Annie wrote:
Frankly, most gay writing written by and for gay men focuses *solely* on the sex
You've only been reading the porn then. Plenty of writing by and for gay men deals with other aspects of life (even though they may write about sex as well). Derek Jarman, Armistead Maupin, Quentin Crisp, whoever it was who wrote "Bent," Russell T. Davies and Matt Jones (who wrote Doctor Who novels with interesting and subtle gay male characters as well as Queer As Folk)... Peter Tatchell, too, if you count nonfiction.
much like porno films that are made mainly for the male market focus solely on visual images and the sex act.
And porn made for the female market doesn't? What about PWP slash?
Slash written by women tends to be much more romantic in nature.
Not always.
So, when folks say that slash isn't what gay sex is "really" like, I have to laugh.
No, but gay porn isn't much like what gay sex is like either. We don't all go out shagging anything with muscles, you know. But at the same time even the "romantic" aspects of gay life aren't much like slash.
It isn't what gay men like to write and read about, it's true. Who cares? It isn't written *for them*. It is written mostly by and for women.
So you're saying slash has no merit other than as something to titillate women? Perhaps the sort you like to read, but, in case you haven't been reading posts lately, a lot of people have been talking about political slash stories (Dana for instance). Shouldn't they be read by gay men too? Or do you want to keep slash your own private club?
And I have been happily partnered with another woman for almost 12 years now...
Which makes your frankly homophobic description of gay men above all the more disturbing.
I still like, read and write slash stories, mostly m/m.
And yet you say you're not interested in what a gay male relationship is really like. This sounds a bit like those straight men who watch "lesbian" porn movies.
As for the person who pointed out that homophobia has "reared" its head around here. Yes, it has. I take a great deal of exception to being told that reading about two people making love is just as morally reprehensible as massacre. There's something very sick about a religion or a person who would believe that.
And yet you, by your own admission, twist gay male relationships into something solely for your own titillation. I don't agree with Kathryn and Elynne's religious beliefs but at least they've come out and been up front about them instead of hiding behind a pretense of being liberal. And IMO it's more than a little offensive to call _anyone_ sick.
Shane
Largo: "Why do I feel that I'm on trial here?" Avon: "Why do I feel as if you should be?"
Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015
Shane Little wrote:
But the original show was about politics, not sex, after all, and we shouldn't let the politics of it be overwhelmed by the sex.
Who's "we", and why shouldn't "we", and who are you to say what "we" should or shouldn't do, anyhow?
Personally, I've never thought of the original show being about politics, and that aspect of it holds very little interest for me. (Mind you, I don't think of it as being about sex either, if that makes you any happier...)
I'm sure there's very political slash out there but most of it does seem to be just PWP.
I was going to respond to this, but then you did it for me in your next message:
You've only been reading the porn then. Plenty of writing by and for gay men deals with other aspects of life (even though they may write about sex as well).
Substitute "slash" instead of "writing by and for gay men", and you have my response. (Thank you.) There's certainly a fair bit of PWP around -- why shouldn't there be, if there are people who enjoy writing and reading it? -- but it's a far cry from "most".
Shouldn't they be read by gay men too? Or do you want to keep slash your own private club?
There are gay men who do read (and write) slash. The point is that the majority of it is not being written *for* them, i.e. with them in mind as the target audience, not that they "shouldn't" read it if they want to. (I have a couple of gay friends who regularly raid my slash collection. It's interesting to see how their tastes compare to mine -- in most respects we're very similar, but there are some marked differences. Unfortunately, our sample set's too small to know whether the differences are a male-vs-female thing or just individual variation.)
- Lisa
-- Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@raytheon.com Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://framecaplib.com/ From Eroica With Love: http://eroicafans.org/
Shane said:
much like porno films that are made mainly for the male market focus solely on visual images and the sex act.
"Treason never prospers, what's the reason? If it prospers, none dare call it treason." Don't forget that mainstream media is often more sexually explicit than what was marketed as pornography in the 1950s and 1960s--I mean, if you had a time machine (and nothing better to do) and you transferred an episode of "Melrose Place" onto film and tried to show it as a movie in the 1950s, you'd have been arrested.
No, but gay porn isn't much like what gay sex is like either.
The intention of the pornographer is different from the intention of the novelist, sociologist, visual artist, etc.
So you're saying slash has no merit other than as something o titillate women?
You say this as if it were a bad thing...
Shouldn't they be read by gay men too?
Very possibly they should be creating their own in response to their own interests
-(Y)
Slowly catching up...
