Subject: Perhaps we can make them now to fill in the gaps
Author:
Posted on: 2014-03-20 18:25:00 UTC
Is there a trend in shipping fanfiction that drives you insane? Need to vent about it? Well here's your chance! Moving on, I hate it when people turn a formally good charcter into a horrible jerk just to get there ship together. Like in canon, Orihime is a sweet girl, take her into fanfiction she becomes a horrible bitch just so Ichigo can get together with Rukia.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS MENTION OF POTENTIALLY NSFW SUBJECTS. READERS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH FRANK MENTIONS OF HUMAN SEXUALITY SHOULD PROBABLY NOT READ THIS POST.
I'm going to buck what seems like the prevailing trend in this thread and say I like a good bit of well-written shipping ('well-written' obviously being the operative phrase there). I think a large part of my like stems from my fascination with characters and character interaction. Writing relationships, whether platonic or romantic or something less easily definable, provides the opportunity to have certain types of character interaction that one might not otherwise see.
That being said, I like character interactions that fit the character. OOCness is not something I'm particularly fond of. I want relationships to make sense, to have some measure of justification.
Also, unless the fanfic is supposed to be a screwball-esque comedy, I don't want to see any romantic-comedy cliches. The 'misunderstanding that leads to a temporary breakup followed by a realization of love' is the chief offender in my books. It's just too well known to be played straight anymore.
THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS THE POTENTIALLY NSFW PART. THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING.
I don't mind if the shipfic in question has a sex scene -- again, provided it's well-written. But that's the tricky thing, isn't it? Good sex scenes are tricky to write. You're walking that tightrope between unreadable purple-osity and 'insert tab A into slot B'.
Too often (based on what I've seen while writing for the DBS) fanfic authors seem to base their sex scenes on porn dynamics. Real people typically don't have sex like that. Real people use foreplay and lube and (depending on the situation) protection. Kinks are not just sprung on people without forewarning. BDSM has safe words. Orgasms are neither simultaneous nor produce multiple liters of liquid from the involved parties. And said liquids do not taste like candy or wine. A good sex scene requires at least a little bit of research, 'first hand' or otherwise, by the writer.
My final sex scene bugbear (and it's a rather sizable one) is regarding the glorification of the 'first time.' I roll my eyes whenever I read another piece of fanfiction that has a virgin know exactly what to do in regards to bedroom matters without any sort of instruction from books or websites or their partner. Like magic, they hit exactly the right spots. There's no physical fumbling, no prematurity, no questions about if they're doing it right. Everything's perfect.
Much like any other piece of fanfiction, shipfics can be fantastic if they're written solidly. But when they flop, MAN do they flop.
Certain words and phrases aggravate me to no end when I see them in a sex scene. The entire rest of the fic can be well-written and even the rest of that scene and I see a woman's lady bits referred to as 'her sex' and I'm rolling my eyes and leaving the fic. Most of the cheap romance novel style alternative names for a penis have the same effect. Also, porno style dialogue during sex. Usually it's eye-rollingly bad, or seriously too articulate for the point they are at in the encounter. Maybe if it is the kink of one of the characters to listen to dirty talk during, well realistically, probably mostly during the foreplay, but if it's their first time, they shouldn't know that. A lot of people would be rather upset by hearing dirty talk, especially the kind that involves certain words, so characters who don't know each other very well, and certainly haven't had extensive discussions concerning each other's kinks probably aren't going to bring it up the first time.
Although that could make for a good scene. Two characters get to the bedroom. They've gotten naked, and one of them starts in on the porno quality dialogue, and the other one just looks at them and laughs. I'd like to see that sometime, but then I read shipfics for the relationship more than the porn. (There is always PWP if you are just looking for porn)
Another one that I see over and over and over is the whole 'kiss swollen lips' thing. Seriously. If your lips are noticeably swelling after kissing--you're probably doing something wrong. Apparently there is some biological basis for this, that can be measured in I don't know, maybe micrometers? I'd be more likely to believe that they end up with chapped lips the next day from the saliva. Maybe it is reasonable to say that their entire face was flushed, and therefore their lips are redder than usual, (but I think only a very pale Caucasian character would even have that effect. I am extremely, eye-blindingly, is that a snowman?, pale and I've looked in the mirror and...nothing. I've asked a friend who has a much broader than average level of experience--she's never seen anyone's lips swell and turn red after kissing or any other activity.) I see this in a fic and I automatically think, "This is an extremely real life inexperienced author who is simply repeating the acts they've read in other fics with no real reference." I read one fic that had a character portrayed as asexual and the character thinks about this trope and it's just kind of a weird thought to him. I'm not asexual, but I feel the same way about this particular trope.
Another thing is characters that have been working in hot, sweaty conditions all day, then they strip and get to sexy times (including oral sex) with no shower and no mention whatever of the natural consequences of being hot and sweaty and 24 hours or more since their last shower. (And I'm reading it thinking, ewwww)
On the first time being perfect, even characters who are experienced, if it's their first time together, it shouldn't be perfect. I read one the other day that was a great fic. The characters fell over, got tangled up in their clothing, ended up laughing over each other's clumsiness, and there was other general fumbling. It was all very real. A nice change of pace on all those where everything is porno perfect.
Actually, sex between average characters should probably never be porno perfect. If the fic is supposed to be about characters older than 30-35 (and the characters on a lot of live action TV shows and movies are), especially if they have been together for a few years...they are over the initial rush of each other and past the extreme hormones of youth. There should be shorthand where they know the other is actually too tired, but hey it's sex, so they'll give it a try (and if they do go ahead with it, it's really more 'meh' than anything). Where they don't do it every night, and they are too old to do it multiple times in one night. It doesn't last all night (and if they are really being honest with each other, there was probably only that one time where they even did the whole 'sex all night, and 8 orgasms' thing as 20 year old kids). They probably have a whole repertoire of things they do that aren't vaginal/anal intercourse (when they're tired, when they aren't really in the mood, when they want to get off, but don't want to put in all the effort). Really, everyone wants to believe that all sex they have will be mind-blowing, but it'd be nice to see fics with established couples admit that it isn't. And especially with slash, it would be nice to see new couples that don't go directly to anal. I'm sure some couples do that, but there is a lot of range that could (and probably should) realistically be in there first.
That fantasies were allowed to be fantastical?
Seriously, most people are writing NSFW shipfics for the sake of getting off watching two characters bang. This is okay. Whining about how sex between two or more characters is unrealistic when half the time at least one partner in proceedings is a character from a species that doesn't frelling exist in our reality is perhaps missing the point a bit. And by 'a bit' I mean several Astronomical Units. And by 'perhaps' I mean completely.
Aside from my antipathy towards the stupid, exclusionary, playing into the ridiculous idea of The One in relationships, etc. concept of the OTP-as-stick-to-beat-people-with, I say live and let live with regards to shipfics, and especially with regard to sex-centric ones. I'm really glad that you can find fics that detail mediocre sexual encounters between disinterested people, because you're getting what you want, but please, please don't tell me I should want it too.
I personally don't write that sort of fic because I'd be more interested in attempting major heart surgery on myself with a couple of rusty spoons, but also because it feels like a disservice to the characters I'm shipping. I want these characters to be happy and have a fulfilling, (hyper)active sex life because that's what I think they deserve. I don't want to get bogged down in talking about their morning breath or the fact that they're only having sex to pass the time until Countdown starts or whatever because that's not what interests me about their sex lives. Happiness, to me, does not mean sex that you can describe as meh. Quite. The. Reverse.
tl;dr: Moaning about how the sexual escapades of fictional characters doesn't feel "real" helps precisely no-one. Get over it.
No one is trying to tell you what to like or dislike simply by expressing their own opinions. "Live and let live" does not equate to telling people that discussing what they don't like is "whining" and going on to elaborately, insultingly detail why their preferences aren't good enough for you. That's not cool. Dial it back.
~Neshomeh
I should not have been so insulting. It's just... gah, this topic really gets to me, y'know? I'm so used to people using "unrealistic" as a synonym for crap that I get defensive about it without thinking about what's actually being said. This applies in particular to sex and sex-related media.
Then again, I'm probably doing the exact same thing that I despise to people who like realism in sex-related media when I treat realistic as a synonym for bland. I'll try not to do that in future. =]
Realistic sex doesn't have to be mediocre, I think is rather more the point.
I'm pretty live-and-let-live myself. I don't care what gets you off in fiction; I prefer stories with an amount of physical realism. If the sex drifts towards the cartoonish, the author loses me pretty quickly.
It's pretty condescending to suggest that everyone who has different preferences to yours has 'missed the point'. Porn preferences reflect the whole shimmering rainbow of human sexuality, and there's room for all of us. Get over it yourself, mate.
