Should (straight/lesbian/etc) women be 'allowed' to write slash?

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Meta
Title: Should (straight/lesbian/etc) women be 'allowed' to write slash?
Creator: xtricks
Date(s): January 13, 2010
Medium: Livejournal post
Fandom:
Topic:
External Links: Should (straight/lesbian/etc) women be 'allowed' to write slash?, Archived version
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Should (straight/lesbian/etc) women be 'allowed' to write slash? is a 2010 Livejournal post by xtricks.

It has 87 comments

For additional context, see Timeline of Slash Meta and Slash Meta.

Some Topics Discussed

The Post

This is a question that's been floating to the top of fandom meta recently. It's generating heat on all sides. It is also the wrong question. I believe, firmly, that women (and anyone else) should write/create what they're moved to create. I also belive that women (and others) grappling with the craptastic messages that our culture sends about sexuality and sex and desire and etc is also important.

I've been thinking on this issue for years and it's taken me a very long time to even begin to be able to articulate what I think and feel. Keep in mind I am still working out my thoughts on yaoi and this essay is almost exclusively about m/m stories – not femslash.

Like many gay men, there are times when 'slash' makes me uncomfortable. I'm even more uncomfortable with the recent flood of m/m profic. Which is very awkward because I write slash. I read slash. I write for a slash audience – meaning (mostly) straight women – and many of them are my fannish friends. In addition, I don't consume much in the way of 'traditional' gay porn, though x-tube is slowly changing that for me. So, saying slash makes me uncomfortable at times sounds to me pretty hypocritical.

Since I don't imagine myself as a hypocrite, I had to do some serious digesting to figure out what was bothering me. After posting some tl;dr in evildrem's journal, I think I know why – or at least some of why.

Let's start with history. I'm 44 years old. I remember 'life before AIDs' and gay male expectations, fantasies and so on before AIDs kind of forced queer issues deep into the public discourse. Believe it or not, despite at least one claim of 'women invented the m/m genre', there was male queer fiction out there. Some of it was even romantic. Gordon Merrik's work is nearly indistinguishable from modern slash in style. One of his first stories, an explicit gay romance with size queen cocks and melodramatic gestures by the matching blond protagonists (one, of course, a virgin before meeting his soul mate) was on the NY Times bestseller list for weeks. The fact that it was on the bestseller lists (which is based on book sales) pretty much cinches the fact that non-queer people were reading explicit gay porn even if actual gay men™ wrote it.

Gay male fiction existed before women were overtly and publicly interested in it (with occasional exceptions like Merrik) – especially in writing it. It was a niche market, perhaps this is why some people imagine it didn't exist – you couldn't find m/m work in most bookstores (still can't, generally). The assumption was that m/m fiction was read only by gay men and such work was packaged, marketed and sold in venues that gay men were imagined to frequent. Usually porn stores. This work was intended for a gay male audience, most of it was written by gay men assuming other gay men would read it (this doesn't mean other people weren't reading it, obv). It was a small market because, basically, there just aren't that many gay men in the world compared to straight men, or straight women, and because providing services and goods to a queer market involves acknowledging they exist, something that society didn't want to do for a long time. Hobby or non-professional writing was the same, gay men wrote on the assumption that other gay men were reading it.

The fact that ½ of the general population is female is actually kind if critical to my thinking. Even if not all women read m/m work (even if it's ½ of women, or 1/4th or less) it's still much higher number of women in the world than gay men.

So … when the suppression of women's voice in regards to their own sexuality eases a bit and it's discovered that one of the things that women like is m/m romantic/sex/whatever fiction, what happens? The majority audience for m/m fiction becomes women, not gay men.

The m/m fiction genre (especially the pro field) is increasingly perceived as another 'women's genre'. Its presumed market (professional or fannish) is women, and it's aimed at attracting and satisfying women's needs and wants. Women and gay men have many things common but they are not the same. The assumptions women have about the world because of their experiences are not the same as gay men's, the issues they are exploring about sexuality and relationships, desire and power dynamics are not the same as gay men's. They're valid, important issues, but they're not the same – and they're not any less or more important than the issues and needs gay men have. Stories about gay men become appropriated by (mostly straight) women to be stories about them – but using proxies. The problem is that the proxies, unlike the N'avi, are real people. Those real people – an already vulnerable minority - can be harmed when the majority uses their likeness to tell stories that really aren't about them at all.

