----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net
Huh? Whassat? I wasn't aware that sweating your
bollocks off in a hot,
noisy factory counted as any kind of academic
discipline.
You're well better up on the biological lit than I am, as you've just demonstrated, which is why I asked you. I'm no academic elitist :). Anyway, at the risk of winding up in one of those discussions in which the biological and the social scientist lock horns over nature/nurture and gets absolutely nowhere, here's a few of my thoughts:
Mate selection in human beings seems far too
complicated for me to want to
bother with, but one of the more interesting takes
on it that I've read
comes out of meme theory. If we think of ourselves
psychologically as a
collection of memes, just as we are physically a
collection of genes, then
partner-seeking will operate to at least some degree
on the basis of memetic
selection.
I'm not up on meme theory so perhaps I'm setting myself up for a fall here-- but I'd bring in as a counterargument Norbert Walter in "Cybernetics" (backed up by Barbara Smuts' primate studies) who argues that partner-seeking exists as much for reasons of social bonding as for producing offspring, if not more. Arguing that we go for the person with the most attractive genes (as Leah says) or memes (as Dawkins says, and which is the more interesting theory, as it explains why the girl prefers the nerd), still excludes the recreational and social aspects of sexual bonding.
etc, all displaying the trendiest memes for their
particular subcoterie. I
don't think anyone would argue that conforming to
prevailing fashion gives
you a head start if you want to get laid.
Actually I would, being someone who tends to go for the nonconformist type :).
Actors are, by profession, imitators. Although we
all perform to some
extent in most of our social interactions,
(I'd argue in most of them-- but that's another discussion)
Actors, at least the good ones, are the best imitators, and by inference
capable of imitating those
'trendiest memes' that one looks for in a partner.
Um, well, debatable. I'm not sure, for instance, that anybody particularly expected Patrick Stewart to become a sex symbol, and frankly I consider Bela Lugosi a very good actor, but I think very few people would choose him as a sex partner even if he weren't forty years in the grave :). Furthermore, actors' desirability and their acting ability are not fixed factors: Peter Cushing started out playing young hunky heroes, but is better known for the sinister villains he played in his fifties onwards, and the actors who seem to inspire the biggest crushes are not always the ones with the best acting/imitating abilities (witness Leonardo DiCaprio).
Additionally, I think Tavia's point about the crush often being either totally or partially a form of identification with the character the actor plays is a good one, and again suggests that the crush is more than a biological phenomenon.
You could say that we are genetically programmed to
develop crushes on
actors!
I would rather say that we are socially conditioned :)-- and repeat that I'm not entirely sure that the function of the crush is purely one related to the propagation of genes....
Successful actors tend to appear in the most
successful films and shows (a
complex interaction of star and vehicle that I can't
be arsed to analyse in
greater depth), and box-office success might be
gauged as a rough barometer
of memetic success - stars of big hits are trendy,
so their memes become
trendy, and hence the stars become desirable
partners. On top of that, stars
tend to be sexually attractive in the physical sense
(though this too is at
least partly memetic, since tastes vary from culture
to culture and over
time).
Which again makes fandom a rather interesting phenomenon. B7, for instance, has a cult following, but I would hardly describe it as a big international hit-- and it's been off the air since 1981, other than the occasional rerun. Which makes the trendiness of its actors' memes a bit questionable, even though we do seem to be sunk in the morass of an early-eighties revival right now (I have nightmares at the thought of the return of the poodle perm).
This is particularly true for actresses,
unfortunately. They pass
their sell-by date all too quickly.
Agreed, though I think that has more to do with social factors-- it seems to be more socially acceptable to view an older man as a sex symbol than an older woman.
So there are several factors directing us towards
developing crushes on
actors: their imitative ability, their physical
desirability, and their
professional success. Is it ever more than a crush?
In the overwhelming
majority of cases, probably not. Nevertheless,
there does seem to be a
small percentage of fans that seem to stake an
unreasonable (and quite
unrealistic) claim on particular actors.
True, and I'd add that this doesn't always have to be sexual, as witness your remark about people expecting actors to read their scripts or whatever.
That emphatic 'No' should be self-evident to
virtually everyone, yet to a
few it would seem not to be. However, two points
that strike me as valid:
- it's not unique to media fandom, as the well
documented phenomenon of
stalking celebrities (or indeed non-celebrities)
attests.
This is also true, which is why I tend to think it has roots in wider cultural trends.