Porn itself (the visual sort) is already giving people huge misconceptions of sex. All the genitals look the same and the actions perpetuate dangerous sexual habits which could have real-life consequences (the lack of condoms, the lack of asking for consent, some particular ejaculatory trends...)
It would be nice if we could take a medium we can actually control (fanfiction) and used it to educate the reader on more realistic sexual habits.
(this is Lily, taking off her sexual health educator hat)
Especially agree with showering. Also, morning sex. I can suspend belief when it comes to implausible tech, unlikely relationships, magic in all its varieties . . . but not when it comes to morning breath. Some things I just cannot ignore.
HOWEVER, I have personally experienced 'kiss-swollen lips'. Only a few times, during truly epic makeout sessions, but it's not impossible.
I'm still tired of seeing the phrase, though. It's interesting how certain precise phrases move in and out of vogue.
I forgot morning breath! Really, can't they just run to the bathroom for a bit of mouthwash or a quick brush? or at least make a point to not breath on each other. :P
I really didn't know the lips thing could be real. That's kind of cool.
This is not about being anti shipping. This is about trends people hate. I really enjoy shipping but hate most of these trends.
I'd say any pairing where opposite character personalities would logically make them impossible to have them be together.
Underage Shipping. It's wrong and yet some authors seem to love it. Especially when they try and make up a reason for it to be OK (like moving the age of majority around). There was a Harry Potter fic I read once (I keep meaning to find it, it could be fun to spork) where Harry Potter aged 11 was being shipped with multiple girls, the oldest of whom was round the 30-40 mark. The 'reason' why this was OK? "Wizards reach their majority at 11" I believe was how it was worded.
My other pet peeve with shipping is when one characters age is raised or lowered for the pure and only reason so as they can be of similar age to the other person they're being shipped with. I can understand if it's being done to take out the Under-Age bit, and I quite like it if it's done with more of an affect on the story, but purely for the reason of "oh A is five years older than in canon so that I can ship A with B" just annoys me.
My general motto is to ship the teenagers with other teenagers, and ship the adults with actual adults. Especially if your thing is set after canon: if it's after canon, you can set it five years after canon so that characters can pass their age of majority and gain some badly needed life experience on the way. Maybe then if you can write well I'll believe that they could make a relationship with a somewhat older character will work.
... This is also one of the tropes that makes me really wary of fics that are high school AU's, especially when an attractive character is made the teacher.
Always in Repair a Final Fantasy XIII goodfic that I've read not too long ago. Written before XIII-2 came out, it ships Hope and Lightning in a plausible way. Even though their ages are seven years apart in canon and Hope is underage (14, as opposed to Lightning's 21), the author manages to fix the issue plausibly (in-fic, Lightning emerges from crystal stasis when Hope is 19) and develops the relationship very realistically. If you are at all interested in FFXII fic, I'd highly suggest this one.
But the only Final Fantasy fandom i'm into (and the only FF game I've played) is XII.
I mean I've been spending a lot of time in fandom on tumblr and half of the time, you'd think that it's the only thing that matters to these people. Never mind if the series in question is about the harsh realities of war and the moral ambiguities of said war--all that matters is TEH ROMANCE!!1!
And while I also understand that romance is an integral part of who we are as human beings, that doesn't mean its a label you slap around lightly on two characters you think just HAVE to go together. For me it takes ages to decide if I "ship" a pairing or not. If the Canon or the fans or (preferably) both can provide me with enough context or insight to piece together a working,(ideally healthy and equal)dynamic, then I'm on board.
But if there's this mindset of "OMG THEY LOOKED AT EACH-OTHER I SHIP IT!!" going on, then shippers--you're doing it wrong.
... I'm aromantic. So while I agree that a lot of people (the vast majority of people, probably) are going to identify with romance in the story, I wouldn't call it "integral" to humanity - at least, not to all of the humans.
/ personal nitpick.
Definition, please?
Does not feel romantic attraction. Personally, I'm all for romance when other people are having it, I just don't feel it myself.
Aw, he's adorable. And kinda disturbing. Sorry, me, but you're kinda creepy. I guess I'll put you with Printwothy over here. Don't fanboy too much over the little pony now, you hear?
I'm kinda the same. It's not that I don't believe in romantic love, I just don't really think it's a thing for me. I do think it is an integral part of a good portion of human society (I wouldn't be alive if my mom hadn't fallen for
my dad I can say that much) but well--as an individual it's different for everyone.
I had no idea aromantic was a thing. You really do learn something new everyday...
Yeah, I didn't know it was a thing until long after I discovered I was asexual (potential TMI: feels no desire to have sex with anyone, ever. I mean, if I was curious... but really, I'm not curious.)
Anyway, we need all kinds to make a world. We're the pepper flakes to everybody else's salt. :D
(If you want any extra information, go to AVEN, it's an informational site for asexual and aromantic people.)
I think we've successfully changed topics down here. :D
You're not the only one who thinks sex is kind of boring and biological. I much prefer emotional intimacy--friendships. And I don't understand how people can say "just friends", as though that were somehow second-best!
And yeah. Saying 'just friends' is saying that a friendship is a downgrade from a romantic relationship - and of course if there's no sexing then it's obviously just a REALLY DEEP FRIENDSHIP
/sarcasm
Sex as an idea is just kinda bizarre to me. Or rather the cultural fixation on it. I can see it as an activity that is pleasurable for some people, like swimming or knitting or whatever, but the idea of it as something deeply important to people is just weird.
I'm ace, too, and pretty aromantic, although when I do form friendships they STICK, do ya ken it.
I also get annoyed by the tendency of media to automatically make any interaction between a man and a woman lead down the road to romance. It's like, they just fought off the bad guys and saved the world together; isn't that awesome enough? Did they really need to kiss afterwards?
When dangerous and traumatic things happen, people tend to project the increase of neurotransmitters and other chemicals that had previously been used in conjunction with the aforementioned events onto something connected to those events, often another person. This can lead to short-term heavy attachments with the other person, often romantic or otherwise relationship-y in nature, due to simply that person's proximity to the initial danger, and their role in it as related to whoever it is that's projecting. Just because the heroes are making out now doesn't mean they're going to have a long-term and successful relationship. They're just transferring arousal from all of the endorphins and adrenaline necessary to stop those alien invaders from crashing asteroids into the earth, and as a result have suddenly become extremely attracted to one another for about a week or so.
At least, that's poorly phrased real-world biopsychology applied to fictional or fictionalized events in a from-the-outside-looking-in perspective. I'm pretty sure I'm aromantic, too, so I wasn't exactly viewing this from the typical audience perspective.
And I agree. People in long-term creative projects like films and stuff also have this happening to them. It's all that adrenaline, which is also a thing in arousal (elevated heartbeat, dilated pupils, yadda yadda). That, coupled with the fact that some people fall madly and quickly "in love" because of extended proximity with others, they then create things like "showmances" with them which honestly don't last long after the project/event is over.
This is why actor marriages often fail so easily. They meet and marry their costar for a film and after all that adrenaline from the filmmaking process is over, they realise there's nothing else for them.
For me, I can remain attracted to someone if I maintain my emotional connection with them, so... I tend to start up long-distance relationships where I get the emotional stuff without the pressure to be physically close.
If I weren't before, now I am confused.
...
I'm just shy, BTW. I seem to be hetronormative.
Allow me to use the donut analogy. Asexual people, when they see donuts, may not necessarily have the urge to eat it. Sexual people tend to like eating donuts, though some may prefer certain types (homosexual, heterosexual), others aren't very picky (pansexual), and others only eat two specific types (bisexual).
Demisexual people will only eat a donut if it is their utmost favourite donut in the world.
So asexual people are, um, basically not necessarily interested in sex? And demisexuals are kinda like having a single-target sexuality?
That TV trope page has demisexuality listed as a real life example, so yeah. And yes, asexual people don't feel the urge to have sex. They can physically have sex and they might enjoy discussing the topic and looking at sexy things, but the actual urge to have sex isn't a very strong one if it's there at all.
http://www.asexuality.org/home/overview.html is a good resource for more info.
I don't get the "alternate" ships when canon is clearly ship-teasing certain couples.
For example, NanoFate in Lyrical Nanoha one of the most famous teased-to-death-but-still-not-confirmed couples... and Yuunoha fans are still at it despite the fact that Fate and Nanoha basically adopted a child together.
Or some ridicolous ships like Sayaka/Homura in Madoka Magica. Both already have rather strong shipteasing with other people (Kyoko and Madoka, respectively), but apparently some people think "Those two can't stand each other! So they must be in love!". What.