My discomfort about slash (or m/m fiction) isn't that women are writing it, reading it, making it popular or anything else – I have absolutely no problem at all with all my friends, or anyone else, writing slash (or any other genre for that matter). It's the assimilation of a part of gay men's voice to satisfy a different group's needs and the loss of that voice for gay men (via simply drowning out a minority voice with a much larger voice).

It's not a zero sum game, it's not the presence of women in m/m fiction, it's the loss of gay men in it. Slash is also not an educational genre, there's no requirement that women, or men – gay or straight – carefully research the details of gay life in the 1970s (though it would be nice, sometimes) before putting pen to paper. But queers, gay men or women, or bisexuals or whoever do have every right to be concerned by, and question, the use of their images and lives as fodder for the majority group's fears and fantasies.

Which in some ways, makes me think about why I write slash (as opposed to 'standard' gay porn) – I grew up on Merrik's work, it was desperately important to me – as an isolated gay kid – to make me feel less like a freak. My voice remains important. Plus, like I like it.

Some Comments at the Post

[ verasteine ]

Huh. I've been saying things along the same lines although from an obviously very, very different perspective, and I think that, and this won't happen immediately because we're slow to catch up if anything, there needs to be a delineation between m/m romance, and slash, with the latter being a fantasy product that has nothing to with actuality. Kind of like lesbian porn for straight men, really. I get, wholly, your discomfort with someone else appropriating your culture. Yet I can't argue against women writing slash because I refuse to censor female (and my own) voices. But there has to be a distinction between something that's just to get me off or make me smile, and something that's a part of who you are, because they are not the same thing and should not ever be tried to be made the same thing. I don't know if that makes sense, but there it is.

[ xtricks ]

Yeah, that's why this issue is so complicated. I don't think anyone should stop writing whatever, either. And, obv, I *like* slash. Some of the issues around it and that it brings up can be difficult though - but also fertile ground for discussion.

[ alba17 ]

Sorry to butt in - playing devil's advocate here - isn't "something that's just to get me off" actually "a part of who you are"? I mean, the difference between gay and straight people is what gets them off, after all.

[verasteine]

I'm sitting here wondering if that's a semantic argument, but do a degree you're right, because I do consider my interest in slash a part of my (sexual) identity. But. I think there's an intrinsic difference between a kink and a sexual orientation. I don't feel comfortable assigning labels or projecting emotions on to our esteemed host, but I would think that someone telling me that my kink is damaging their representation in society, their ability to stand up for and contribute to their intrinsic human rights is not on the same par as someone telling me my sexual orientation is harshing their squee. So, erm, let's see if I can summarise, yes, it's part of who I am, but it's a facet of a whole, while my sexual orientation is the starting point (for me) for all things sexual and intimate. I think.

[alba17]

Well, that makes sense, yeah. Kink vs. orientation. Thanks for articulating that - I think I was fumbling towards that. I would say that's true for me too, it's a kink. I don't really have an orientation particularly, but that's neither here nor there. I know most people do. This is all an interesting issue (straight women writing m/m slash), I'm not sure what I think about any of it. I read several posts about this, including yours, but didn't leave any other comments, just because I'm not sure what I think. I enjoy reading your thoughts because you're so articulate (and I'm not, LOL).

[ queerbychoice ]

"I mean, the difference between gay and straight people is what gets them off, after all." If there were no such thing as homophobia, that would be "the" difference between gay and straight people. But in the real world, at least as big a difference between gay and straight people is their experience of homophobia.

[ curriejean ]

"So … when the suppression of women's voice in regards to their own sexuality eases a bit and it's discovered that one of the things that women like is m/m romantic/sex/whatever fiction, what happens? The majority audience for m/m fiction becomes women, not gay men."

The last decade of my fannish life now completes its turn onto its head, in a way that makes me laugh at myself. I discovered slash at fifteen, and thought the writers I was reading were gay men, and thought I was the only female ever interested, and of course it turned out it was written by women (a pair of lesbians in this case), which I found special and awesome and strange. Later, I subscribed to a female slash writer's original work, which was advertised as being written for women, which I thought was cool and new and likely a representation of a minority, and it felt a bit feminist.