- stalking is a manifestation of social
dysfunctionality that resides
within the stalker, not his or her society or
subculture.
Subculture, perhaps not-- but society, I'd take mild issue with. In some ways one can argue that Western culture perversely encourages celebrity obsession-- stalking cases tend to make the front pages, and in some ways seem to be presented as a measure of a star's success (witness the Doonesbury cartoon in which a fan says to Zonker something along the lines of: "You really made the big time. I heard you even had your own stalker!" and Zonker modestly replies "Well, I had to share one with Ryan O'Neil..."). It is possible to argue that this is just due to the media's fondness for sensationalistic reporting, but on the other hand the media doesn't always act this way: it seems, for instance, that last summer's "News of the World" vigilante attacks were deliberately underreported in order to lessen the chance of the attacks spreading. Exactly *why* this obsession is as much lauded as condemned is a debatable one-- I tend to think it comes down to capitalism, myself (publicity sells more movies, and encouraging obsessive behaviour sells more photographs of Gillian Anderson, etc.), but then I'm aware that not everyone takes the neo-Marxist view.
Paul Darrow has been sent, quite unsolicited,
explicit fan material that he
personally found upsetting, but I don't think fandom
or any particular
aspect of fandom - including slash fic or slash art
- can be held
responsible for that.
Nor do I, but I would argue that such behaviour does not emerge in a vacuum, and it can be interesting to investigate its roots. The same holds for your analogy of your schoolmate mailing top shelf magazines to a woman he fancies-- in a culture with no top-shelf magazines or postal service he wouldn't fancy her less, but he might find another way of expressing his interest (or, in a culture in which displaying outward signs of sexual attraction is seen as unacceptable, not).
However, the top-shelf-mag boy example may not be the most analogous to the actor/slash example which you cited above. For a bloke to send top-shelf mags to a woman is sad, annoying and IMO constitutes sexual harrassment. However, for the bloke to draw nude pictures of that same woman and to send them to her... well, if I was that woman I'd be ringing the police and looking into restraining orders. And if he continues to do this, and to show (even sell!) the pictures to his mates despite her protests... I agree that in both cases these are the actions of a disturbed minority-- but I think that sending slash to Paul Darrow is in a more extreme category than sending girlie mags to a workmate.
Where such dysfunctionality originates, and to what extent the
rest of us collude in
promulgating and/or perpetuating it, is another
question. (And not an
unimportant one.)
Indeed.
Of course, if you don't believe in memes and think
that Dawkins, Blackmore,
Dennett etc are a wunch of bankers, you're not going
to believe any of that.
And likewise, if you think that social scientists are all barking up the wrong tree (or all barking, anyway), I don't expect you to believe a word I've said either.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
____________________________________________________________ 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
From: Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk
but I'd bring in as a counterargument Norbert Walter in "Cybernetics" (backed up by Barbara Smuts' primate studies) who argues that partner-seeking exists as much for reasons of social bonding as for producing offspring, if not more. Arguing that we go for the person with
the
most attractive genes (as Leah says) or memes (as Dawkins says, and which
is
the more interesting theory, as it explains why the girl prefers the
nerd),
still excludes the recreational and social aspects of sexual bonding.
Not really. Sex is a massive con trick that nature pulls on us to get us reproducing. Since we're the only species with the conscious reasoning power to see through the con, the selfish gene has had to get subtle, removing sexual activity from its procreative purpose. It has also come into competition with sexual memes, some of which run directly counter to the gene's interests. There should be, for example, no such thing as a celibacy gene, since it would drive itself to extinction in pretty short order. There is such a thing as a celibacy meme, which can perpetuate itself and survive over generations, as indeed it has.
There may well be a gene which makes an individual disposed to a mindset whose cultural expression - eg; a monastic lifestyle - might include celibacy, but so long as sufficient carriers of that gene fail to follow that disposition then the gene will be passed on.
I don't think anyone would argue that conforming to prevailing fashion gives you a head start if you want to get laid.
Actually I would, being someone who tends to go for the nonconformist type :).
Non-conformity is itself a fashion, with its own memetic expressions to attract potential partners.
Actors, at least the good ones, are the best imitators, and by inference capable of imitating those 'trendiest memes' that one looks for in a
partner.
Um, well, debatable. I'm not sure, for instance, that anybody particularly expected Patrick Stewart to become a sex symbol ... Furthermore, actors' desirability and their acting ability are not fixed factors: Peter Cushing started out playing young hunky heroes, but is
better
known for the sinister villains he played in his fifties onwards, and the actors who seem to inspire the biggest crushes are not always the ones
with
the best acting/imitating abilities (witness Leonardo DiCaprio).
