In a message dated 3/25/01 4:09:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, Ashton7@aol.com writes:
<< Exactly. It is an insult and I certainly took it that way. Calling slash "character assassination" is also more likely to be perceived as an insult than an opening to a discussion. And then folks wonder why lists like Freedom City have to exist and why there can't be open discussion among fans about slash. Personally, I don't give a flying flip if someone else doesn't like slash, whatever their reasons. It's not like anyone is forcing you to read said "character assassination" against your will. If you don't like it, don't read it. Problem solved. >>
What has me scratching my head is the sheer intensity of the emotion against slash in B7 by those who find it morally negative. For those who base their belief system on the bible, Jesus said much more about adultery and fornication in general than he ever expressed about homosexuality. Where are the comments of disgust about Avon clearly having an affair with a married woman? He wasn't exactly under the influence of sand. I get the odd feeling that there is no outrage or discomfort over this part of his history because it's heterosexual in nature. Western society's phobia with same-sex encounters still draws a disproportionate reaction.
Leah
Spent some time reading things about the net on Meme theory expecting to get into a discussion on that, but coming back and finding this, I have to shelf my discussion hopes for the moment, because it was my original post about Og that lead to this point. I feel I should say something.
Annie Wrote:
Exactly. It is an insult and I certainly took it
that way. Calling slash "character assassination" is also more likely to be perceived as an insult than an opening to a discussion.<<
Actually, I very much doubt that insulting people was Kathryns intention. I find it amazing that people are not allowed to air their views without others jumping on them and labelling them...it would have been so easy for me to have phrased my objections to the post about Og et al in a manner that would have been less than diplomatic, especially when you consider that I found the concept rather more than just plain 'Ugh.'
What sincerely rankles is the term homophobia being applied in this context: I, myself, am not the slightest bit homophobic but I object to slash in the B7 universe simply because this type of relationship was not a part of the B7 story(with possible notable exceptions to a couple of one off characters)I do believe that this is what Kathryn meant by character assassination - taking her outlook as a personal insult instead of airing your own views on the subject is what brings a possible discussion on this matter to a screaming halt.
It's not like anyone is forcing you to read said
"character assassination" against your will. If you don't like it, don't read it. Problem solved.<<
If most people's objections are to the very concept of Avon, Blake et al being placed in a style of relationship that is not an established part of their characters, then simply not reading the genre does not solve the "problem" - it's shutting your eyes from something that you find disturbing but are not willing to try a voice something over - I find that more reprehensible than anything. For me personally, I have read slash to try to see things from your POV - However; I find after having done so, I simply cannot do that.
Leah Wrote:
What has me scratching my head is the sheer
intensity of the emotion against slash in B7 by those who find it morally negative. For those who base their belief system on the bible, Jesus said much more about adultery and fornication in general than he ever expressed about homosexuality. Where are the comments of disgust about Avon clearly having an affair with a married woman?<<
Difficult for me to answer this, as I have never read the bible - I don't believe in organised religion, ironically enough, I do believe in the possibility of Jesus Christ and the concept of a God though.
Before we start quoting from the bible though, I must point out that this book was written by man and therefore is open to subjectivity. As for fornication etc...if you are going to use that argument - considering your words, I will assume that Jesus Christ spoke on both subjects but more so on fornication - considering that he was against fornication, this lumps homosexuality in on his views - there were no same sex marriages back then and no matter how hard you try, same sex relationships are not going to produce offspring, therefore using your argument, homosexual activities are fornication.
As for the adultery issue - difficult to respond again, as I see nothing wrong with sex outside of mariage, having witnessed many a sham passing as a marriage...however; I will give it a shot: Maybe, there is disgust in this area...Avon does indeed have his detractors...but for those who object to adultery and still like Avon, it is possible that adultery is viewed in many ways and some may only view the married person as committing adultery - and it was Anna who was married, not Avon.(although, the dictionary does define it as being a sexual act between a married person and someone other than the spouse).
I would like to add some more of my own personal thoughts on this.
Someone mentions that they don't particularly like slash. Someone else mentions that they think it is a sin. Someone else takes this personally and labels us homophobics...I'm tired of labels:
If I don't like a person, you can bet your last dollar that I don't like them because of their character not because of their size, shape, colour, sexual orientation or religion. I don't like slash in the B7 universe because it is assigning a definite sexual persuasion to characters that is contrary to their characters as portrayed - regarding it as a sin by others is their right, you can argue that point but taking offense is not allowing those people the right to their views...It occurs to me that quickly assigning labels to people who have the audacity to not share your views is one way of belittling a persons viewpoint rather than taking a rational stand for your own.