I lost interest due to the this-one-is-the-wife thing the writer indulged in -- and wow, of COURSE I was all wrong about female interest being minority interest, considering the statistics.

Makes me feel a little bit guilty, too. :/ I do not want to be one of the people messing up this nice house.

"Which in some ways, makes me think about why I write slash (as opposed to 'standard' gay porn)"

It's stupid-question time. I have to ask it. What's the difference? I mean, assuming the writer would be you either way.

[ missdeanna ]

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about women writing gay men in stories that aren't slash, or aren't intended as slash? And what does slash mean to you as a genre, as opposed to gay porn or gay fiction?

Slash is one of the more difficult things for me to reconcile with in fandom. I pretty much agree with what you've said, and I'm discomforted by some of the stuff that goes down.

But also, it's a little hard for me to relate to, and I've never been really comfortable with what I write being seen as slash, or the fact that any story in fandom that has gay characters is regarded as slash. I don't really see myself as a slash fan/writer. For that matter, I don't really see my original fic as being slash or LGBT fiction, even though I tend to come up with a lot of characters who are LGBT. Even when I write porn, the gender and sexual orientation of the participants is, for the most part, a secondary concern for me. To me, there's a difference between writing slash (or even gay-themed fiction) and writing stories about gay characters. It takes some care and respect either way.

Because of this, I've treated writing gay men like I've treated writing other characters from backgrounds that are different than mine. At the same time, I try to apply a similar amount of respect and consideration to writing queer women, because I don't think that being one gives me an excuse to ignore the sort of messages I send, or how other queer women will react to my writing.

[xtricks]

Well, there's the issue of terminology – as you can see in some other thread, what 'slash', 'm/m', 'gay fiction' etc means varies.

For me, slash is generally non-pro work based off of existing media creations that focuses on same sex relationships or characters and the queerness of the story is visible, even if it's not the entire focus.

I *thought* m/m meant any work, pro or hobby, that featured male characters in a sexual, romantic or prominent light. Evidently, the e-publishing industry is using it to mean romance novels aimed at a (presuemed) straight female audience written by (presumably) straight women. While I'm not sure I'm happy with that definition, language is language and if that definition becomes the norm then it becomes the norm.

It would be *nice* if the existence of a queer character in a story didn't mean the entire story was defiend as 'gay' but that's an issue of prejudiece. It was one of the things that made Torchwood so appealing to me. Prominent queer content but the show wasn't defined as a queer show.

[missdeanna]

Yeah, the terminology is what gets me. I see slash pretty much like you do. But I feel like it's a term with so many different (and sometimes troubling) meanings and assumptions attached to it that I'm not really comfortable with it.

I would like to see slash (and m/m) have more of a broader meaning where gay men set the standard, so I'm kind of glad that there are guys who use those terms for their writing.

But being someone who was admittedly raised female and who has a deceptively feminine username, I kind of want to distance myself from the assumptions about why women write slash, not only because I find the appropriation troubling, but I can't relate well to the assumed motivations.

I, too, would prefer it if queer characters did not define a story as "gay." In practice, it's hard (and maybe not always best) to treat it like it doesn't have consequence.

[droolfangrrl]

My first response to the question "Should (straight/lesbian/etc) women be 'allowed' to write slash?" is to laugh my face off. I agree with the answer to your rhetorical question whole heartedly.

Second, you're a guy? Cool! So that's like two, no three confirmed guys that I know that writes good fan fic on LJ that's good to read. Seriously, I can't tell unless somebody says so. I guess that means that my GUYdar stinks on ice.

HAH! We are the same age, go figure.

Well then the only solution is to encourage more gay men to write slash?

Hmmm, what's the diff between slash and gay porn? Seriously, the site that comes to mind first as probably / possibly written by men is nifty, and to be honest I don't read nifty much anymore, 'cause most of the writing there sucks.

[ tarchannon ]

I'm also a gay man that writes fanfic, though I'd leave an estimation of quality to the reader (as always). :P We very much DO exist.

