~~ don't dominate me plz.
Oct. 7th, 2003 04:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI sit there in my PoMo theory class and immediately apply the ideas to my recent watching of Level C (which is really bad yaoi) and slash-fic. How deeply wrong is that? Sigh. We've gotten to Derrida, who's always appealed to me. Having passed Heiddegger, who's also always appealed to me. Funny thing is, using them as a foundation for a world-view -doesn't- appeal to me. It's like, now they're "canon", and that sucks. But anyway.
Level C sucks greasy monkey balls, man. I shouldn't have spent the... what... 20-or-so hours downloading it on my 56.6 connection, but I was like, boyporn!!1 ...And of course the lesson is obvious: there's porn and then there's porn. I should've learned that trolling ff.net, but I'm just slow like that.
The reason Level C sucks (besides having a really stupid plot, insipid characters, an impossible set-up and kind of icky animation for the uke-- I mean seriously, -girls- don't have those kind of eyelashes, even in anime)... is just how much it buys into the seme/uke thing. I realized that this just illustrates that while I -can- buy into the dom/sub binary opposition (for instance, Heero-as-uke really doesn't work for me), it really is a stupid opposition. I mean... especially in Level C, it's obvious that the uke is basically a girl-- they don't even show a cock. It's like a phantom cock, with shimmery hazy outlines. It's a weepy, clingy, unrealistically girly girl. There could be a drinking game for every time that boy burst into tears, man. Everyone would be very drunk.
I mean, then I realize-- okay, supposedly in "real life", there -is- a division between "givers" and "takers", and then there -are- these girly boys with the make-up and the squealing and the acting like divas. I don't know if it has much to do with their gayness per se, but I dunno. I'm bi and I know nothing, man. Nothing.
Even -if- it's "realistic" to some extent-- I mean, girly girls who want a manly man to dominate them exist, too. Western society makes sure of it, right. Does that make it into something to perpetuate, though?
What my problem is, basically, is taking this question of who has whose cock up whose arse and making it into a question of identity-- of some basic essence of an individual. How backward is that? It's like, now we have feminism so we feel women should be equals to the men they're with, but we feel free to have this ridiculous power imbalance be "okay" between two men? And even if the person in question -wants- that to be their identity-- should the writer buy into this fiction?
Doesn't this assume that identity is static, and one is "born" a dom or a sub, uke or seme, respectively? I mean, you don't need to think long to see that basing your identity around what your cock does is just... problematic. And if it -doesn't- go where it's supposed to go, does this then imply a whole rethinking of who you as a person?
Mostly it's yaoi that really doesn't sit well with me now rather than slash, though slash has its offenders as well. I mean, my -god-, the uke is -tiny- compared to the seme. Tiny. And what the hell is up with the very -concept- of there being a "dominant partner" in a relationship? It's like... okay, this is reminding me of a pack of wolves now, not how people should be. Although maybe they are that way.
It seems to me that there's something problematic about the idea of "submission" as far as it relates to identity. It's almost like... voluntary indentured servitude, then. As in, "okay, I'll be your bitch." Maybe that's why I prefer writing about boys, and bi boys at that. I like to be as far away from adult gender-roles as possible, man. Boys are much more likely to be in a relationship with equals, if they're friends or rivals; their (sexual) identity more likely to be in flux.
It's funny, because I've seen people say they write slash because it messes with gender-roles and such (well, Ivy, but others too). And then you notice that while we live in an age where gender-roles are routinely challenged between the opposite sexes, no one goes around noticing what same-sex pairings are acting like, so basically you can get away pasting old, traditionalist morality onto these couples (marriage and mpreg are just the more extreme examples-- you also have the sheer stubbornness of some people as to who does the fucking and who gets fucked). I mean, if you consider yourself a modern person, you won't go around saying, 'of course, the woman has to be on the bottom', would you. Not any more than you'd go around saying, 'not to mention that the man of course dominates in the bedroom in every other way, as well'.
Thinking of anime again, I'm trying to remember the straight smut I've seen. Not a lot of material here, mind you, but... most definitely, there's a much, much greater range of behavior there, and I wouldn't say that most m/f anime couples have a dominant male and a submissive female by -far-. In fact, some of my most favorite couples-- in anime and other pop culture-- have a dominant female instead (Hermione, Buffy, Tsukushi, Sana even, heh). I even have a soft spot for Lily/James as seen in Book 5 -because- Lily is so much more together than James. You can tell he's not gonna be bossing her around anytime soon. So at least we usually have a plucky female. Gotta love that word: plucky. Doesn't it make us females feel ever so... empowered? Look, we're plucky. We can cut the guy down to size. Woo for female powah! etc.
I think it's interesting to note that in slash and yaoi it's almost like there's a re-invention of gender-roles; not only that, outdated ones. People assume (slashfic writers, anyway) that just because it's two males, it's -okay- if you separate them into "types", because maybe it's clear that they have some sort of intrinsic equality just because they're both the same gender? As if that gave servants equality. As if that ever gave anyone equality, really.