I'd rather not, thanks:) It's certainly not a straightforward equation, Actor = Preferred Bedfellow. That is just one factor among many, including acting ability, and the various factors that induce us to watch a particular presentation. Nevertheless, it is not at all uncommon to cast films on the basis that at least some of the audience will be there to see the star. I've only fallen for it once, and never again (yeah, Sigourney Weaver was good, but the script was crap). When I went to see Saving Private Ryan I ended up sitting behind a group of teenage girls who were not there to see a war movie, indeed some of them were visibly distressed by the on-screen carnage. And crowd-pulling power can of course override acting talent, as in little Leo. He does have all the right memes, give him credit for that.
Peter Cushing? *Hunky*?
Additionally, I think Tavia's point about the crush often being either totally or partially a form of identification with the character the actor plays is a good one, and again suggests that the crush is more than a biological phenomenon.
All part of what you might call the Actor/Character Complex, of which various facets will appeal to different viewers. There are Avon fans who do not follow Paul Darrow's career, Paul Darrow fans to whom Avon is but one of his many performances (though perhaps the most important, since it is mainly through Avon that I suspect people come to encounter PD). As for it being more than biological, which I take to mean genetic (ie; the purely physical, phenotypic manifestation of the actor), then I'd agree. Identifying with a *character* suggests memetic appeal, such as the Avon meme-plex, as immediately visible at conventions with the various people - nearly all if not all of them women - dressed as Avon.
You could say that we are genetically programmed to develop crushes on actors!
I would rather say that we are socially conditioned :)-- and repeat that
I'm
not entirely sure that the function of the crush is purely one related to the propagation of genes....
As I said above, not 'purely', because genes can't work directly. They have to hoodwink us with other satisfactions peripheral to their purpose.
Which again makes fandom a rather interesting phenomenon. B7, for
instance,
has a cult following, but I would hardly describe it as a big
international
hit-- and it's been off the air since 1981, other than the occasional
rerun.
Which makes the trendiness of its actors' memes a bit questionable, even though we do seem to be sunk in the morass of an early-eighties revival right now (I have nightmares at the thought of the return of the poodle perm).
And I look forward to a Kajagoogoo revival:) No, B7 is not a global cultural icon (though another fannish series is, of course, and has capitalised on that in an ... enterprising fashion), it is just a cult, and memetically a very untrendy one in society as a whole. But *within* the cult, things are different (a rather tautological thing to say, since if you don't buy the B7 meme-plex you're hardly going to be within the cult, are you?). Most fans, I think, have been with the series since it first aired and was hence trendier (ie; more firmly located within the memetic landscape of its time).
This is particularly true for actresses, unfortunately. They pass their sell-by date all too quickly.
Agreed, though I think that has more to do with social factors-- it seems to be more socially acceptable to view an older man as
a
sex symbol than an older woman.
There is also a simple biological dimension. Men remain reproductively capable into middle age and beyond, whereas women don't.
Is it ever more than a crush? In the overwhelming majority of cases, probably not. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a small percentage of fans that seem to stake an unreasonable (and quite unrealistic) claim on particular actors.
True, and I'd add that this doesn't always have to be sexual, as witness your remark about people expecting actors to read their scripts or whatever.
All part of the social dimension of sexual bonding, surely? Or at least it can be. If I were to get an actress I fancied (not that there are any) to read my script and she approved it, I would be over the moon in a completely different than if I'd got, say, Chris Boucher to read and approve it.
- stalking is a manifestation of social dysfunctionality that resides
within the stalker, not his or her society or subculture.
Subculture, perhaps not-- but society, I'd take mild issue with.
So would I, actually, but it's a bit too complex to delve into. Stalkers are a by-product of society, along with other undesirables like serial killers and terrorists, but society doesn't set out to create them, and certainly doesn't approve of them having incidentally created them.
Exactly *why* this obsession is as much lauded as condemned is a debatable one-- I tend to think it comes down to capitalism, myself (publicity sells more movies, and encouraging obsessive behaviour sells more photographs of Gillian Anderson, etc.), but then I'm aware that not everyone takes the neo-Marxist view.
I certainly wouldn't deny the importance of economic imperatives, and capitalism is certainly my favourite dumping ground, but I don't think it's the whole story.