[ 51stcenturyfox ]

I am sometimes thinking there is a distinction between slash (in fanfic) as in "slashing two characters who aren't gay in canon" and "writing about characters who happen to be LGBT". Distinction there? At all? Did this come out of fevered dream? :)

[xtricks]

Ah, the etymology of 'slash' and other fandom words. The assumed meaning of 'slash' has changed rapidly – even within my time writing it. The meaning it had when I started, back in the day before LJ and blogs and so on was male/male homoerotic or homoromantic fiction based on copywritten (or public domain) media characters. This would be Holmes/Watson and Start Trek TOS (and Blakes 7?). It didn't seem to include f/f or original work – because lesbian fiction was still mostly invisible and original work was considered 'gay fiction' for gay men. It also didn't include gender of author or reader because much of this happened back in the mimeo days and there was also a lot of anonyminity/male pen name going on (this, in turn, due to the early days assumption that 'women didn't read/write that stuff').

Later slash seemed to expand to include f/f work but was still limited to media characters, not original work, and not heterosexual pairings. It also became some weird and disgusting thing those girl fans did. And faggots, neither of which belonged in many genres like sci-fi or cop shows. There was quite an uproar for years about this and it still agitates uneasy male fans.

Most recently, I'm seeing the term 'slash' applied to any homoerotic work – original or fannish – and in venues that are not strictly fannish (ie: small presses that specialize in m/m work aimed at a female audience). Whether it applies to f/f work seems to be still up in the air.

I'm also seeing the term yaoi move out of the anime fandoms into western based fandoms so there will be authors in the x-men fandom defining a wolverine/Cyclops work as yaoi etc.

Evidently, and I didn't know this until I saw it in a comment on this post, some people define 'm/m' as a genre of original homoerotic/romantic work that is aimed at (and generally written by) women. In a totally 'I haven't digested the idea yet' way, I find that irritating. Like I said, I haven't had time to really think about that though and I understand that some of the reasoning behind it is trying to find away to define the genre of original male/male homoerotic work that is intended for a female audience. What I mean by 'm/m' is any work that features a homoerotic or romantic male/male pairing, weather or not it's professional or fannish created. I think of slash as any homoerotic or romantic work that is drawn from media characters (whether or not the characters are canonically queer or not).

The terminology is in flux and so different people have different meanings for the same words.

[tarchannon]

Yeah... it's a bit muddled. 'Slash' came from the slash between the canonical Kirk/Spock - originally denoting a non-canon male same sex pairing. And yes, the K/S stuff (as made famous) was originally written by straight women (though the audience wasn't necessarily specific). Of course, slash fic existed before then, it just wasn't famous or had a nifty name. :P the slash between m/m or f/f, for instance, is an entirely differentusage for an entirely different thing. And as with XT, I've never seen anyone else claim m/m is slash fiction for women by women - and I've been reading slash online since before there was a WWW - back in the age of DOS prompts, Archie, dial-up message boards, and line commands. I, too, would be very uncomfortable with m/m meaning something other than a male/male relationship of some sort.

[ lexin ]

the K/S stuff (as made famous) was originally written by straight women Well, sort of. I've been reading slash since the late 80's when it was only in zines, the first slash convention I attended was in 1990 and I was surprised then how many lesbians there were who read and wrote slash. I really hadn't been expecting it. I was also surprised how many slash fans there were, I'd been expecting me, three other people and a dog and there were about 100 people - including two men.

[tarchannon]

Actually, there is no quibble with what I said; your comments are later in time than mine. As XT noted, gay men were writing gay fic and slash (not called 'slash' yet) ages ago, with some being published in the 1920s (or earlier). The original usage of the term 'slash' (which is what that line was referring to) was derived from the canonical Kirk/Spock pairing (the 'slash' coming from the slash between the names). This was back in the late 60's early 70's and was a straight female group sharing stories amongst themselves (and soon after others, via 'zines). By the period you mention (around the same time I started reading slash), things were much more diversified, and slash was readily available via dial-up message board and the pre-web internet. In the case of, say TNG or even Star Trek Voyager slash, there were *plenty* of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals participating in both writing and reading. That has not changed, though it does very much vary by fandom. In short, in the particular situation when slash was named, it was a straight female writing for straight female situation, though that is just the situaiton of the naming of the genre - clearly slash existed with a more open suite of writers and readers both before and after.