What really matters often enough, I think, isn't gender but status. I mean, gender will often open the door (as in, hey, we're all men here), but it's up to the person's particular life circumstances to assure their acceptance as equals. Like... one wonders if being a Malfoy means accepting Weasleys or women more. Male Muggle-borns or women. Male Gryffindors or female Slytherins, and so on.
There's a thin line between "well, it's more in character for Harry to not allow himself to be vulnerable enough to Malfoy to be fucked up the arse" and "well, there's always gotta be a bottom, and that's like the `girl', you know". Both are problematic, really, from a theoretical perspective. Basically, what bothers me is the linkage between sexual practices and emotional dispositions and general couple behavior. What do sexual positions have to do with what kind of person you are, really? At first glance, nothing, unless you -make- them be connected. Say, you suppose someone needs/wants power and control. You assume they're always going to be going after this control, and if they don't get it, they'd leave...? And then, just to muddle things, you have the idea that it's really the -bottom- who's in control, 'cause the top has to make sure the bottom is enjoying themselves or something, but this gets into the BDSM aspect of things, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
It's not so much that rigid sexual/gender roles are -unrealistic-, as I said; merely that it seems like an echo of more sinister old ideals of separation between the sexes.
My own favorite pairings are always about a power-exchange, a flux of some sort, something unsettled and always up for grabs. That's the most interesting scenario as I see it. Obviously not everyone has to see it that way, but I -do- think that writing a character as "dominant" and another as "submissive" is one step down the "slippery slope" (and how annoying is -that- phrase) towards crying!uke and self-confident!seme.
I do think that one character will usually be best characterized as more "hung up on" power, more likely to be the aggressor, and that's fine. There are more aggressive and less aggressive people, okay. But this almost invites the concept of "winners" and "losers" into the bedroom, which is just... unsavory to me. The question is, where does it stop? Where is it 'right' to stop with the 'dom' aspect of a character...? Do you have the other character go down on one knee and expose their throat? Do you have them whine and go belly-up? I mean, is that really so far-fetched, considering some of the fic out there?
Anyway, I've run out of steam. Mostly-- Level C is bad, don't watch it. Seme/uke-ness annoys me. If I watched too much yaoi (which I don't, I watch series that get fanficced into yaoi), I'd probably give up and watch het again, with its saner ideas about sex. Which would be a tragedy, wouldn't it~:)
EDIT - On the other hand... mmmmm, there's always QAF US. Briiiiian.... Justinnnn..... Dude. That totally works for me. I'm a complete hypocrite. Either that or it really -is- all about the particular chemistry of any two people having to convince you of whatever the dynamic is.
Level C sucks greasy monkey balls, man. I shouldn't have spent the... what... 20-or-so hours downloading it on my 56.6 connection, but I was like, boyporn!!1 ...And of course the lesson is obvious: there's porn and then there's porn. I should've learned that trolling ff.net, but I'm just slow like that.
The reason Level C sucks (besides having a really stupid plot, insipid characters, an impossible set-up and kind of icky animation for the uke-- I mean seriously, -girls- don't have those kind of eyelashes, even in anime)... is just how much it buys into the seme/uke thing. I realized that this just illustrates that while I -can- buy into the dom/sub binary opposition (for instance, Heero-as-uke really doesn't work for me), it really is a stupid opposition. I mean... especially in Level C, it's obvious that the uke is basically a girl-- they don't even show a cock. It's like a phantom cock, with shimmery hazy outlines. It's a weepy, clingy, unrealistically girly girl. There could be a drinking game for every time that boy burst into tears, man. Everyone would be very drunk.
I mean, then I realize-- okay, supposedly in "real life", there -is- a division between "givers" and "takers", and then there -are- these girly boys with the make-up and the squealing and the acting like divas. I don't know if it has much to do with their gayness per se, but I dunno. I'm bi and I know nothing, man. Nothing.
Even -if- it's "realistic" to some extent-- I mean, girly girls who want a manly man to dominate them exist, too. Western society makes sure of it, right. Does that make it into something to perpetuate, though?
What my problem is, basically, is taking this question of who has whose cock up whose arse and making it into a question of identity-- of some basic essence of an individual. How backward is that? It's like, now we have feminism so we feel women should be equals to the men they're with, but we feel free to have this ridiculous power imbalance be "okay" between two men? And even if the person in question -wants- that to be their identity-- should the writer buy into this fiction?
Doesn't this assume that identity is static, and one is "born" a dom or a sub, uke or seme, respectively? I mean, you don't need to think long to see that basing your identity around what your cock does is just... problematic. And if it -doesn't- go where it's supposed to go, does this then imply a whole rethinking of who you as a person?
Mostly it's yaoi that really doesn't sit well with me now rather than slash, though slash has its offenders as well. I mean, my -god-, the uke is -tiny- compared to the seme. Tiny. And what the hell is up with the very -concept- of there being a "dominant partner" in a relationship? It's like... okay, this is reminding me of a pack of wolves now, not how people should be. Although maybe they are that way.