Any sort of ship that goes against canon. I don't mind pairing the spares (for example), but things like Zutara when Kataang is canon drive me up the wall.
It's idiotic. The ships themselves do not matter; whether or not people remain in character and act in character does. Using the fact that you personally prefer something different regarding a character as a stick to beat people with is just mind-numbingly stupid.
However, I'd say that OTP has connotations that they're not thinking about. To describe a ship as one's OTP implies that you consider other ships to be invalid.
The OTP enforces a sort of hierarchy of shipping in someone's mind, and perpetuates ship wars when different hierarchies of ships clash with one another.
You could have one ship that you write more or read more fic about (Spirk, for me), but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the Ship To End All Ships because there'll always be someone who thinks you're wrong. I may like Spirk, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate Spuhura, or McKirk, or Spones, etc.
(I just like pairing Spock with people. Poor baby is all alone out there being a hybrid.)
Poor Spock- not just because of being a hybrid. He's probably the most abused character in the Star Trek universe, and his Vulcan blood makes him the perfect candidate for shippers to slap him in the bedroom with whomever they feel like.
"It's been seven years! Pin Faar for Spokie-poo!!!!!1!!1111!eleventy-one!"
I feel so bad for him.
Their points were so perfectly written, I don't have anything to contribute except to point and say 'thank you!'
Especially Win-cest (Supernatural) because I can't go looking for sporking material without coming across a dozen of these. And they're not even bad enough to spork, they're just somewhere between Ew! and Meh...
Besides that, I agree with all of World-Jumper's points. Lack of thought and planning can destroy all romances, even those that were somewhat credible to begin with.
Incest is pretty creepy. And extremely out of character for most sibling pairs.
But there are some exceptions. Luke/Leia? Could work. They grew up apart. Their immediate disgust on learning about their blood relationship told us they weren't going to try it, but an AU where they got farther than a kiss before they learned about it? Plausible. Vaguely disturbing, but plausible.
Then there are stepsiblings whose families combined after they were at least pre-teens--too old to think, "Ew, that's my brother/sister!" On a darker note, some characters have simply had a messy enough background that incest makes sense (and besides, they've experienced or done much worse). Not that this would be a romantic story... more like desperate and a bit offputting. But it can and does happen. Without a power difference between the siblings (physically or psychologically), it may not even be abusive.
Some historical families didn't have quite so strong an incest taboo, though they did have to work around the "ew, that's my sibling" reaction, usually because siblings grew up apart (royalty, anyone?). Once you get to first cousins, it's pretty much a toss-up over whether a romance is possible, and in some cultures is even recommended.
And once you get to sci-fi aliens, fantasy races, robots, intelligent shades of blue... well! "Incest" may lose its meaning for someone who is built not born, or who has sixteen thousand siblings, or who reproduces by growing babies in the gigantic seed pods of a specially engineered plant.
For most characters, incest is out of character and highly improbable. But there are exceptions.
After all, anything can be done good, if you have thought it through and have the talent to pull it off.
I agree that all the examples you mention makes for plausible backgrounds for incest stories. (Even Tolkien used the 'siblings meeting without knowing who they are'-plot and it made for a great tragedy.)
I suppose I forgot to mention them, because it's not really the kind of stories I come across, when hunting for badfics.
When I wrote 'I don't like incest fics'* I was really just thinking of Wincest, Weasley-cest, the Holmes brothers and all the other pairings which are not covered by these exceptions and haven't been given any other kind of explanation or plausible character development as to why the characters would go against the incest taboo. Someone just saw two hot males (usually) and decided that they had to boink.
Sooooo many of those stories are just 'Sam and Dean have a rough childhood and decide to "comfort" each other'. And the emotional aftermath is a paragraph of 'oh, this is wrong but it feels so right'. It's so squicky and boring and the same time.
*Just to clarify some more: YKINMK and I don't have a problem with the idea that some people are turned on by (fictional) incest and want to read and write about it. I have a problem with stories that are implausible and badly thought out.
...leading to Porn Without Plot. :P
I know, I hate that too. "Oh, they're both cute, they can't just be closely bonded brothers!" It completely ignores human psychology to just randomly have a pair of siblings have sex without a darn good reason.
Maybe that's why I hate it so much; it's a psychology fail and I'm a psychology student who hates to see bad psychology. Doing your siblings? People's brains just don't work like that.
In fact, it may be easier to just say, I don't like shipping, and move on. However, I feel a need to let people know why I generally don't like any ship fic I come across, with the very rare exception here and there. So, let's go down my list of things that piss me off about most shipping fanfiction.
1. Lack of thought on sexual orientation of characters. Now, this is more pertaining to slashfic rather then shipping in general, but it bears mentioning for either genre. When writing a ship, the most obvious question to answer is, 'what is the sexual orientation of my characters?' This is a question that requires thought, contemplation, and a deep understanding of what it means to be straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, or even asexual. This does not mean fall into stereotype, but actually understanding the differences in thought process between each group. Do shippers think about this? NOPE! Hawtness love times for everybody! This destroys any and all credibility your ship has if you don't think about this, at least somewhat. While it's one thing to say that Tony Stark is pansexual, it is a whole nother issue to think Steve Rodgers is even willing to entertain the idea of sleeping with a man. Beyond the fact that he was raised in the 1940s, and probably taught that homosexuality was one of the greatest sins a man could commit, he is also a man who appreciates the company of a woman. While he would probably learn to get past his ingrained homophobia, it would take some vary extreme things to occur before he even thinks about another man in that way. Explore this, ship writers. If you don't, your ship is sunk before it can even leave the port.
2. Not all relationships have to be sexual. Wait, what!? Two people can have strong feelings for each other without sex!? Impossible! If two people have a deep, close friendship, they cearly want the other in bed! There is no greater bond then the bond between the covers!
If you can't tell, I value deep friendships over romantic relationships any day. The platonic life bond is a powerful, powerful thing, amd should be honored and praised whenever it exists. However, you all know this. You read OFUM. You know how this works.
3. Draco Malfoy does not wear leather pants. Closely related to the point made by OP, when one writes a ship between two known enemies, the author needs to think really, really hard about how this relationship is going to work. Generally, attempted murder between partners does not make for a very stable relationship. So when authors ignore these antagonistic interactions, and even make the aggressor much kinder and softer then in canon, you have a problem. Take Katara X Zuko for instance. While Zuko is a sympathetic character, especially after season 3, I doubt Katara sees it the same way. This guy burned her, her brother, her friend, her people, and is the son of the king of the nation that burned the entire world. He has a lot to get through before she would even consider him a friend, much less a mate. However, some shippers just do not care about that. After all, fire and water make steam...ing hot partners. *Earth bends rock into my own forehead*
So, that just some of my annoyances about shipping. Without extreme care and craft, shipping is a genre that I have no appreciation for. I have a rather low tolerance for romance without reason, and will be quick to point these problems out to a writer when I see it.
TLDR: Shipping sucks.
A couple of personal pet peeves of mine are making ACD Sherlock Holmes a passionate, love struck, sex-crazed mockery of himself, and making a Stargate Atlantis Wraith want to have sex with humans. Firstly, they are hive creatures descended from insects with only a few queens, so the odds of them ever getting to mate are slim and following the insect model probably requires some kind of pheromones from the queen to trigger the desire to mate. And secondly having sex with humans is equal to bestiality. Humans are their food. The only Wraith who it might be realistic to say thought that way was Michael and he had been turned human at least once and ended up being a kind of hybrid between humans and Wraith (and the other Wraith kicked him out for being contaminated). A full Wraith has no business thinking that way.
A. I have to disagree a little with point 1. Just because someone grew up in the 1930's does not mean they never encountered homosexuality. If they encountered it, they might have thought about it. (They might have gone with the ingrained homophobia of the times and been repulsed by it automatically, but they might not have.) Saying that Steve would never have thought about it or encountered it before is putting too much innocence on him.
My point is based on hearsay, my grandpa was in the Navy in the early 50's. There were apparently a lot of...encounters going on in the bathrooms in certain ports, and his opinion was that if they left him alone, he was going to leave them alone. He wasn't much younger than Steve Rogers, and was from a rural and more strictly religious region than New York City. If he could have that kind of opinion, why would Steve (and every other man from the era) automatically have to have a bad opinion of it?
I do agree that there should be an exploration of that in a good 'getting together' type fic. Shippers need to think about the orientation of the characters, and where they came from. It needs to be addressed, but I don't think in Steve's case he'd have to start out hostile to the idea. Maybe more likely to be hostile to the concept that it isn't a social taboo anymore.