[tarchannon]

That's the problem (or rather a point of conflict) - something can't be 'slash' and original fiction. Slash denotes exclusively derivative works. 'M/m' merely denotes a work of any type includes a male/male pairing that extends beyond friendship to the romantic or sexual. Marketers might be recently using this (improperly) - that would be no real surprise in a world where people can't figure out that a drabble is a work of exactly 100 words - but 'slash' has been reserved for derivative works for at least 40 years now. I write gay porn (occasionally), I write slash (sometimes), I write derivative works (often recently), and original works of the traditonal or LGBT flavors. Most feature either no romantic pairing or a m/m one. I think the issue XT has brought forward is interesting. I have absolutely no support for the idea that there should be any limits at all regarding who should be able to write what. And regardless how truly God-awful most 13-year-old-girl-written Harry Potter slash can be, I'd certainly never tell anyone that wants to write not to do so. But I do think that there is something to the idea that there is a problem with the idea that 'slash' is a medium for straight women, by straight women. That's nonsense, and not what it actually being done. Slash is a non-canon, derivive work containing a same-sex pairing for *any* audience. As long as we're viewing things this way, there is no real conflict. OTOH, if someone is assuming that 'slash' means original work, or it's a 'straight female thing' then there is a conflict with both historical fact and perhaps a moral one. I persoanlly do not see straight women writing about gay sex offensive in any way, though the volume is sometimes daunting. And I also think it's lovely that slash if often a gateway for orientation acceptance among heterosexuals and a support system for young homosexuals (and other queers).

[ biktuana ]

Slash is a non-canon, derivive work containing a same-sex pairing for *any* audience.

Except for those of us who don't see it as non-canon.

The characters I write about seem obviously not solely straight to me. I know there's a contingent of writers who just pair up people for the fun of it, but I'm not one of them.

there is a problem with the idea that 'slash' is a medium for straight women, by straight women.

I agree. Especially as most of the slash writers I know are not straight. I've heard this repeated often, usually by straight women, who maybe are trying to repeat it often enough that it will become true? Or perhaps it's meant only to refer to the type of slash that the straight female audience prefers? I'm not sure.

[xtricks]

ah... see, we all start getting into fuzzy territoriy with the 'seeing'.

Huge numbers of people see Dean and Sam of Supernatural as being lovers. Me? No. I see two men who love each other like brothers - meaning, like brothers, not like sexual partners.

One of my developing thoughts is about sub-text, seeing and the increasing assumption that the only intimate relationships men can have with each other (or women for that matter) are sexual ones. So, men who are comfortable with each other, dedicated to each other, love each other must also, always, be sexually attracted/involved with each other. This is both not always true and a problematic message.

As to sub-text ... I'm sorry but it's a heteronormative world out there, unless a producer/actor/director has put *in the story* a clear physcial or verbal indication that someone is gay, or is attracted to a person of the same gender, then they are straight. It's been borne out repeatedly that this is the mentality of the creators of most canon (Smallville springs to mind). Slash goggles, no matter how fun, truly are in the eyes of the beholder.

[xtricks]

I think in my ideal world, yes, I'd like to see more gay men writing work – in all genres and about all topics. This isn't the place to get into a long discussion about it but I belive that gay men, for a variety of reasons, have generally stopped talking about themsevles except either as political entities (political activism) or as fap materiel (porn). That's a teal deer for another day, though. I'd also like the … stigma? Marketing plot? Whatever? That seems to be waffling on whether or not romatic novels with male/male protagonists (m/m, or pro-slash or whatever term it is now) written with idea of women readers in mind belong in the 'gay male fiction' section or the 'romance novel' section. Personally, I think they should go in the romance section along with the rest of that style of genre – they are stylistically identical to the standard romance genre and readers (whatever their orientation or gender) who like that work should be able to find all the work they're interested in, in the same place. It both makes more sense to me (genre rather than the gender of the pairing) and preserves a bit of space for a smaller, rarer genre.

[criccieth]

Speaking as a straight woman, one of the things that makes me uncomfortable about m/m slash (talking fan-fic here) is the frequent "feminisation" of one male character in any pairing. It falls back into the old myth that there are ONLY "butch gays" and "queens". Yes, I've known the occasional gay man who comes across as a raving queen (including close friends). But that doesn't make them female and nor does it mean they act the queen in their relationships. A gay man is attracted to MEN, not to a female-with-a-penis.

Not only does this therefore fail to appreiciate a fairly fundamental issue, but such feminisation fics frequently then assume that the 'feminine' partner is the submissive, submitting character who is allways worrying, always wants to 'talk', always getting jealous, always needing looking after.