However, the top-shelf-mag boy example may not be the most analogous to the actor/slash example which you cited above. For a bloke to send top-shelf mags to a woman is sad, annoying and IMO constitutes sexual harrassment. However, for the bloke to draw nude pictures of that same woman and to send them to her... well, if I was that woman I'd be ringing the police and looking into restraining orders. And if he continues to do this, and to show (even sell!) the pictures to his mates despite her protests... I agree that in both cases these are the actions of a disturbed minority-- but I think that sending slash to Paul Darrow is in a more extreme category than sending girlie mags to a workmate.
Girlie mags are there in abundance, whilst the Paul Darrow Nude Picture Weekly has yet to establish its niche in the marketplace. Surely fans create their own porn precisely because it is not there for them to pick up for a few quid? Had there been no girlie mags available, maybe Sad Bloke would have created his own material.
Your point about restraining orders and such like is interesting, because I have no record of any B7 actor doing this. Perhaps they should. But then maybe a female stalker can't threaten - or seem to threaten - a man in the same way that a male stalker could threaten a woman. And it's a pretty low level of stalking anyway. I've never heard of a B7 fan breaking into an actor's house, pulling a gun on him in the street etc. Though I suppose it could happen.
I should reiterate here that I am *not* trying to suggest that slash fans are a crowd of obsessive stalkers. That would be like saying that every John Lennon fan wanted to blow him away, and Chapman just happened to get in first.
Neil
----- Original Message ----- From: Neil Faulkner N.Faulkner@tesco.net
Arguing that we go for the person with
the
most attractive genes (as Leah says) or memes (as Dawkins says, and
which
is
the more interesting theory, as it explains why the girl prefers the
nerd),
still excludes the recreational and social aspects of sexual bonding.
Not really. Sex is a massive con trick that nature pulls on us to get us reproducing. Since we're the only species with the conscious reasoning power to see through the con, the selfish gene has had to get subtle, removing sexual activity from its procreative purpose.
Probably sticking my neck out here... but what about Norbert Weiner's assertion that non-procreative activity also assists reproduction, by providing the social environment in which the offspring may grow to maturity? IIRC his (deterministic) explanation of homosexuality was that if some members of the tribe were not physically reproducing, this left them freer to care for their siblings/cousins/etc. children (suggesting that Clause 28 is actually operating against the species' interests...). He then explained that this perpetuated the gene for homosexuality [NOTE: I'm not personally convinced that there is a "gay gene." But Weiner was, and so I'm merely repeating his argument], because the relatives of the homosexual, who shared his/her genetic material, were better able to have their children survive than those without, hence the passing on of the gene.
It has also come
into competition with sexual memes, some of which run directly counter to the gene's interests. There should be, for example, no such thing as a celibacy gene, since it would drive itself to extinction in pretty short order. There is such a thing as a celibacy meme, which can perpetuate itself and survive over generations, as indeed it has.
Again, though, one can argue for the social benefits of celibacy in some individuals as making for the greater survival of the whole unit-- and hence the genes (a celibate priesthood, for instance, being better able to arbitrate disputes between families). I seem to recall my first physical anthropology instructor saying that, speaking purely genetically, it didn't matter if one's own genes weren't passed on, provided the genes of two of one's siblings, or four of one's cousins, or eight of one's second-cousins...(etc)... were passed on.
I don't think anyone would argue that conforming to prevailing fashion gives you a head start if you want to get laid.
Actually I would, being someone who tends to go for the nonconformist type :).
Non-conformity is itself a fashion, with its own memetic expressions to attract potential partners.
Touche! But what I mean is, I think it's still a lot more complicated than simply "individual with the best [whatever] gets their [whatever] passed on to the next generation."
Actors, at least the good ones, are the best imitators, and by
inference
capable of imitating those 'trendiest memes' that one looks for in a
partner.
Um, well, debatable. I'm not sure, for instance, that anybody
particularly
expected Patrick Stewart to become a sex symbol ... Furthermore, actors' desirability and their acting ability are not fixed factors: Peter Cushing started out playing young hunky heroes, but is
better
known for the sinister villains he played in his fifties onwards, and
the
actors who seem to inspire the biggest crushes are not always the ones
with
the best acting/imitating abilities (witness Leonardo DiCaprio).
I'd rather not, thanks:) It's certainly not a straightforward equation, Actor = Preferred Bedfellow. That is just one factor among many,
including
acting ability, and the various factors that induce us to watch a
particular
presentation.
Agreed. I think there's a lot of factors working to promote the crush, biological and social.