B.Not all fics have to be 'getting together' fics. Some fics are just porn (and sometimes that's okay). Some fics are about an established relationship. Sometimes they are just short fluff fics about having breakfast in bed, or watching a movie, or washing the dishes together. They aren't life-shatteringly important, no, but sometimes it's just nice to see a couple get to have a day off, and bringing in exactly how they ended up together would mess that up.
Example: I am reading a series of fics about Phil Coulson and Clint Barton as retired old men--I don't need to know about the difficulties they faced overcoming homophobia as young men. The series is not about sex. It's about loving someone that has wrecked their body (if he survives to 65, is there any other outcome for Clint the way he lives?). It is a heart wrenchingly good series. Trying to shoehorn in an exploration of how they got together or why they are both gay in this story would take away from the story.
C. Sexually active people do think about sex quite a lot. If a character is not in a situation that would make them be not interested (they're hurt, sick, hungry, in a life or death situation, but even in cases like this, even when they aren't physically up to sex, it doesn't mean they aren't wishing they were), then it probably should cross their mind. Especially if they are seeing or thinking about someone that looks like a good potential mate. Even if they are married or in a committed relationship, sex tends to run through people's minds (obviously not through an asexual character's mind, or maybe not someone with a very low sex drive, but someone like, say Tony Stark, since he's already been brought up. Until the PTSD gets bad, he should be thinking about sex frequently).
Obviously, they shouldn't be acting on every passing thought. I think badfic tends to think that a character can't appreciate the view without wanting to get naked. Badfic also tends to ignore social taboos that a person would normally operate under. Whatever a person might fantasize about, they aren't likely to strip and start having public sex or to jump into bed with handful of near strangers, or even if they did have an orgy with friends, sex changes things between people. It's rarely ever 'just sex' in the real world. Emotions get involved. Things change between people when the emotions get involved, and true multiple pairing relationships aren't that common in the real world because of that. That has to come up in the shipfic, too.
D. I'll be in the minority on this thread and admit that I do like reading shipfics. I have to say that I didn't always like them, though. When I was reading/watching primarily canons that weren't rife with UST, where the characters actively hated each other, actively were involved with other people or had reasons they were't involved with anyone--I didn't like shipfics. I thought I just didn't like them period. Now I am in a couple of fandoms that have either a firmly established fanon ship (Phil Coulson/Clint Barton), or there is just a ton of UST in the canon (Haven between Audrey/Duke/Nathan). I have come to really enjoy shipfics in those canons, and it has kind of spread from those relationships to others.
I still have fandoms where I am just not very accepting. I'll never accept incest fics. Supernatural fans frankly tick me off with their obsession with having brothers have sex. I don't read shipfics in LotR pretty much at all--especially with elves. Their author stated it is biologically impossible for them, so word of god is that shipfics shouldn't exist for them. There are others. Some, I can be convinced, but it isn't automatic. The first slash I ever liked was in NCIS. It took 35,000 words to get to the point where it made sense for there to be a kiss.
When I first joined the PPC I thought there was no such thing as good slash, because all I had ever seen was Bad Slash--bad for a lot of the reasons you mentioned. I wouldn't even look at a fic that had a ship that wasn't present explicitly in canon, and I never considered that a character might be something other than straight in a case where it isn't specifically mentioned in canon. I've expanded my thinking since then.
E. Pulling characters toward stereotypes to facilitate the ship. This has been touched on in other posts, but I just wanted to put it out there explicitly. If you are dealing with two hyper masculine men who canonically are seen appreciating women, but canon has nothing to say about their appreciation or lack thereof of the same sex, then making one or both conform to the worst stereotypes about gay men being feminine, whiny, flamboyant, etc. is so far out of character as to break canon. I will read slash about those men, but the author has to convince me that these are the same men I see in canon. They have to come together believably as two very masculine, alpha males. It is entirely possible to write this and do a good job with it. It is more likely to be done badly, though.
A. Fair enough, though I still stand that he would be more hostile to the idea then if he were raised in more modern times. Perhaps he would not be homophobic, but from what I see in his character, he would not think of a man in that way. He's practically the spitting image of what a good young man was supposed to be in those days. Not saying that that image was right, but if he is, he would not consider being gay himself.
If this is not obvious at this point, I am actively against Steve Rodgers slashfic, no matter how well written. I mean, feel free to write it, power to you, hope it goes well, but I will always see it as OOC. I am pleased that those who do decide to write Steve slash do have some historical support for it, though.
B. True, true, but they do make a large percentage of fics out there. However, even if the fic is about the relationship long after it has started, the author should still think about the differences between the different thought processes of the different sexualities, and how said relationship afects their character in a what that makes the characters believable.
Yes, I'll admit it. I've read the occasional bit of fluffy, sweet, shipping fics. Yes, I did enjoy them. Sorta. I mean, occasionally I would question the ship, but on the whole, it was just cute scenes that were enjoyable to read. They may or may not have involved cute pastel ponies. My masculinity has never been more secure.
C. You know, I don't think about sex all that much. I mean, yeah, every once in a while, but not near to the degree a lot of other people do. I'm also rather uncomfortable talking about it in public, for some reason. I don't know, it's not like I think sex is evil or anything, I just don't find it all too appropriate to talk about in many situations that others decide to bring it up. As such, you will almost never see any of my characters talk about the act of intercourse. Perhaps I'm strange, but there you go.
D. Hold on, hold on... You mean Elves can't have sex? But then, how did Elrond come to be? How would the Elves reproduce? What, they were just planted into the ground and grew like a beautiful flower? How does that even work? For LoTR, I'mma side with the Elf shippers on this one, unless some Tolkien nut provides some darn good explanation for this.
E. All of my yes. I mentioned this in my post, but it bears repeating. Stereotype does not equate understanding. In fact, stereotype is near the exact opposite of understanding. They are very loose observations shown or told to us by others that are used to fill in communication gaps until proper information is acquired about an individual or group. Unless you actually know about the group you are writing about, don't do it. Just don't.
A. His name really doesn't have a 'D' in it. I see that spelling all the time, but it really is Rogers. Steve Rodgers is a RL musician of some sort or a former Australian politician, depending on which Google article you click. Just in case you do write stuff with him in it. What would a Marvel mini even be? Is there any PPC agent insane enough to try to disentangle the entirety of Marvel's canon to do a mission on a fic there? I think I'd be scared to even send agents into a movie verse story, because so many of them have comics elements brought in to fill gaps in the movies.
By the way this is my favorite Captain America fic of all time. It speaks directly to what we've been talking about here. You should give it a shot. American Values
C. I did say maybe it didn't apply so much to some people, and I did say that just because it crosses a person's mind doesn't mean they act on it (that includes saying anything about it). I wasn't meaning like full fantasies by saying it goes through people's minds. More like those little thoughts that just wander across the mind for a second and then are gone.
I am bad about not writing anything of the sort into my characters' thoughts though, so maybe I have no room to talk. :P
D. About the elves, if a fic was about Elrond and his wife, or Arwen and Aragorn, or Galadriel and Celeborn, etc. That I'd be fine with. (And okay, I have to admit to having read other pairings and thinking that the fics themselves were fine, but I feel guilty while reading them, knowing that Tolkien would hate them.) Anyway most shipfics with elves in LotR are something like 'how many people can Legolas sleep with in this fic? hehe!'
I'd link to the original mission, but EllipsisFlood's site seems to have lost the majority of its content, so I'll just link to the wiki page about them.
I'm not sure what the minis would be for Marvel's comics universe, though. There are so many species and possible candidates there that it would be hard to pick out any one group representing the universe as a whole. One character, maybe, but it's always best to make minis based on a species when the opportunity is present, or perhaps an organization.
The minis can be Skrulls? It makes sense considering that they can shape shift. Just a thought.
Be a bit hard to tell one mini apart from the others, of course, but mini-Balrogs and so on are also technically more or less identical physically (unless otherwise stated), so...
~DF
A. Whoops. I'm usually better then that. Oh well, lesson learned, drop the D in Rodgers to get his name.
I can't read the fic now, but I'll be sure to give it a shot. Perhaps it'll make me more accepting towards gay!Captain America. Not that being gay is wrong, it's just... You know, I'm just going to back off this train of thought before I end up saying something I don't mean to say. Point is, I'll read it, and we'll see how it goes.
C. You did, just thought I should mention it. You know, to show that you were right.
D. Well, that's a bit better then what I had gotten out of your post. I thought something was up, perhaps I just read it wrong, but I was confused. Glad to see that cleared up.
Of course elves can have sex. But it’s biologically (or rather psychologically?) impossible for them to have random sex with near strangers. Tolkien elves are monogamous by design, so they choose their spouse very carefully, because it is for a life-time, which comes close to eternity.
Wow, I sound like a Tolkien expert. But I’m still sure Huinesoron could say more about this.