Which does women no favours, either.

I seriously doubt that a gay man, writing fic which included gay characters, would ALWAYS show a m/m relationship which reflected stereotypical m/F behaviour, but as you say: with a rise in m/m fic written FOR women there does seem to be rise in the type of fiction where the 'feminine' he could be written as a 'she' and much of the story would not have to change. I've seen fic where angst about 'I'm in a same-sex relationship, how do I cope" could fairly easily have been replaced with "I'm in a cross-cultural relationship, how do I cope."

And the truth of the matter, of course, is that straight woman writing m/m fic (unless they do a LOT of research) are NEVER going to fully understand the types of problems and issues that arise specifically in a same-gender relationship and therefore their writing is never going to fully or properly reflect those issues.

[ reading is in ]

Okay, my knee-jerk reaction to this is 'Yes, I dislike that trope too. Or at least, I don't see the point. If you're just going to feminize male characters, why don't you write about women?'. But then I get concerned that we're making this feminine/masculine divide too clear-cut. You see, I'm a straight woman, but a tomboy. Growing up, I thought I wanted to be a boy. Then I wondered if I was gay. It's taken me a long time to realize that I can be straight without being particularly feminine. And so I am confused about the fact that, as criccieth rightly notes, women writing m/m tend towards writing what are essentially traditionally m/f relationship and their attendant problems (stress tend. I can think of a couple of fabulous women writers who don't do that *at all*). Happens in profic, happens in fanfic. Are women writing themselves in the "f" character? Some aspect of themselves? Aren't there more straight women (like me) who don't identify with this "f" business at all?

[51stcenturyfox]

It's a pet peeve for me. I write fanfic, not original fiction, so the characters already have characterisation. If they seem to have traits which may be traditionally (stereotypically) assigned to females, that's one thing, but some writers try to fit everyone into some sort of pre-set relationship mold, including female characters who have stereotypically male behaviour traits (being taciturn, not talking about their feelings, being more physically or verbally aggressive than those around them, etc.)

I think people are individuals and not stereotypical. I like makeup and going dancing and I also swear a lot and shoot the hell out of targets.

What bugs me is if the relationship/interaction isn't in character for the people involved, really. But I admit that sometimes I read m/m fic and wonder if the writers know any guys, period.

[xtricks]

My problems with those particular types of stories is twofold:

One, if the feminine character (in many of these stories) was actually a woman, I think people would be very vocal about how regressive, offensive, misogynist and unhealthy the portrayal of the female character and the relationship was. Some of the stuff I've read makes Twilight look like a model of a healthy romantic relationship.

Two, it is really irritating to see yet more of the worst assumptions about gay men and their dynamics once again patterend after straight people's fantasies. Yes some gay men (and lesbians, and straight people) handle their relationships by asigning roles and they may fit pretty closely with the most steryotypical heteronormative fantaiseis, but not all people do and, in fact, it's not all that common among gay men simly because the 'feminine' role often comes with ambiguious issues about being 'manly' which gay men already struggle with simply because of their orientation.

[ estefee ]

I would like to say there is any kind of solution, but it really depends on the writer, and on what the writer is into slash for. And there are so very many variants thereof it is absolutely ridiculous.

I do know as I reader I am frustrated beyond belief when a reader 'feminizes' (I'm not sure it's fair to use that term) either one or both of the main characters, and that's because I am into slash for the equality I perceive the characters can have in their relationship that I, as a straight woman, can't hope to achieve in my relationships thanks to sexism and acculturation. I don't want to see one of the characters being domineering or patronizing or more controlling. I don't want the other character to be submissive (I'm not talking about roles or kink or whatever) and unable to stand up for themselves. Christ I see enough of that every day everywhere I look.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of slash writers who are acting out their own little technicolor fantasies and that *is*, apparently, what they want. Or have been trained to want. They want someone to take care of them instead of taking care of their own selves. And they're acting it out over and over again.

