives.
This particular violence-averse slash aficionado would prefer to see it in terms of fluffy kittens...
But just as m-o porn seizes control of female sexuality (straight or otherwise) for re-representation in the ideological interests of its consumers, so slash does likewise with male sexuality. Both are exercises in the creation of sexual myths with the end purpose of obscuring rather than revealing sexual truths.
One could say both are exercises pure and simple in, shall we say, giving the reader/viewer a good time.
Tavia