HG
From my understanding of the essay on the laws and customs of the Eldar, Tolkienverse elves believe in a soul (their term is "fëa", I think), and that the act of sex is the union of the fëar, or souls. This means that during times of war, couples can 'elope' by having sex.
This is why my Eldar agent, Eledhwen, goes berserk when Sues muck with the concept of soulmates, and why her relationship with her girlfriend/partner is not sexual (but still romantic).
E is severely annoying to me whenever I encounter it in a fic.
One of my other personal pet peeves is turning Spock (and a few other characters, but I've seen it most with Spock,) into this extremely jealous, controlling, obsessive guy. The narrative then usually goes on to giggle about the 'overprotective' vulcan and how cute it is. Well, it's not cute, and on Spock it irritates me exponentially more because, like the elf example, Vulcan's are supposed to be better than that categorically.
Not to mention it's wildly OOC, and this is a canon where reality bending happens four to five times a season.
The books are at home and I'm not, but IIRC there were a lot of homosexuals in some sub-branches of the US military during WWII. Camouflage sections tended to be recruited from artists, who were more accepting of such relationships than the population as a whole. Deception teams, like the ones who helped pull Operation Fortitude off, also contained a certain number of homosexuals.
And most Avengers fic (at least that I've seen) is movieverse; movie|Steve was shoved onto the stage almost immediately. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the actors he worked with were gay.
Everything you said, and more
6. Bashing characters in order to make a ship "work."
Maybe the pairing remains within an arm's reach of their normal characterization, but a canonical love interest gets bent out of canon in order to make room for the ship. (This happens in a lot of Spirk AOS fics: Uhura is either written out, as in most AU's, turns into a complete bitch, or is somehow quickly removed from the equation, usually by shipping her with someone else, in order to get Kirk and Spock together.)
7. Not understanding that not every close relationship is sexual.
I think this goes with out saying, but lots of ficthors forget that most human beings are capable of having friendships where they have no sexual feelings for the friend, and there's plenty of psychological failsafes in place in the human mind to keep incest down, such as the Westermarck effect. This lack of understanding is, I think, the root of a lot of incest fics. For example, I do not care that Thor and Loki are not biologically related, they were raised together from infancy, it's still a no.
8. Power differentials that would make normal people run for the hills.
Authors of fanfiction often forget to add characterization that would reassure me that one member of their pairing, usually the one with more power or experience, isn't just horribly using the other. Sometimes, I think this also comes from point 7: people who decide to make a mentor & student relationship a sexual one in their fanfic, for example, are unlikely to do anything to reassure me that the student, even if of age and capable of giving informed consent, is not being somehow manipulated into the relationship, either overtly or because they think they should do it to please their mentor.
9. Lack of representation. This nitpick ties into 1, 7, 8, and 9. Most fanfic authors assume that all romantic relationships or primary partnerships are sexual, and they often try to overwrite actual character dynamics in order to achieve that. But in general, fanfic ignores friendships and relationships that are purely romantic, and treats them as a mere stepping stone to a sexual relationship, even with asexual characters. They also tend to state things like "no, Tony Stark is pansexual, he'd totally sleep with Steve or Clint" and then, once they've shoved him into the pairing, never give a thought to it... rather like writers who seem to forget that characters can be bi or pan and only concentrate on their current relationship, but you'd think that fanfic authors, many of whom have at least some education on the matter, would be a little better at it. (Some of them are.) Another thing that fanfic authors don't often think about is whether or not the sex drives they've written for the characters are reasonable. Going back to Marvelverse, it's pretty well established that Tony Stark's libido before he became iron man was pretty high, so it could still be pretty high despite clear signs of building PTSD and the arc reactor in his chest. Maybe even high enough to mostly justify the amount of sex they're writing into the fic: but like real humans, other characters will have varying libidos, and writing every single pairing having sex at the drop of a hat is pretty ridiculous.
I find that it is perfectly fine to create alternate interpretations of ships, even canonically sexual or romantic ships, as long as the characterisations are preserved. For instance, in J. Anon's "Observations" Kirk and Spock are sexually involved, but Spock maintains a deep emotional and platonic bond with Uhura (they call each other brother and sister). Does this overturn the canonical definition of the Spuhura ship? Yes. But it's written well and plausibly, so I am fine with it.
(I know a girl here at school who doesn't like Spuhura because she thinks it's just Hollywood trying to pair off one of the few female leads of the film with some guy. I understand her perspective, but I also understand the perspective in favour of Spuhura because Uhura being with Spock is positive representation for WOC, as it shows that women of colour can be love interests, too.)
Conversely, I find myself frequently expressing a wish for characters like John and Sherlock from BBC Sherlock and Dorian and John from Almost Human to become romantically or sexually involved in the canon, because. Let's go to the point of representation there.
Canonically, these two pairings are obviously deeply platonic to some degree. They all care about each other. It's not that hard a stretch to make it a romantic relationship from there. Sex can be added if needed. I understand that platonic bonds are important, but I feel like as it is, the mainstream media likes to imply that what could be strong platonic bonds between male and female characters are in fact romantic, and that what could be strong romantic bonds between characters of the same gender are in fact platonic. By making Johnlock and Jorian canon, we go against the prevailing "no homo" attitude in mainstream media.
(This is why I love platonic Joan and Sherlock in Elementary. The two care about each other and respect each other, but the writers consciously attempt not to get them romantically involved. It goes against the media's prevailing "will they or won't they" attitude towards female-male friendships.)
It's not necessary to be a certain sexuality in order to fall in love with someone. I know straight people who fall in love with people of their gender. People have exceptions all the time; they're people, not labels. No one's going to conform 100% to the sexuality they choose for themselves, and heck, they may even change that sexuality several times throughout their lives.
So, to tie it all together, I personally find that in some cases, if certain ships were canon it would help progress the show's social representation. And in others, different interpretations of canonical relationships to allow for a wider range of relationship representation is also good. Of course, all of this is assuming the writer does their research into sexual orientations, romantic orientations, etc, and don't just play by stereotypes in their writing (I am sick and tired of seeing asexuals as boring or overly scientific and neurotic WE'RE PEOPLE TOO, DANGIT).
...Did that even make sense, or...
It made much sense: my problem with some shippers who attempt to put Johnlock or Spirk into the picture is that they often attempt to change the characterization to shoehorn in things that they thought were cute but are totally out of character, or, like I said, they write Uhura out completely. In canon, both AOS and TOS, Spock has utmost respect for Uhura, so him being completely oblivious to the fact that she's completely disappeared from the fic is suspicious at best. Numbers 4 and 5 on my list of pet peeves are bad and lazy writing: later numbers are more about the prevalence of shipping taking over a fic whenever it's introduced and the fact that once some ficthors get characters pair up, they completely ignore the characters' assorted friends and family for the remainder of the fic. Even otherwise really good ship fics suffer from this sudden narrowing of focus, to the point where I can't tell you how many Johnlock fics I've abandoned because I knew that neither the unresolved mystery nor the rest of the cast were going to appear in the next five chapters once they got to the sex scenes, or how many Spirk fics conveniently forget that there's a starship to run. (Which isn't as much of a problem in AU's, but I like that starship, dang it! I've spent a rather long time watching it, after all.)
I'll be won over by plausibile and in-character alternate ships, especially in AU's, like 99% of the time. I'm more likely to heartily approve of the shipping in works where the rest of the cast remains in character and somewhat relevant too: this tends to me reading a lot of reeeealy long fics, because they're more likely to be whole cast fics. Personally, I think that the media would improve a lot with variety - both more leading same sex relationships and more leading male and female friendships, like you said. And you know what, ficthors would probably get better at writing a variety of relationships if the media were more willing to deviate from only glorifying heterosexual romances.
Sevanswans, I can understand that as an abstract value, "diversity" is usually something to be championed. But I think that there is a difference between, on the one hand, showing, e.g., that women of color can be legitimate love interests; and, on the other hand, portraying alternate sexual behavior as just as normal as heterosexual behavior.
Granted, there is a level of what can legitimately be called "homophobia" out there, such as the attacks on gay bars in Russia, or the recent passage of the anti-homosexuality law in Uganda (which I'm against, especially as a Christian. Aquinas makes my point best: Human law does not, and really should not, proscribe all vices.). In that wise, it is important that people learn that homo (or bi-, or pan-)sexuals are people and not somehow subhuman.
However, I contend that it is another thing altogether for the media to push the idea that homosexuality is normal, especially with cultural pressures saying otherwise. So I think that there is at least something to be said for the media's unwillingness to deviate from social norms.