From: Shane Little littles@angelfire.com
And yet you say you're not interested in what a gay male relationship is
really like. This sounds a bit like those > straight men who watch "lesbian" porn movies.
It's a comparison I've drawn in the past, and I think it's a very valid one. (Well, I would, wouldn't I, having drawn it myself?) Whilst obviously never having been privy to real life lesbian relationships, I wouldn't mind betting that the male-oriented porn bears precious little comparison to the reality. Slash, in its turn, is largely unrepresentative of real life homosexual relationships, at least based on what I know (admittedly not that much).
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.
Slash differs from male-oriented porn in that it does not serve the interests of the prevailing ideology. Quite the reverse, since it challenges the presumed heterosexual norm on which that ideology is founded. Furthermore, it roots that challenge within fictional characters who intentionally or otherwise were initially created as representations of that ideological norm. 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.
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. Both are intensely politicised, yet draw short of acknowledging their political dimension (more true for m-o porn than slash, which as has been pointed out can extend beyond the purely pornographic - as and when the writer chooses to do so).
Is slash homophobic? No, I don't think so. The reconstruction of homosexual reality (which, as Shane has asserted time and again, is only tenuously related at best to slash) to suit the preferences of the target audience does not represent a phobic attitude towards homosexuality per se. Is it heterosexist? If it were written and read solely by straight women, then I might be inclined to say yes, but this is clearly not so. Oppressive? It seems to me we have one marginalised faction of society (ie; women, specifically white, western, largely middle class women, not half as marginalised as some) using a smaller and even more marginalised faction (gay men) as a means of deconstructing the myths imposed upon them by a heterosexual and heterosexist patriarchy. Not oppressive as such, perhaps, but the first analogy that springs to mind is the old Red Army practice of using peasants to clear German minefields.
Neil
Neil said:
It's a comparison I've drawn in the past, and I think it's a very valid
one.
(Well, I would, wouldn't I, having drawn it myself?) Whilst obviously
never
having been privy to real life lesbian relationships, I wouldn't mind betting that the male-oriented porn bears precious little comparison to
the
reality.
Ummm, name an orientation or a paraphilia..porn bears precious little comparison to its reality.
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.
Perhaps I'm being too modest, but I think you're overstating here.
Lesbianism threatens a fundamental axiom of patriarchal ideology, the dependence of women on men,
No matter how satisfactory a woman's relationship is with another woman, she still has to pay taxes and operate in a largely male-controlled workaday world. Rather, I'd say that lesbianism is no more or less valuable than any other situation--I hope the world will progress toward making it easier for each individual to find expression in many realms, including but not limited to the emotional and sexual.
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.
Naah, I think that most consumers aren't naive enough to mix up a particular entertainment genre with reality. They don't think that they're seeing something accurate about lesbian lives, they're watching some good-looking women have sex together without intervention of (from the heterosexual male spectator's viewpoint) males who are Not Wanted on Voyage.
Slash differs from male-oriented porn in that it does not serve the interests of the prevailing ideology. Quite the reverse, since it challenges the presumed heterosexual norm on which that ideology is
founded.
Furthermore, it roots that challenge within fictional characters who intentionally or otherwise were initially created as representations of
that
ideological norm. 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.
It's not like peasants used to clear minefields (see below)--the magazines are re-usable, not to mention the other equipment.
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. Both are intensely politicised, yet draw short of acknowledging their political dimension (more true for m-o porn than slash, which as has been pointed out can extend beyond the purely pornographic - as and when the writer chooses to do so).
Is slash homophobic? No, I don't think so. The reconstruction of homosexual reality (which, as Shane has asserted time and again, is only tenuously related at best to slash) to suit the preferences of the target audience does not represent a phobic attitude towards homosexuality per
se.
Is it heterosexist? If it were written and read solely by straight women, then I might be inclined to say yes, but this is clearly not so. Oppressive? It seems to me we have one marginalised faction of society
(ie;
women, specifically white, western, largely middle class women, not half
as
marginalised as some) using a smaller and even more marginalised faction (gay men) as a means of deconstructing the myths imposed upon them by a heterosexual and heterosexist patriarchy. Not oppressive as such, perhaps, but the first analogy that springs to mind is the old Red Army practice of using peasants to clear German minefields.
"Lighten up while you still can, Don't even try to understand, Just find a place to make your stand, And take it easy."
-(Y)
----- Original Message ----- From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
Neil said:
It's a comparison I've drawn in the past, and I think it's a very valid
one.
(Well, I would, wouldn't I, having drawn it myself?) Whilst obviously
never
having been privy to real life lesbian relationships, I wouldn't mind betting that the male-oriented porn bears precious little comparison to
the
reality.
