~~ comrade slash thoughts
May. 11th, 2004 10:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaMore than half the couples I like together have been friends first, and.... Having read a bit of Kirk/Spock lately, I've realized I'd grown out of my squick, but I still don't like the idea. It's weird, because I love quite a few friends-turned-soulmates matches... but since I loved the friendship alone for so long in this case, it made me realize that by "expanding", it really loses something precious.
I think it's different to me when the pairing is a squabbling duo, I guess-- where they argue and get on each other's nerves and drive each other mad, so there was never that sort of smooth, seamless melding between them. I think a squabbling, ever-uneasy (yet devoted) friendship makes a -great- romantic relationship because they never become a -unit-, quite. They're both quite ridiculously individualistic and need their space, as much as they love each other. It's like they're always going to be coming apart as much as they come together.
The thing that bothers me is the idea that at some point, a really deep friendship is not enough. That... it's just not satisfying somehow. Not deep enough? Not broad enough? Not fulfilling enough. Possibly not extreme enough? Something like that. And I'd be the first to say that 'love is not enough', but it's somewhat offensive when that's "fixed" by the addition of... well... sex.
I find that most people -write- about emotions without actually showing them, and the more extreme the emotion, the more people resort to simplifications. It's like... true platonic love is so rare, people feel the need to return to the things they know, make it fit into the same boundaries most other people's relationships do. After all, the usual stronger bonds are at least somewhat hormonal, I guess-- in families, that is, and between courting couples.
I keep returning to the concept of "comrades". It's one of the most typical targets for slashing, and I definitely see the appeal-- but I still feel like the relationship becomes more shallow that way. For one thing, the power dynamics become more blatantly significant. Sexual insecurities and unrelated intimacy and commitment issues could interfere. Suddenly, there are societal structures pointing the way for the relationship's future development, whereas before the friendship ran entirely under the radar of any sort of tradition. And it's not like merely not being a male/female pair makes you immune to societal couple pressure.
Couples bother me, to some degree. -Being- a couple. Whereas in friendship, you have individuals bound by affection and mutual history, with a couple you have a sort of... inertia of millions of years of sexual pairing practices. So suddenly, things that would have never made sense in a friendship (power games in particular) can be imagined.
People have said that sex makes platonic love "less pure", which I think is utter bullshit. It's not the sex at all-- it's everything that comes with it. Being a -couple- would change these people much more than sex would by itself, and -that's- what gives me pause. Sex alone is-- well-- a good thing, an enjoyable thing. Certainly, it's convenient in a way, allowing two people to share -everything- so that they don't have to go somewhere else for satisfaction. After all, why not keep all your eggs in one basket if you're already keeping 9 out of 10 in that basket, right? That's the argument, and I'm definitely not immune to it.
I think DV!Harry & Draco illustrate the point quite well, actually. While they're seamlessly attuned to each other, they can't be lovers. Their friendship is too all-encompassing, and if they were lovers, they'd lose something of themselves. So they do need distance-- a sort of controlled, pre-emptive loss-- if they were to be able to have the possibility, even.
The problem with Kirk/Spock is that so far, I haven't seen any writer introduce this distance before the sexual pairing happens. And in fact, I'm so attached to them as they are, deeply bonded and linked, that it really doesn't seem worth it. They don't have the problem of needing to settle down with someone else, and it thus being sensible to attain sexual gratification with each other, too. Neither ever settled down anyway, so instead, a sexual union would possibly drive them too close together, taking away the single measure of distance between them-- that single necessary measure of distance.
It's only now that I'm realizing that I think this distance is essential, as much as I love soul-bonding and deep connections between friends. Without some space where the other isn't (whether it's sexual or otherwise), I think the friendship would become suffocating. Completely overwhelming. One's -whole- identity would become tied up in this one person, and every part of one's mental balance and health would depend on them.
It's sad, of course, in a way. I mean, I actually really ship DV!Harry & Draco, and they're like, a textbook example of this sort of way-too-close friendship. They -need- the space between them, that no-touching space where they kiss people other than each other, otherwise I think their individuality and ability to function alone at -all- would seriously suffer, which would affect their mental health in the long term.
But I can't vouch for my analysis, of course. I'm a bad friend, I think, in that I go through periods where I crave space-- a lot of space. Even the deepest bond couldn't keep me in constant contact with someone. *sigh* It all gets to be too much, I guess, and the pulling away from everyone isn't even something I control. I know other people aren't... um... necessarily like this. Wah. But. I should say that "just" friendship... every person I really feel like I -know-... it means everything to me.
I think it's different to me when the pairing is a squabbling duo, I guess-- where they argue and get on each other's nerves and drive each other mad, so there was never that sort of smooth, seamless melding between them. I think a squabbling, ever-uneasy (yet devoted) friendship makes a -great- romantic relationship because they never become a -unit-, quite. They're both quite ridiculously individualistic and need their space, as much as they love each other. It's like they're always going to be coming apart as much as they come together.
The thing that bothers me is the idea that at some point, a really deep friendship is not enough. That... it's just not satisfying somehow. Not deep enough? Not broad enough? Not fulfilling enough. Possibly not extreme enough? Something like that. And I'd be the first to say that 'love is not enough', but it's somewhat offensive when that's "fixed" by the addition of... well... sex.
I find that most people -write- about emotions without actually showing them, and the more extreme the emotion, the more people resort to simplifications. It's like... true platonic love is so rare, people feel the need to return to the things they know, make it fit into the same boundaries most other people's relationships do. After all, the usual stronger bonds are at least somewhat hormonal, I guess-- in families, that is, and between courting couples.