The only solution here, is to subvert the goddamn patriarchy to the extent that both the oppression of gays *and* women has been stopped. Then women will be equal and won't need to be "taken care of", and gay men won't have to struggle with ambiguous issues of whether or not a particular role is 'manly.' Because all roles will be equal. ~:

[reading is in]

"there always need to be some intent there to actually be writing two MEN (for m/m slash), rather than writing straight fic with a 'female-with-a-penis"

I don't disagree, in fact I think I do agree, but is this to say there is no place for women writing 'straight fic with a 'female-with-a-penis' only "in fun", "as pure fiction" for the enjoyment of other women? I suppose for me the problem with doing this is twofold

1) all language is political, there is no such thing as innocent writing, using this trope reinforces problematic stereotypes at a subconscious level

2) Why is it so hard to just write a woman? Do people find the female body that upsetting?

It's hard for me to accept that there is no such thing as innocent language. I wish there was and as an undergrad I went through a phase of believing in it. But having devoted my academic career to the study of cultural semiotics I'm coming increasingly to believe there isn't.

[51stcenturyfox]

Well, people are going to tell whatever stories they're compelled to tell, be it with fanfic or pro fiction, and in the latter case, there's a market for all sorts of m/m, f/f, m/f love/romance/erotic stories, just as there's a market for visual porn photography/videos which are intended to titillate people emotionally or physically or make them happy.

If I want to find say, realistic porn videos made by women, I can do that by searching the internet, but even the crappy Harlequin stories and "unrealistic" f/f porn vids have an audience/market out there -- they fill some sort of need or someone finds them happymaking.

I think the solution might be for LGBT writers and critics to produce good stuff and review good stuff by other LGBT (and straight) creative people and say, "You know what? This is a story that is told well and I can relate to these characters as an LGBT person."

Keeping in mind that not everybody will relate or agree with reviews, since people are individual in their tastes.

I agree, as some of the meta posts around have stated, that NO creators of erotica or other works of fiction should misrepresent their orientation. But if a gay male writes great het stories (as you do), then I'm happy to read and enjoy them.

ETA on my last point... can of worms, really. We're all anonymous on the internet and some writers are not "out", etc. I'm just speaking of people who produce pro fiction and use misrepresentative pen names. It seems disingenuous to do this when your audience consists of people of all orientations and the story is what should be the important part. If I read Harlequin romances, I don't think I'd be put off by a male author's name on the spine.

[ oneangstychick ]

I really need to disagree that professional gay fiction (m/m, slash, whatever) is currently aimed at women. As a professional bookseller, I can honestly state that I have not sold a gay genre novel to a woman to date. I have not sold a lesbian genre novel to a man, either. While I agree that gay relationships are becoming more common in mainstream literature, I do not see this as an appropriation of identity.

I still have the most issue with 'lesbian' sex fiction, which is sold frequently to men and is written strictly for men. I don't want to appear rude, but as a lesbian I am used to seeing my identity used as a jackoff for people outside my sexuality. I can understand exactly how disturbing it can be to see gay relationships used in this way, especially in the fanfiction community. Perhaps it is seeing gay relationships used in this way so openly that is causing you discomfort.

Finally, I am a huge supporter of free speech, as I know from your other posts that you are. As such, I can find nothing but beauty in the freedom that the internet has given to this topic. The gender and sexuality anonymity provided by the internet allow such a blossoming of creativity, and such sexual freedom. If there was ever a place created to indulge our sexual fantasies, the internet is it. So I say, have at it! Even if it does make me squirm from time to time.

[xtricks]

I think we essentially agree. The 'lesbian' porn aimed at straight men is a genre that never acknowledes that there are real live lesbians out there who might find their lives impacted by the messages presented in that work.

And, yeah, I think the discomfort I feel at times is essentially identical to what lesbians feel when their lives are co-opted as a sexual fantasy for straight men.

Since I also belive that people like what they like, I don't feel that a particlar genre should be forbidden, I think the trouble comes when people stop being able to separate the fantasy from the real people (such as straight men who go on about how they like lesbians and you sure you don't want to give each other a kiss for my entertainment?).

I'm not sure if you're a brick and mortar bookseller but there are numerous net based publishers and Amazon that sell numerous male homoerotic romance titles aimed at women (we start getting into what is 'professional writing' here, with ebooks and POD becoming more popular but still sort of considered second rate).

[xtricks]

There are no absolutes. I've been reading and writing slash (supposedly 'not for me' - someone told me that once) for over a decade now and I'm not the only one who isn't a straight woman. It's also true that gay men (and women) are reading pro-fic m/m work and those numbers are growing. I know one gay author who writes … I think it's chick-lit, using a sort of traditonal 'chatty, gossipy gay man' persona in the style of the books.