So, granted, though it might be a lot easier for ficwriters to be better at portraying alternate relationships if they were presented more in the media (itself a dubious assumption, as I am willing to bet that there is just as much bad het as there is bad slash), I think that not only might such increased representation not occur in the media, but also that it might not be a good idea for it to happen.
I'm never coming back to the PPC because I'm no longer interested in what the PPC is for, but this? This is a douchewaffle. Douchewaffles in the chat not being told to GTFO was what drove me away in the first place and gave me the away-time to reconsider the PPC and how my nostalgia goggles were occluding its flaws, and those twits weren't this kind of douchewaffle.
This guy? This guy smells like Jacer. I'm kind of horrified that he's not banned. But then, this is the PPC, and you're all too nice for your own good. Hmmm, I have a link from a way-back-when argument... Ah, yes. Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism.
Please, for the love of Glod, clean out your ranks. Get some proper goddamn mods. Ban this dickwad and put his head on a pike. And adieu.
P.S.: No, I don't care what happens to my characters. Kill them, marry them, do what you want; I wash my hands of this phase in my life.
I am not going to claim I agree with what sonofheaven176 said. But the offensive nature of the statement seemed to be largely a mistake in phrasing rather than hateful feelings, which people have, in civil and orderly terms, told him off for, and he has since apologized for. There is no need to turn this into a personal attack.
Blaming the mods(which we don't actually have, by the way) for not banning someone in response to phrasing mishaps that the original poster has since recanted is an incorrect path of thought. Your linked article implies that, if no one speaks out against someone who has offensive or problematic views, then the community will begin to be full of those problematic views. There's a certain logic to that, and it is not in and of itself incorrect. However, people did speak out against it. Immediately. In fact, an equally toxic path would lie in not shutting down posts like this, where the response to a misunderstanding that has since been more-or-less resolved is enormous hostility.
It's fine to think whatever you feel like about what was said. I don't agree with it, and I am not supporting sonofheaven176's original statement. But escalating what was to this point an incident that, while significant, had been summarily shut down by others, and doing so with swearing, personal attacks, and what I am relatively certain is a death threat... no. That goes too far for an offense that does not deserve it. I've seen the original Jacer threads, and I do not want to repeat that. It does not matter who the aggressor is here, if this turns from a shipping thread into a flame war, we're never going to be able to make it stop. Cut it out.
You'd realise that sonofheaven was already called out on his behaviour by a mod. To my mind, the matter is closed. Your response, however well-intentioned and however much I agree with it, was entirely unnecessary. There is a procedure in place to deal with this and that procedure has been enacted. We don't need returnbies steaming in to talk about how offended they are.
But hey, maybe I'm being too nice for my own good. If you want me to stop, do let me know. =]
In case you were talking about me. I am not a mod in form or fashion. I am not a IRC mod, a PG, or even a particularly outstanding member of the PPC.
In a bit of a shortened way, since I don't want to bring anything political into this, and I'm not 100% certain that I understand your argument. (Yes, this is short compared to what I wanted to write.) You're in quotes.
"I think that there is a difference between, on the one hand, showing, e.g., that women of color can be legitimate love interests; and, on the other hand, portraying alternate sexual behavior as just as normal as heterosexual behavior."
I am... not comfortable whatsoever with how you phrased this (I think maybe you meant "common" instead of "normal," since "normal" is a pretty loaded word and varies from era to era and culture to culture,) but if you meant what I think you mean and you're making a case that we shouldn't have, say, 50% of our media romances be homosexual and 50% be heterosexual... my question is why? The characters involved will, presumably, be fictional personages who are of age and fully capable of making their own choices, and the viewers are all human beings who are completely capable of deciding whether or not they approve, either in general or on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, my "diversity" as an abstract value was taking into account that we need more than just romances in the media: we need committed and supportive friendships, we need strong families, we need intensely personal stories about people who don't need any love interests to make them want to overcome their problems, and we need stories where people are judged by their actions first and any category they happen to fall into second. I mean, personally, I like stories about saving the world. I'd love if the media didn't automatically assume that any character who was going to save the world has to be a straight white male.
As for the media's "unwillingness to deviate from social norms," well, the media is influential. Media representation and all the social and cultural aspects of why, say, Hollywood doesn't cast more Asian actors, or more female leading roles, are way too complicated to reduce to a subset of this argument. To make this short, I understand why the media follows well-known storytelling formulas and casting formulas - it's a cultural path of least resistance for them: they know they will make money following the formula.
However, it' is my opinion that if the media woke up tomorrow and decided to pursue more diverse representation - if, say, the leading character of 50% of the movies across all genres scheduled for 2015 was female - they'd find that the majority of society was more than ready to make the transition.
There will be stumbles in the media, and bad portrayals. But there are extremely bad movies even following the current formula. There are plenty of movies that promote frankly awful heterosexual relationships, and books that glorify abuse. Ones that become popular can lead to many copycat works that have the same problems, and to people legitimately believing that the romances in question are good and trying to model their own lives after them, often disastrously. Where the media fails at promoting diverse relationships will often be the same areas they have already failed at promoting healthy heterosexual relationships, which is a problem with the system, and not with inclusion.
A sustained and honest push for increased diversity is important because our society relies more and more on the media to form it's opinions. As you said, it's very important for people to learn empathy via the media, that people who are different races, religions, and sexualities than them are people - but it is extremely important for them to also learn that they're equally as important as the media's default straight white male. To do that, they need to be shown as main characters across all genres, and all aspects of their lives need to be just as important. Therefore, when they are main characters, their jobs, friendships, romances, religions, and accomplishments need to be given as much attention as the creators would have given friendship, romance, religion, jobs, and accomplishments if the main character had been the default straight white male.
Can the media do this? Probably, if not in the next five years then in the next fifteen. It will take work, it will take change from the comfortable routine, and it will take risks, all of which are things that deeply disturb large industries like the media. However, this does not, to me, mean that they should not try, and put some effort into it at that rather than having just one or two more "diverse" movies a year.
Since you like Aquinas: "Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate."
In short: yes, I do believe that the media should promote diversity in all the points which I've discussed in this thread, and that fandom will benefit to some degree from it: it certainly won't loose out.
No, I am not being facetious in my subject. You do make some great points, many of which I agree with. I am sorry that my poor choice of words in the previous post led to a view of me that frankly, is false, and furthermore, is unworthy of a PPC Boarder.
I know that the Board is not a forum for political debate, nor do I want it to become so. I only hope that when issues such as these come up, that all sides are able to express their opinions, popular or no. Obviously, we all agree that we need to be mature about the way we express ourselves on such touchy subjects, and, given the responses, I admit again that the way I expressed myself was amiss.
That said, since you did respond to what I said, please allow me to reply, especially since I have given some thought to it. Quotes are in italics. Where you italicized in the original, I’ve underlined.
In addition, my "diversity" as an abstract value was taking into account that we need more than just romances in the media: we need committed and supportive friendships, we need strong families, we need intensely personal stories about people who don't need any love interests to make them want to overcome their problems, and we need stories where people are judged by their actions first and any category they happen to fall into second. I mean, personally, I like stories about saving the world. I'd love if the media didn't automatically assume that any character who was going to save the world has to be a straight white male.
And I honestly and vociferously agree with every single sentence in that paragraph! In fact, I alluded in part to that same thing in my first post. (“[T]he media seem to be quick to portray any close relationship as either being romantic/sexual, or else heading in that direction.”) We need more than just "guy meets girl and gets it on"!
I did not think to highlight that in the other post because, first, I thought I had adequately addressed it, and second, because I was laser-focused on the point of disagreement. Unfortunately, it seems that things have been misconstrued by others (including a certain vitriolic post that I will not legitimize with a link)—thankfully, not including you. Again, I am not against having more diverse casts and leading roles. Recall that I myself am not of the WASP demographic, as I am Haitian. If anyone ought to know what being misunderstood and discriminated against is like, I should. That said, off to that narrow point of disagreement:
[I]f you meant what I think you mean and you're making a case that we shouldn't have, say, 50% of our media romances be homosexual and 50% be heterosexual...
Which is exactly what I was saying
my question is why? The characters involved will, presumably, be fictional personages who are of age and fully capable of making their own choices, and the viewers are all human beings who are completely capable of deciding whether or not they approve, either in general or on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, people are free moral agents. However, you actually make my point for me, not once, but twice:
[T]he media is influential.
. . .
[O]ur society relies more and more on the media to form it's (should be “its”) opinions.