Nevertheless, it is not at all uncommon to cast films on the
basis that at least some of the audience will be there to see the star. I've only fallen for it once, and never again (yeah, Sigourney Weaver was good, but the script was crap).
Yeah, I saw that one too, and for similar reasons I think :). Again, though, this isn't always or necessarily a sexual thing. I think a lot of the people who went to see Copland simply because Sylvester Stallone was in it were actually heterosexual men.
And crowd-pulling power can of course override acting talent, as
in little Leo. He does have all the right memes, give him credit for
that.
Well, if you're a teenage or prepubescent girl, certainly :).
Peter Cushing? *Hunky*?
He was actually quite cute when he was a callow youth, although more in the Valentino than the Schwarzenegger range.
All part of what you might call the Actor/Character Complex, of which various facets will appeal to different viewers. There are Avon fans who
do
not follow Paul Darrow's career, Paul Darrow fans to whom Avon is but one
of
his many performances (though perhaps the most important, since it is
mainly
through Avon that I suspect people come to encounter PD). As for it being more than biological, which I take to mean genetic (ie; the purely
physical,
phenotypic manifestation of the actor), then I'd agree. Identifying with
a
*character* suggests memetic appeal, such as the Avon meme-plex, as immediately visible at conventions with the various people - nearly all if not all of them women - dressed as Avon.
I think you're absolutely right-- the appeal of the character/actor is varied, and whatever some may think Avon/Paul Darrow's appeal doesn't come down to simply wanting to shag him-- Avon is the favourite character of more than one heterosexual man of my acquaintance, and Chris Boucher liked Avon because he was "fun to write for, and Paul always did the lines properly."
I'm
not entirely sure that the function of the crush is purely one related
to
the propagation of genes....
As I said above, not 'purely', because genes can't work directly. They
have
to hoodwink us with other satisfactions peripheral to their purpose.
Haven't asked them, so I'll take your word on it :). Again, though, this supports the notion of factors other than the reproductive intervening in the crush.
hit-- and it's been off the air since 1981, other than the occasional
rerun.
Which makes the trendiness of its actors' memes a bit questionable, even though we do seem to be sunk in the morass of an early-eighties revival right now (I have nightmares at the thought of the return of the poodle perm).
And I look forward to a Kajagoogoo revival:)
NOOOOO!!!
No, B7 is not a global cultural icon (though another fannish series is, of course, and has capitalised on that in an ... enterprising fashion),
Though it can be interesting to look at what happened to That Series before it hit the mainstream-- and its fandom appears to have had a strong influence on the cultural expression of some sectors of B7 fans.
it is just a cult, and
memetically a very untrendy one in society as a whole. But *within* the cult, things are different (a rather tautological thing to say, since if
you
don't buy the B7 meme-plex you're hardly going to be within the cult, are you?).
Yes, but people are within the cult of B7 for diverse reasons, and interpret its raison d'etre in different ways. One of the interesting things that Bacon-Smith says is that sexualised and romantic fanfic did not appear in (American) B7 fandom until B7 was broadcast on mainstream American televison (as opposed to distributed within a circle of video-traders), and attracted the attention of fans of other series whose established genres of fanfic tended more towards the romantic/sexual. Now, I've heard her called on a lot of things but not on this-- and from what I've seen of discussion on this lyst there does seem to exist divides between different groups of fans with different agendas vis-a-vis B7: CJ versus non CJ, slash fan versus gen fan, etc. etc. So basically we may watch the same show, but I'm not sure we're subscribing to the same ideology.
Most fans, I think, have been with the series since it first aired and was hence trendier (ie; more firmly located within the memetic
landscape
of its time).
Um, I'd want a show of hands on this. I suspect that most of the North American contingent here saw it on a later release, if not through the video-trading underground-- IIRC the original North American release was also about five years after the end of the series. I personally wasn't introduced to it until about ten years after its original airing, and there are several people in OU Doctor Who Society who had only vaguely heard of B7 before we started showing it as a second feature (and who are now serious fans).
This is particularly true for actresses, unfortunately. They pass their sell-by date all too quickly.
Agreed, though I think that has more to do with social factors-- it seems to be more socially acceptable to view an older man
as
a
sex symbol than an older woman.
There is also a simple biological dimension. Men remain reproductively capable into middle age and beyond, whereas women don't.
In defense of my sex, I would say that we *are* reproductively capable well into our forties, whereas the cutoff age for actresses seems to be about 25 these days <grouse!>.