Maybe some people object, simply because this is not their preferred lifestyle and we object not to homosexuality itself but the insinuation that all heterosexual people have a homosexual personality lurking beneath the supposedly murky depths of institutionally based morals.
===== Cheryl. (My favourite 'Blake's 7' moment) What a fiasco! We could take over the ship you said, if I did my bit. Well, I did my bit, and what happened? Your 'troops' bumble around looking for someone to surrender to, and when they've succeeded, You, follow suit! (Avon to Blake. "Spacefall")
_____________________________________________________________________________ http://calendar.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Calendar - Access your appointments and meetings online.
On top of my other post, lots of things:
Homophobia: as long as you're polite about it, you can be as homophobic as you like. If it means that someone isn't going to talk to me, great; do you really think I would want to talk to someone who is so strong in their belief they would shut another person out of their life? Don't think that means I'll ignore them, however.
Kat's post: she didn't compare gay sex to massacres, she used a contextual comparison that was apparently misunderstood. Her post is actually quite well worded, I could see it's meaning and her intent straight away. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but that's not up for discussion here.
Gay lifestyle: No such thing. There's a stereotypical gay man, which is probably about 10% of the gay population, and then there's the rest. A great many people that are straight do exactly what gay men that have this "gay lifestyle" do, but because they're not gay, it's not seen that way.
Choices: Interesting debate. Do we choose to be gay? Straight? Christian? Religious? Nice? Nasty? Or is it just the way we are? I would ask those that believe that gay people who feel that they are fundamentally gay and have no choice should "choose" not to exercise those feelings and desires and instead lead a "straight" life. To go against one's nature is perversion. Wait, doesn't the bible say something about that? The same argument applies to a multitude of things. You only get a short time here, I'd make the most of it if I were you. Whatever other gods might do, my god wouldn't persecute someone for loving and caring for others. Sex doesn't even come into it.
Blake's 7: What the writers intended? Who really knows but the writer? Did all the B7 series writers intend the same thing? (Harvest of Kairos anyone?) In the case of fandom we probably have a good idea of what the writers intended through interviews & conventions. But a huge part of any art form is interpretation, both by the performer, where one exists, and the viewer. What you see is coloured by who you are; I would say that most if not all creative people know and understand this relationship. Doesn't mean they have to like it though.
Peter.
Leah wrote:
What has me scratching my head is the sheer intensity of the emotion against slash in B7 by those who find it morally negative. For those who base their belief system on the bible, Jesus said much more about adultery and fornication in general than he ever expressed about homosexuality.
That wouldn't be difficult. Jesus didn't mention homosexuality (or if he did none of the Evangelists bothered to record his words). The NT figure who disapproved of homosexuality was St Paul. There's quite a lively debate in some Christian circles as to whether St Paul's disapproval is binding on everyone else.
Where are the comments of disgust about Avon clearly having an affair with a married woman? He wasn't exactly under the influence of sand. I get the odd feeling that there is no outrage or discomfort over this part of his history because it's heterosexual in nature. Western society's phobia with same-sex encounters still draws a disproportionate reaction.
Two answers to that. As far as Avon is concerned, his relationship with Anna is canonical whether or not one disapproves of it or not. Slash is not canonical, or to avoid rehashing the arguments with which we are all familliar, canonical to quite the same degree - some here see Avon and Blake smouldering with suppressed sexual tension, others (including me) don't. I think that everyone agrees that Avon was having a sexual relationship with Anna whilst she was married. Now if one dislikes slash, one may feel that Avon and Blake have been 'hijacked' as it were. It would be difficult to argue that Chris Boucher hijacked Avon.
As far as the wider issue is concerned I suspect the heat/ light ratio generated by any discussion of changes to the sexual status quo is related to the fact that the matter strikes at the heart of one's personal identity. Mary Midgeley made the point that the debate over womens emancipation caused a reaction that was little short of hysterical because people felt personally threatened by the changes. When they actually happened people adapted to them with a minimum of fuss. I leave the philosophical reader to draw any parallels that may or may not be appropriate !
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
-
Bizarro7＠aol.com -
Cheryl _ -
Kerry Hale -
Peter Borg (Lysator) -
Stephen Date