Ummm, name an orientation or a paraphilia..porn bears precious little comparison to its reality.
In defense of Neil, I would say that IMO porn by and for lesbians is closer to the realities of lesbian sex than Vampiros Lesbos II.
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.
Perhaps I'm being too modest, but I think you're overstating here.
No, I'm afraid I'm with Neil here. IMO lesbianism, whatever its cause and manifestation, is a threat to patriarchy in that it suggests that women need not be dependent on men for the satisfaction of sexual or social needs. M-O "lesbian" porn effectively reduces this threat down to a wank, and also contains the additional message that lesbianism is something women do as a preliminary act to sleeping with a man, or because there's no man around. Which brings the patriarchy back into the picture.
("My God, Fiona! Where are you getting all this?!?" Simple. I often work till one or two in the morning, I like to have the television on in the background while I work, and Channel 5 is less likely to distract me from the task at hand than BBC2).
Lesbianism threatens a fundamental axiom of patriarchal ideology, the dependence of women on men,
No matter how satisfactory a woman's relationship is with another woman, she still has to pay taxes and operate in a largely male-controlled workaday world. Rather, I'd say that lesbianism is no more or less valuable than any other situation--I hope the world will progress toward making it easier for each individual to find expression in many realms, including but not limited to the emotional and sexual.
I don't like to prioritise one group as more "resistant" than any other (that's the biggest problem I have with Jenkins and Bacon-Smith, btw), but it has to be said that lesbians do provide a challenge to the existing order. In the same way that, for instance, the presence of a Jewish and/or Muslim minority provides an implicit challenge to Christian hegemony in the UK.
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.
Naah, I think that most consumers aren't naive enough to mix up a
particular
entertainment genre with reality. They don't think that they're seeing something accurate about lesbian lives, they're watching some good-looking women have sex together without intervention of (from the heterosexual male spectator's viewpoint) males who are Not Wanted on Voyage.
I dunno, but the most frequent misapprehension I've heard about lesbianism (from both genders) is that they're just misguided women whom sex with a man will "put right," and I suspect they've been getting that message from the pornos.
Side anecdote: for Queer Action Week two years ago, my college screened "Go Fish." The bulk of the audience which turned up was male, straight and rather, ahem, interested-looking-- but most of these had left by midway through the movie when it became apparent to them that "a cutting-edge film about lesbian relationships" didn't mean what they thought it did...
"Lighten up while you still can, Don't even try to understand, Just find a place to make your stand, And take it easy."
If I didn't think it was worthwhile trying to understand other people, I'd never even have sent this e-mail.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Political dynamite at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From: Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk
"My God, Fiona! Where are you getting all this?!?" Simple. I often work till one or two in the morning, I like to have the television on in the background while I work, and Channel 5 is less likely to distract me from the task at hand than BBC2.
Yeah? I don't have a telly, I got it all from reading Spare Rib back in the 80s. I haven't seen a copy for years so I presume they've folded. Shame.
Ahh, nostalgia...
Neil
Fiona wrote:
I dunno, but the most frequent misapprehension I've heard about lesbianism (from both genders) is that they're just misguided women whom sex with a man will "put right," and I suspect they've been getting that message from the pornos.
This always makes me smile, actually. When some idiot bloke starts taking this tack, I'm tempted to point out that, by this argument, the only reason he's not gay is that he hasn't been on the receiving end of sex with a man.
steve
From: Dana Shilling dshilling@worldnet.att.net
"Lighten up while you still can, Don't even try to understand, Just find a place to make your stand, And take it easy."
"Your tactile eyes running over glossy paper, Printed on with tactile lies of glaze and gauze. They say 'Forget yourself, adorn with this disguise' This womanhood of smooth and tampered whores. Let me warn you of their cold sensitivity, They'll have you gathered in a trap of glass. Is your reflection all that you will recognise? That cruel lie will stare you in the face. Wrapped up in haze and flow of bridal gown, They tell your lover he must hold a gun. You're the pornographic reassurance he's a man, They deal with flesh , incarcerate with rags, Red lips, shimmer-silk and body bags, Hairless legs against the blistered napalm burn. I want to rape the substance of your downy hair, In that mist a gutted child fights for air ... Your bondages of silky robes and lace Are the bandages on a bullet-punctured corpse, The layers of precious imitation worn Are the layers of history to suffocate the unborn."
(CRASS, Poison in a Pretty Pill)
Neil
-
Dana Shilling -
Fiona Moore -
Lisa Williams -
Neil Faulkner -
Shane Little -
Steve Kilbane