I keep returning to the concept of "comrades". It's one of the most typical targets for slashing, and I definitely see the appeal-- but I still feel like the relationship becomes more shallow that way. For one thing, the power dynamics become more blatantly significant. Sexual insecurities and unrelated intimacy and commitment issues could interfere. Suddenly, there are societal structures pointing the way for the relationship's future development, whereas before the friendship ran entirely under the radar of any sort of tradition. And it's not like merely not being a male/female pair makes you immune to societal couple pressure.
Couples bother me, to some degree. -Being- a couple. Whereas in friendship, you have individuals bound by affection and mutual history, with a couple you have a sort of... inertia of millions of years of sexual pairing practices. So suddenly, things that would have never made sense in a friendship (power games in particular) can be imagined.
People have said that sex makes platonic love "less pure", which I think is utter bullshit. It's not the sex at all-- it's everything that comes with it. Being a -couple- would change these people much more than sex would by itself, and -that's- what gives me pause. Sex alone is-- well-- a good thing, an enjoyable thing. Certainly, it's convenient in a way, allowing two people to share -everything- so that they don't have to go somewhere else for satisfaction. After all, why not keep all your eggs in one basket if you're already keeping 9 out of 10 in that basket, right? That's the argument, and I'm definitely not immune to it.
I think DV!Harry & Draco illustrate the point quite well, actually. While they're seamlessly attuned to each other, they can't be lovers. Their friendship is too all-encompassing, and if they were lovers, they'd lose something of themselves. So they do need distance-- a sort of controlled, pre-emptive loss-- if they were to be able to have the possibility, even.
The problem with Kirk/Spock is that so far, I haven't seen any writer introduce this distance before the sexual pairing happens. And in fact, I'm so attached to them as they are, deeply bonded and linked, that it really doesn't seem worth it. They don't have the problem of needing to settle down with someone else, and it thus being sensible to attain sexual gratification with each other, too. Neither ever settled down anyway, so instead, a sexual union would possibly drive them too close together, taking away the single measure of distance between them-- that single necessary measure of distance.
It's only now that I'm realizing that I think this distance is essential, as much as I love soul-bonding and deep connections between friends. Without some space where the other isn't (whether it's sexual or otherwise), I think the friendship would become suffocating. Completely overwhelming. One's -whole- identity would become tied up in this one person, and every part of one's mental balance and health would depend on them.
It's sad, of course, in a way. I mean, I actually really ship DV!Harry & Draco, and they're like, a textbook example of this sort of way-too-close friendship. They -need- the space between them, that no-touching space where they kiss people other than each other, otherwise I think their individuality and ability to function alone at -all- would seriously suffer, which would affect their mental health in the long term.
But I can't vouch for my analysis, of course. I'm a bad friend, I think, in that I go through periods where I crave space-- a lot of space. Even the deepest bond couldn't keep me in constant contact with someone. *sigh* It all gets to be too much, I guess, and the pulling away from everyone isn't even something I control. I know other people aren't... um... necessarily like this. Wah. But. I should say that "just" friendship... every person I really feel like I -know-... it means everything to me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 01:55 pm (UTC)nope, most people really are not. and sometimes - sorry for seriousness - i start to wonder how many dutroux are in hp communities *shudder*
but i think you need to have read a number of fanfics and spent some time involved in slash to reach that point. it needs some intelligence and reflection, but you come to the conclusion - again - that sex in slash also becomes an end in itself. and seeing it as the holy grail is just ... sad?
wanted to answer quickly, so i didn´t phrase it too well ;)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:04 pm (UTC)Depends on the motivation behind the slashing & the particular flavor of the friendship involved, I think, in the end.
I'm sure there are -some- friendships that are suited for evolving into BDSM. Probably. Maybe.
Er. There are a lot of people out there ^^;
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:16 pm (UTC)which attracted me to slash initially.
thing is, i´m currently thinking qaf, and that is really an issue where gays say that friendship is more important than sex. for a while they think they have to do it, but find that they are closer than anybody else (they fuck) without it.
in d/h or similar, where two snarky opponents are slashed, sex serves as an expression. it´s very handy to show unwilling closeness. ust is nice, sex is climax/happy end etc. blablabla :)
uhm. fun for the family? i forgot, you are from ny, so you probably don´t know who dutroux (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial3/marcdutroux/) is?
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 02:52 pm (UTC)Hehehe. Well, uh, I meant that anybody could enjoy it (well, over the age of 12-13 or so, I guess), not that families should enjoy it with each other, ahahah. And no, I've not heard of him before, but I've certainly heard of enough pedophile murderers on the news in the last 10 years. *sigh* It's a cultural obsession here, always talking about rape & murder, especially sexual murder where they're combined. Scare-tactic journalism, all that. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2004-05-12 03:17 pm (UTC)yes. casual. male sex. cut out the pesky female and you can get right to it. love might not include sex at all then.
the thing about dutroux was not just the usual rape+murder. i sent you the only english article i found. the horror was that it exposed how many high ranking men were involved. not new either. and how many people never said a word. he tortured the children for a long time, and neighbours never said anything. it´s not scare tactic journalism in this case, it was about the exposure of paedophile rings in high circles, and society´s acceptance of this. that´s what i meant when i said people like dutroux will be in our community.
better stop now. stop making sense :)