I think some of all this is is also cultural shifts. There's much more availiblity of queer fiction via the internet than when I had to depend on word of mouth, 42nd street and haunting porn stores. Younger gay people are running across m/m work, finding it appeals for a variety of reasons (including the style) and enjoying it. In some ways, my growing up was limited in that way because the cultureal assumption then was that men (all men, gay or straight) were only interested in fap mateirel so stuff like Merrik's work was moderatly rare. And, stuff in non-porn style was often written by women; Marion Zimmer Bradely wrote 'The Catch Trap' one of my favorite novels of my childhood. And ooh, forgot her name, she wrote 'The Charioteers' about three men in WW2 England – fairly classic romantic triangle story.

So, I'm aware part of it is cultural (things are different now, dang it *shakes walker at those young folks*), some of it has to do with issues beyond what we've talked about so far, some of it's marketing (more straight women then gay men, who are you going to spend money attracting?) and some of it is, as well, the tendency of the mainstream to appropriate everything else to talk about their issues without a lot of concern about the impact that has on anyone outside the mainstream.

And, of course, as gay people *become* more mainstream, their needs and issues fit better with dominant cultural messages. I'm from a generation when the closet was where everyone started and being mainstream was considered an impossibility.

[ theotherjay ]

First, a few notes of humility:

I understand that you're not talking about legal rights, or restricting who can write on a given subject in any sense involving force. I'm not personally really into "slash," or "fanfic," or whatever you kids do these days (though I have lived with some people who were really involved with this community, so I have some vague idea of it, at least); nor am I really even queer (though I am bi, or, at least, bi enough to have had straight women coo over my attraction to other guys. This never felt so objectifying to me that I objected to it, but I can't claim it compares to centuries of objectification of women.). I don't for a minute suspect you of anything but the best of intentions.

All that said: I find this idea, that a certain category of people shouldn't write in a genre - or talk about a subject - or discuss certain ideas - to be deeply distressing. The idea that it "diminishes the voices" of one group, for another group to talk about issues involving or related to them, is abhorrent to the principles of a free society and the open exchange of ideas. It does not diminish one voice for another to be heard. Gay men have not had much problem, recently, with producing gay male porn. If straight women want to try their own take on it, I don't think it does any harm to any one gay man for that work to be out there.

You say that "queers ... have every right to be concerned by, and question, the use of their images and lives as fodder for the majority group's fears and fantasies." Certainly. But the cure for that problem is more frank and honest speech, by those groups, about their own issues - not to try to silence the majority. Maybe this doesn't work all the time, but that's a risk we run. In a free society, there should always be the right to speak, and to be who you are - there can never be a right to be heard, much less to be heard exclusively, and still less to be understood. No one gets to claim exclusive right to ideas on any subject, no matter how personally invested they may be in it.

[ bodlon ]

You've [extricks] hit the nail, I think, on what makes me uncomfortable about the whole debate as well. The issue isn't the content, or people writing what they're interested in. It's the problem of people capitalizing on experiences that are not their own to the exclusion (or at least the drowning-out) of the originating groups, and a type of literature being co-opted more or less accidentally (albeit apparently out of ignorance by the 'women invented m/m romance brigade). What's interesting to me, though, is that the m/m for men market is still operating in its own corner without getting the same kind of attention as the m/m for women market. Which I'm not sure what to make of beyond being frustrated.

[xtricks]

Well, m/m fiction for men has always been a niche market and I don't really see that changing. Like I said above, there just aren't that many gay men in the world and, for the most part, the style and focus of books written by gay men (presumably) for other (presumably) gay men isn't the same as the m/m work written by (generally) women for (mostly) women. I just don't want the smaller, more niche market to dissapear entirely, under the flood of newer, more mainstream works. Because the newer m/m fic *is* more mainstream in the most basic sense - in that it is more popular in a wider audience.

[bodlon]

Exactly. The native experience of the thing is at risk of being lost in the deluge of outsider voices. OTOH, there seems to be no shortage of new books over at TLA...

References

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Should_(straight/lesbian/etc)_women_be_%27allowed%27_to_write_slash%3F&oldid=2218737"