And that, fellow Boarder, is the crux of the matter. It is exactly because the media is so influential that I am so leery. Here is the distinction that I should have made (and which, I admit, is slightly different than what I stated before):
* on the one hand, the fact that a person is not a straight WASP male makes no difference in regards to what contributions he or she can make to society. Quoting you: As you said, it's very important for people to learn empathy via the media, that people who are different races, religions, and sexualities than them are people—[and] it is extremely important for them to also learn that they're equally as important as the media's default straight white male. . . . [W]hen they are main characters, their jobs, friendships, romances, religions, and accomplishments need to be given as much attention as the creators would have given friendship, romance, religion, jobs, and accomplishments if the main character had been the default straight white male.
HOWEVER,
* on the other hand, people must not be coerced into believing that those, like me, who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle are either ignorant, behind the times, or are compelled by some homophobic animus. There are valid arguments on both sides, and I fear lest the culture forbids one side from being heard because people have been conditioned to believe, a priori, that that side is not worthy of being heard. It is one thing for people to make a reasoned decision, supported by emotion, that a view is reprehensible. It is another thing for people to believe that a view is reprehensible “just because.”
I know you've already apologized once for the language you've used, but I still feel that I need to address a phrase that you used here.
. . . who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle . . .
Two points. First, that "homosexual lifestyle." I don't understand what you're trying to mean through this phrase. The lifestyle of a homosexual person is absolutely no different than the lifestyle of a heterosexual person. They both wake up in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, come home, pay bills, watch TV and go to sleep again. There's nothing in the daily or weekly or monthly lives of either demographic that significantly deviates.
Secondly, that "disagree." "Disagree" is a word used for debates or decisions, things where there are multiple possible answers, with no obvious correct one. That is not the case here. Homosexuality is a real thing that exists. Some people are homosexual. That is a fact. It is the truth. That is not something that can be disagreed with, by you or me or anyone else. That would be like me disagreeing with someone's taste in breakfast cereals, or disagreeing with what temperature range they feel comfortable in without needing a jacket or a fan. Those things have no basis in a person's moral compass, they just are, and sexuality is the same. There's nothing there with which to disagree; people just do what they do.
my phraseology was vague. But what would the fallout be if I were to use the more honest (and more blunt) turn of phrase, "who believe that homosexual behavior is sinful"? Just mentioning the s-word nowadays is a surefire way to paint a target on your back--and I did not want to do that.
The reason calling other people sinful paints a target, as you say, is because doing that is wrong. It is a bad and mean-spirited thing to do. People don't only react that way because it's become in vogue or stylish recently to defend homosexuals' rights; they defend homosexuals' rights because that is the right thing to do.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and I'm not trying to sound like I'm attacking it here. But you need to understand that when you say judgmental things about one minority, people are going to judge you in turn for saying those things. You can't expect to be free to say whatever you want, but then be afraid of others expressing a different opinion back to you.
You say: "But you need to understand that when you say judgmental things about one minority, people are going to judge you in turn for saying those things. You can't expect to be free to say whatever you want, but then be afraid of others expressing a different opinion back to you."
In the abstract, you are correct. Yet note that ever since I gave my apology, I have explicitly tried not to say anything judgmental about anyone. So I understand what you are trying to say, but I cannot be afraid of the consequences of an action that I have not done. In fact, I explicitly said that the wording that I could have used was not what I wanted to use.
That said, however, please allow me to say this: In one wise, you are mistaken. You say: "The reason calling other people sinful paints a target, as you say, is because doing that is wrong. It is a bad and mean-spirited thing to do."
Your argument is amiss: though expressing the opinion that someone's actions are wrong may offend the person allegedly in the wrong, that does not automatically make the speaker's actions mean-spirited, much less wrong.
Allow me to give an illustration. In yesterday's episode of Arrow, Oliver Queen tried to dissuade the Huntress from killing her father in revenge for him killing her fiancé. Why? Because murder is wrong, and would not bring her fiancé back. Did the Huntress want to hear it? Obviously not. But was Oliver mean-spirited? Again, obviously not.
Now before I get misunderstood, I am not trying to equate homosexuality with murder. What I am trying to say is that the mere statement of a value judgment is not mean-spirited. Can a statement be given in a mean-spirited fashion? Of course. Case in point: the late Fred Phelps. But note that throughout this whole side conversation, I have not attacked anyone. (If I have, please point it out.) Yes, I have mentioned my stance, but only in the broader context of arguing that though greater representation of homosexual couples in the media may arguably give fanwriters the ability to better portray homosexual characters in fanfiction, there may be other consequences to such heightened exposure.
Now if you want to comment further on whether I am a mean-spirited person, or on whether my stance is outdated and needs to change, then I would gladly continue this discussion—by email. I have acknowledged that the Board is no place for political—or religious—discussion, and though I would gladly continue down this tangent, I would much rather prefer to clear the air and allow the usual PPC silliness to return to the Board, for what binds the PPC is our common devotion to the sporking of badfic and the promulgation of goodfic, whatever our actions may be in the bedroom.
I just realized: In the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph, "consequences" was the worst word I could have used. But given what I have said, I hope that it is clear what I meant to say. I won't try to edit myself, lest I dig a deeper hole in my very attempt to close this conversation on a positive note.
Been following this thread silently for a while; stepping in here because I think I have a brilliant argument and I want to share it.
If I understand you right, you're concerned that if gay people get proportionate, positive representation in the media, this will automatically characterize people like yourself as ignorant and hateful in the eye of the public.
Er, how? How exactly does showing people different from you in a positive light say anything at all about you one way or the other?
Lemme draw an analogy with drinking alcohol. This is my self-presumed-brilliant argument.
NOTE: This is PURELY for the purpose of analyzing the question above and is not meant to be a complete or accurate representation of my personal opinions about alcohol OR sexuality.
I don't drink, and I don't want to drink. I prefer tea. I'm against the idea of drinking because I think it's harmful and often ruins people's lives. I also don't much care for the culture of going out to the bar or the club on the weekends and getting drunk for fun. I don't understand how this could possibly appeal to anyone.
However, I believe that people who drink aren't inherently stupid or evil, and are perfectly capable of leading fulfilling, productive lives, contributing positively to society, and generally being awesome. I have lots of friends who drink. What they do for fun on their own time is none of my business. Just as long as no one tries to force me to drink, we're cool.
Drinking and people who drink are quite often portrayed positively in the media (and negatively, too, but we're focusing on the positive for this analogy). Bar/club culture is often glorified, portrayed as something so awesome everyone should want to be a part of it.
Do you see anyone automatically assuming teetotalers like me are ignorant or hateful because we don't like it and are not a part of it? Would you suggest that the media shouldn't portray a fair portion of people who drink? Do you think everyone who sees drinking portrayed positively in the media suddenly feels an irresistible desire to guzzle PBR and hang around in bars, and never enjoy tea again? ... I'm guessing no? Because that's silly?
---
I realize that drinking currently is seen as acceptable in the culture at large and being gay currently isn't, but I think that actually make the analogy stronger, since we're discussing a not-so-distant time when being gay IS accepted enough to have a fair, proportionate representation. I'm not getting into the matter of choice, but let me just make it clear that I don't think anyone chooses their sexuality or who they love, and I do think that people who insist otherwise are ignoring pretty much all the science ever. Anecdotally, I certainly don't recall choosing to be attracted to Phobos. It just kinda happened, and I went along with it even though it scared the bejeezus out of me when I had no idea what the seven hells I was going to do with all those feelings. It turned out pretty awesome in the end! {= D
ANYWAY, the point is that portraying a set of people positively in the media doesn't automatically make anyone who isn't one of them them the bad guy. Portraying a set of people as the bad guy makes them the bad guy. It's entirely possible to have oodles of films, books, etc., that portray gay people being awesome without making a statement one way or the other about people who aren't gay, dislike the idea of getting it on with their own sex, personally abstain from doing so for religious reasons, etc. Also, fearing that you'll look bad simply because other people look good doesn't make any logical sense, and should not be used as a basis for excluding people from representation.
I've assumed here that your views on homosexuality are as reasoned as you say they are, in which case they are open to being swayed if reason can prove them flawed. I've personally never heard an anti-gay argument I didn't find logically flawed and unintentionally harmful at the least or deliberately ignorant and reprehensible at worst, so I'm hoping you'll reconsider thoroughly and often.
~Neshomeh (who will read that chapter eventually. >.
I'll answer in brief. If you want to continue (or anyone else for that matter), feel free to send me an email.
First and foremost, for any post, it's usually possible that I could have been clearer. I'll just say this: I'm not saying that positive portrayals of homosexual romances will in and of themselves lead to the marginalization of those who disagree; what I am saying is that they are a step in that direction. Think about it: If homosexual couples are just as common as heterosexual couples (for that would be the portrayal), and if it is completely harmless (for so the media portrays it, and so the argument goes), then those who say that homosexuality is somehow "wrong" must have something wrong with them!