Is it ever more than a crush? In the overwhelming majority of cases, probably not. Nevertheless, there does seem to be
a
small percentage of fans that seem to stake an unreasonable (and quite unrealistic) claim on particular actors.
True, and I'd add that this doesn't always have to be sexual, as witness your remark about people expecting actors to read their scripts or whatever.
All part of the social dimension of sexual bonding, surely? Or at least
it
can be. If I were to get an actress I fancied (not that there are any) to read my script and she approved it, I would be over the moon in a
completely
different than if I'd got, say, Chris Boucher to read and approve it.
A case of different meme-plexes, perhaps. I'd say that I'd be over the moon in both cases, but for very different reasons.
- stalking is a manifestation of social dysfunctionality that resides
within the stalker, not his or her society or subculture.
Subculture, perhaps not-- but society, I'd take mild issue with.
So would I, actually, but it's a bit too complex to delve into. Stalkers are a by-product of society, along with other undesirables like serial killers and terrorists, but society doesn't set out to create them, and certainly doesn't approve of them having incidentally created them.
True, but as I said I think that, like illegal immigration and crime, it's in society's interest not to stamp it out entirely. As somebody pointed out with regard to illegal immigration, it would be entirely possible for many governments to seal the border (witness how fast the Irish border got sealed in the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which caused a Northern Irish colleague to comment sourly that they were more concerned about the livestock than about the terrorists), but they content themselves with the odd raid. Similarly, it could be equally possible for a concerted effort to eliminate or strongly reduce stalking behaviour.
Exactly *why* this obsession is as much lauded as condemned is a debatable one-- I tend to think it comes down
to
capitalism, myself (publicity sells more movies, and encouraging
obsessive
behaviour sells more photographs of Gillian Anderson, etc.), but then
I'm
aware that not everyone takes the neo-Marxist view.
I certainly wouldn't deny the importance of economic imperatives, and capitalism is certainly my favourite dumping ground, but I don't think
it's
the whole story.
What do you think the rest of it is then? Individual psychology, the capitalist imperative, the commodification of the individual in a postmodern culture, and....?
that in both cases these are the actions of a disturbed minority-- but I think that sending slash to Paul Darrow is in a more extreme category than sending girlie mags to a workmate.
Girlie mags are there in abundance, whilst the Paul Darrow Nude Picture Weekly has yet to establish its niche in the marketplace.
Watch it, you'll give them ideas :).
Surely fans create their own porn precisely because it is not there for them to pick
up
for a few quid? Had there been no girlie mags available, maybe Sad Bloke would have created his own material.
Maybe, but it does also suggest that more effort and thought went into its production than just buying a mag-- and a greater degree of obsession with one individual. Thing is, when Sad Bloke sent his workmate the girlie mags, they were not pictures of *her,* but of women in general. Sad Fan is not sending Paul Darrow a copy of Hot Male Action, she's sending him a picture of himself specifically, which is on a different level of, shall we say, intimacy.
Your point about restraining orders and such like is interesting, because
I
have no record of any B7 actor doing this. Perhaps they should.
Well, we've got no information on this, anyway; after all, it's not something either party would broadcast.
But then maybe a female stalker can't threaten - or seem to threaten - a man in the same way that a male stalker could threaten a woman.
I'd agree with the "seem to" bit anyway. I'm sure it's just as irritating/distressing for a man to be stalked as for a woman, but it does get rather less attention, and frequently seems to be treated as a joke, or in a "you should be flattered she likes you" sort of way.
Anyway, there's more than just actors in the series-- there's actresses, and it was mentioned on the lyst not long ago that one of them *was* stalked at an American convention.
And it's a pretty low level of stalking anyway. I've never heard of a B7 fan breaking into an actor's house, pulling a gun on him in the street etc. Though I suppose
it
could happen.
Oh, possibly :). But low level or not, if what you're doing is causing somebody distress, and you're not stopping doing it-- well, I'm sure it's pretty upsetting. The woman can always call her boss and have her coworker disciplined or fired for sending her girlie mags-- an actor can't exactly do much about sick fans except ask them to stop it and hope that they'll listen.
I should reiterate here that I am *not* trying to suggest that slash fans are a crowd of obsessive stalkers. That would be like saying that every John Lennon fan wanted to blow him away, and Chapman just happened to get
in
first.
I'll second that reiteration. The ones who actually send him pictures, though... geez.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Fiona Moore -
Neil Faulkner