It seems to me that there's something problematic about the idea of "submission" as far as it relates to identity. It's almost like... voluntary indentured servitude, then. As in, "okay, I'll be your bitch." Maybe that's why I prefer writing about boys, and bi boys at that. I like to be as far away from adult gender-roles as possible, man. Boys are much more likely to be in a relationship with equals, if they're friends or rivals; their (sexual) identity more likely to be in flux.
It's funny, because I've seen people say they write slash because it messes with gender-roles and such (well, Ivy, but others too). And then you notice that while we live in an age where gender-roles are routinely challenged between the opposite sexes, no one goes around noticing what same-sex pairings are acting like, so basically you can get away pasting old, traditionalist morality onto these couples (marriage and mpreg are just the more extreme examples-- you also have the sheer stubbornness of some people as to who does the fucking and who gets fucked). I mean, if you consider yourself a modern person, you won't go around saying, 'of course, the woman has to be on the bottom', would you. Not any more than you'd go around saying, 'not to mention that the man of course dominates in the bedroom in every other way, as well'.
Thinking of anime again, I'm trying to remember the straight smut I've seen. Not a lot of material here, mind you, but... most definitely, there's a much, much greater range of behavior there, and I wouldn't say that most m/f anime couples have a dominant male and a submissive female by -far-. In fact, some of my most favorite couples-- in anime and other pop culture-- have a dominant female instead (Hermione, Buffy, Tsukushi, Sana even, heh). I even have a soft spot for Lily/James as seen in Book 5 -because- Lily is so much more together than James. You can tell he's not gonna be bossing her around anytime soon. So at least we usually have a plucky female. Gotta love that word: plucky. Doesn't it make us females feel ever so... empowered? Look, we're plucky. We can cut the guy down to size. Woo for female powah! etc.
I think it's interesting to note that in slash and yaoi it's almost like there's a re-invention of gender-roles; not only that, outdated ones. People assume (slashfic writers, anyway) that just because it's two males, it's -okay- if you separate them into "types", because maybe it's clear that they have some sort of intrinsic equality just because they're both the same gender? As if that gave servants equality. As if that ever gave anyone equality, really.
What really matters often enough, I think, isn't gender but status. I mean, gender will often open the door (as in, hey, we're all men here), but it's up to the person's particular life circumstances to assure their acceptance as equals. Like... one wonders if being a Malfoy means accepting Weasleys or women more. Male Muggle-borns or women. Male Gryffindors or female Slytherins, and so on.
There's a thin line between "well, it's more in character for Harry to not allow himself to be vulnerable enough to Malfoy to be fucked up the arse" and "well, there's always gotta be a bottom, and that's like the `girl', you know". Both are problematic, really, from a theoretical perspective. Basically, what bothers me is the linkage between sexual practices and emotional dispositions and general couple behavior. What do sexual positions have to do with what kind of person you are, really? At first glance, nothing, unless you -make- them be connected. Say, you suppose someone needs/wants power and control. You assume they're always going to be going after this control, and if they don't get it, they'd leave...? And then, just to muddle things, you have the idea that it's really the -bottom- who's in control, 'cause the top has to make sure the bottom is enjoying themselves or something, but this gets into the BDSM aspect of things, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
It's not so much that rigid sexual/gender roles are -unrealistic-, as I said; merely that it seems like an echo of more sinister old ideals of separation between the sexes.
My own favorite pairings are always about a power-exchange, a flux of some sort, something unsettled and always up for grabs. That's the most interesting scenario as I see it. Obviously not everyone has to see it that way, but I -do- think that writing a character as "dominant" and another as "submissive" is one step down the "slippery slope" (and how annoying is -that- phrase) towards crying!uke and self-confident!seme.
I do think that one character will usually be best characterized as more "hung up on" power, more likely to be the aggressor, and that's fine. There are more aggressive and less aggressive people, okay. But this almost invites the concept of "winners" and "losers" into the bedroom, which is just... unsavory to me. The question is, where does it stop? Where is it 'right' to stop with the 'dom' aspect of a character...? Do you have the other character go down on one knee and expose their throat? Do you have them whine and go belly-up? I mean, is that really so far-fetched, considering some of the fic out there?
Anyway, I've run out of steam. Mostly-- Level C is bad, don't watch it. Seme/uke-ness annoys me. If I watched too much yaoi (which I don't, I watch series that get fanficced into yaoi), I'd probably give up and watch het again, with its saner ideas about sex. Which would be a tragedy, wouldn't it~:)
EDIT - On the other hand... mmmmm, there's always QAF US. Briiiiian.... Justinnnn..... Dude. That totally works for me. I'm a complete hypocrite. Either that or it really -is- all about the particular chemistry of any two people having to convince you of whatever the dynamic is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-11 11:49 pm (UTC)HAH.
That's perfect.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-11 11:50 pm (UTC)At any rate, I really like this post.