As for your analogy, it falls short. Here's why: In the case of cultural acceptance of homosexuality, it's not a matter of "I'll do what I want, and you do what you want; let's not bother each other," as is the case with drinking.
If I were to say, "I don't drink for religious reasons," no one would object.
Even if I said, "I don't think you should drink; it is a sin," you might say, "Don't try to tell me not to drink," but we could still be friends afterwards.
(I am only speaking hypothetically; I have no such religious qualms about drinking. Getting drunk, on the other hand...)
Only if I were being nasty and pushy about it would it be a ground for antagonism between me and my alcohol-enjoying friend—and rightly so.
However, when it comes to homosexuality, I believe that the way things are is more akin to "I'll do what I want, and you'd better not say anything about it!"
So let's return to those same statements.
"I'm Christian; I'm heterosexual." No one would object.
"I don't think you should be seeing [people of the same gender as you]; it is a sin." The response? "You're homophobic!"
As I said, I was only answering in brief. However, I hope that what I said sufficed. If not, I am amenable to continuing this conversation by e-mail.
Miah and doctorlit made some excellent points, and I don't feel like debating is any good when it gets down to "for the Bible tells me so." Debating opinions based on empirical fact and life experience can be constructive and intellectually stimulating; debating belief sucks, because it never goes anywhere.
However, I must say I actually would object if you told me not to get drunk because you believe it's a sin. I'd much rather that you don't get drunk if you believe it's a sin, and let me behave as my own beliefs dictate. If anything, I'd have you approach me with reason and science, which we can all share and which won't insist that there's something wrong with me as a person if I'm mistaken. This is why we object to you telling gay people what they do is a sin (and therefore that they are spiritually corrupt and damned to burn in Hell). You don't want to be told there's something wrong with you if your beliefs are false. Neither do gay people. Neither does anyone. We should all have more respect for each other than that.
Ultimately, I figure what happens to our immortal souls (if we have them) is between us and whatever is in charge of them (if anything). I think we should all just mind our own spiritual business and not try to dictate that other people live their lives according to our beliefs.
~Neshomeh
"I'm Christian; I'm heterosexual." No one would object.
"I don't think you should be seeing [people of the same gender as you]; it is a sin." The response? "You're homophobic!"
Can you really not see the difference in those statements? And why they would provoke two different responses?
You have the right to hold that second opinion in your heart. No one can make you change it. But you are in a group that has, by my estimation, more people who are not cisgendered heterosexuals than people who are. Do you really think this is an appropriate audience for sharing those particular opinions?
I'm fairly certain you wouldn't appreciate it if I told you, "Judge not, lest ye be judged. I don't think you should be judging other people's sex lives, it's a sin." That's a hypothetical. But can you see how you might find that offensive?
Just. Think about it before you reply. There is no possible way I would take this off the Board to continue it. I don't have anything to say, I can't say in front of everyone. No way I am risking any possibility of what I say being brought back in any other form (not a comment on you, that's my own paranoia).
Think about what you are saying and how it relates to the PPC Constitution. The PPC cannot change the way you think, or how you act in RL, but it can require you to adhere to certain standards on the Board. You are quick to apologize and say you are not being clear, but I have yet to see you stop rehashing the same things that I called you on in the first place.
Maybe all this does add up to, "you'd better not say anything about it!" But really, this is the PPC's home. The rules are posted, including the rule that says, "don't say that." I think the group should have the right to make such rules in its own home.
And as I said before, if I could take back the post that started this side conversation, I would. Note that throughout this side conversation, I have done my utmost to refrain from attacking anyone. After I gave my apology, I had every intention of abandoning this thread altogether; I only returned because Sevenswans gave a reply.
I agree wholeheartedly with you in that this is the PPC's home, and that no one should feel attacked here. And note that I have apologized if anyone felt attacked, and have attacked no one throughout the course of this side conversation. Even the lines that you quoted were not an attack: I was saying that in general society, such a stance can be perceived as hateful, even if the speaker is the most loving person on the planet. The first few paragraphs of your response seem to have taken those quoted lines out of context; I certainly would not say the latter on the Board, as this is certainly no place for it.
That said, I do have one more apology to make. Seychelles, if you are reading this, I am sorry that my post has so sidetracked your thread.
I would also link to this great research article on how diversity representation in media does matter (TL;DR of that report: the only kids who really honestly feel good about themselves are white boys, because everyone else is so under-represented that they either have to learn to identify with characters who aren't completely them, or believe that they, as girls or people of colour, can't be heroes of these stories either), but I don't have a link. I'll find one eventually.
I can say that personally, I can see the effects of media representation. Lucy Liu's Watson in Elementary has been my role model for the past year, and I find myself sympathising with Cho Chang from Harry Potter more than I used to. I love Mako Mori from Pacific Rim to death, because it shows that 1) people like me can be heroes and that 2) people like me can be close friends and mental soulmates with another lead without becoming a love interest (because oh-so-frequently Asian women in media tend to be sexualised into the love interest, in comparison to many of the other non-WASP races represented in media).
But I think that there is a difference between, on the one hand, showing, e.g., that women of color can be legitimate love interests; and, on the other hand, portraying alternate sexual behavior as just as normal as heterosexual behavior.
However, I contend that it is another thing altogether for the media to push the idea that homosexuality is normal, especially with cultural pressures saying otherwise. So I think that there is at least something to be said for the media's unwillingness to deviate from social norms.
While you may hold these opinions in Real Life, and I admit they are disturbingly common, this is not something that is okay within the PPC.
Articles of the Constitution
Section One: On The Capacity To Engage In Mature Conversation
1. Discrimination and persecution of any kind will not be tolerated, especially on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, or religion. We will not tolerate individual people or groups who intentionally oppress, persecute, abuse, other, use or otherwise attack others in any way, shape or form, for any reason.
Your statements were definitely 'othering' as I see it. On a continuum of homophobia, no, what you said is not as bad as the things you mentioned as examples of homophobia, but it is still homophobia. In some ways, a worse form of it, because I imagine that you think you are being very progressive and generous in your way of thinking. You want people of other orientations to be seen as people (which is admittedly better than in Uganda)--You just don't want them to be seen as 'normal' or to have any meaningful presence in society.
I think the attitude present in the quotes I pulled from your post is a more damaging, insidious form of 'othering' in this country than outright hatred. Out and out hatred and public execution are illegal in the US, but this kind of, 'don't bring your deviance near me and my normal society is still widely accepted and it shouldn't be--in the media, the laws, or society. The PPC can't immediately change those outside of it, but we don't have to tolerate it here. This is a safe zone where 'normal' is not so narrowly defined.
(By the way, I am a Christian, too, but my denomination doesn't make it a practice to discriminate based on any of those things. Such a denomination does exist, and if I still have any prejudices, I can't blame them on my religion. I admit, I held viewpoints similar to the ones you expressed here not even too many years ago. I have learned better. There are many wonderfully patient people in the PPC who would be willing to help you, if you seemed to be sincere in your desire to expand your horizons.)
I did not mean to offend anyone, and I apologize to anyone that I have offended by my statements.
Fortunately for the both of us, you are wrong in your perception of me that I don't want them to "have any meaningful presence in society."
I had only intended to express my point of view, and once again, I apologize if anyone saw it as a personal attack. My word choices (normal) were off, and I may have done better not to have gone down this train of thought. If it is possible, you may delete that post.
You and Lily bring me to a point that I originally wanted to make in response to World-Jumper's post. It seems that our culture is partly to blame for the modern phenomenon in shipping. I mean this: in general, the media seem to be quick to portray any close relationship as either being romantic/sexual, or else heading in that direction; it's a rarity to see truly platonic relationships such as, e.g., Frodo and Sam in Lord of the Rings. For someone raised nowadays, two men who care so much about each other must be gay! A guy and a girl cannot be just friends; they must eventually hook up. If only the show didn't have that pesky low rating, or if the writers just got their acts together, we might be able to see teh hott secks.
Add to that the fact that our educational system just fails at producing people with a modicum of literacy or critical thinking skills, and what do we have? Bad shipfic aplenty!
"For someone raised nowadays, two men who care so much about each other must be gay!"
I think that's mostly just a mindset amongst the younger, Tumblr-using generation. You probably won't see the local old and straight white male thinking that.
My case in point: the family in the sauna in Frozen. Tumblr thinks the big guy in this:
screenshot is the husband of this:
guy.
However, on Facebook people tend to believe that the person next to the big guy in the sauna is the other guy's wife.
So no, not everyone raised nowadays gets slash goggles. Heck, I don't think I got mine until I got into Hetalia.
Where does that leave me? Twitter? Myspace? Please tell me it's not Instagram.
World-Jumper's list ended at 3, and yours started at 6.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.