![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaYou knew this had to happen... -I- knew this had to happen-- and finally, it's happened: My Thoughts On Yaoi :D :D :D
Uh. Well, I was reading this post about power dynamics & sex in slash, and how unrealistic/masturbatory on the part of the author it generally is to make the characters uber-bottoms or uber-tops (in the sense that one means getting it and the other means giving it), and the usual tie to how strong women still get penetrated, etc. Well, we've heard it all before... but then it's tied to the op's Issue With Yaoi & the seme/uke thing, and okay.... Okay, there's a big difference between Character X in fanfic who would never be super!uke, or who would never really get off on a particular situation 'cause it just doesn't make sense... and an original character in an original yaoi manga.
I'm so totally on board with being squicked by fics where it's obvious the sexual roles & behaviors are purely masturbatory either for the author's sake or as performance for the fangirl audience. I was talking about this earlier in response to Sister M's post on interpretation issues in fanon & somewhat the role of fantasy in making some things plausible or not. I definitely have issues with writing where characters aren't paid attention to, and I think that's why I'm so militant about ICness insofar as what -I- mean when I say that. To me, it means 'in character' rather than 'in author'. If the characters are doing what the characters would do in your head, fine-- but sometimes it's just waaaaaay too obvious that the characters are doing what they are because they 'should' to fit the plot. And that? That is by default, not something I could ever find 'in character', even if at the surface their behavior seems to fit (until you think about their motivations).
The interaction between 'in characterness' and sexual roles and kinks is obviously tricky, though, 'cause it's not like we generally know what the characters' kinks are in canon, and besides, with slash, we're already consciously twisting canon sexuality to some degree. So pretty much you can definitely write pure top/bottom if you can sell it & don't write just for the kink-- the same as with any other questionable characterization. Defaulting to it isn't kosher because defaulting to -any- characterization cliche isn't good writing. If you're writing your character as 'the top', you might as well be writing him as 'the jock' or 'the slut' or 'the repressed bookworm'-- and on that level, saying 'real gay men' aren't like that seems entirely beside the point, no? The issue isn't with the characterization -or- the kink, but always with sloppy writing. Always.
Anyway... right. Yaoi. I feel a bit guilty 'cause obviously I'm addicted to yaoi and it's not like I believe in rigid sexual roles or 'ukes = must be penetrated = must be submissive = must cry'.
And thank god, a lot of yaoi isn't that cliched/boring, and there are a lot of mangas that buck the stereotype (though of course there are even more that sustain it). The thing is, most-- not all!-- yaoi isn't trying to be a realistic depiction of how men are or even how people are (see: shoujo in general); and just because you're into realism personally doesn't mean you get to judge all stories by that meter whether they fit or not. And I actually love emotional realism, and look for mangas that 'feel real'; it's just that if it's a good story, it'll sell you. It no longer matters if one guy is uke (always bottoms) or seme, because it -works- in that story; I believe it. That's what good writing, fanfic or original is all about, after all-- making it so you believe it. If it doesn't-- and you know you're willing and open as the reader-- then basically that story sucks, yeah, but not the genre/type of story itself.
Well, I guess I should note the original post actually used 'yaoi' to mean 'English-language fanfic for Japanese shows that slashes the male characters and puts them into Japanese-typical yaoi-type roles'. Which isn't really yaoi at all :/ I mean, it's 'yaoi fanfic', but it doesn't actually reflect the original nature of yaoi as it flourishes in its home environment; it may be influenced both by yaoi and slash, but generally there's no way of being certain what 'school' the writer's following, 'cause it's not like slash necessarily equals switching, or mature and modern lifestyles.
Regardless, yaoi dynamics have absolutely nothing to do with fics where the slashed characters are 'forced' into rigid roles, because yaoi characters aren't forced into anything-- they just are the way they are. And in any good story in general, the characters aren't 'forced' either. It's the forcing that's the problem, not the sexual dynamics.
It's a bit funny to me that people who're into switching can be as damned rigid and closed-minded about the idea that 'everyone switches! or THEY AREN'T REAL!' as they accuse the 'yaoi fangirls' of being with the seme/uke thing. Why is it so hard to imagine that some characters might be given to switch & some might not? Boring or not, some people are just... that way. Some people also eat the same type of cereal for breakfast every single day for the rest of their lives-- it's possible! Depends on the person, doesn't it? You can't even say 'everyone's different' 'cause... theoretically, you could find some people that are REALLY similar (if not the same). I guess I'm contradicting myself in that I'm saying 'you can't know!' and 'you can know enough!', haha. But it really depends on what your source is; in terms of one single measly 6-book canon, hell yeah, you can know! In terms of the whole wide world of possible original characters-- you can only sort of know, and what you don't, you can be convinced of by a good writer.
It's funny that these days I see rigidity even in people who're all insistent about open-mindedness in interpretation; it's like that cliche about 'everything in moderation: even moderation'. The people who say there's no such thing as ICness just hurt my brain; even in real life, if I knew someone well enough, I could say 'this isn't something they'd do, unless...'. People like to say about how everything's possible, but that's basically meaningless because it implies a universe where nothing's certain, and that's demonstratively false. I just want things to make sense, and when something seriously doesn't, especially in fanfic, my first thought isn't 'must be 'cause I'm just on a different wavelength'.
Like, usually even if I dislike something, I should be able to 'get' it and see where the other person got it from-- and of course I expect it from others. I once said this to someone and they said I was lucky 'cause they find they can't get other people all the time... whereas I guess I'm a bit too obsessed with understanding everything to the point where I take it for granted I can, given the right tools? Maybe.
Uh. Well, I was reading this post about power dynamics & sex in slash, and how unrealistic/masturbatory on the part of the author it generally is to make the characters uber-bottoms or uber-tops (in the sense that one means getting it and the other means giving it), and the usual tie to how strong women still get penetrated, etc. Well, we've heard it all before... but then it's tied to the op's Issue With Yaoi & the seme/uke thing, and okay.... Okay, there's a big difference between Character X in fanfic who would never be super!uke, or who would never really get off on a particular situation 'cause it just doesn't make sense... and an original character in an original yaoi manga.
I'm so totally on board with being squicked by fics where it's obvious the sexual roles & behaviors are purely masturbatory either for the author's sake or as performance for the fangirl audience. I was talking about this earlier in response to Sister M's post on interpretation issues in fanon & somewhat the role of fantasy in making some things plausible or not. I definitely have issues with writing where characters aren't paid attention to, and I think that's why I'm so militant about ICness insofar as what -I- mean when I say that. To me, it means 'in character' rather than 'in author'. If the characters are doing what the characters would do in your head, fine-- but sometimes it's just waaaaaay too obvious that the characters are doing what they are because they 'should' to fit the plot. And that? That is by default, not something I could ever find 'in character', even if at the surface their behavior seems to fit (until you think about their motivations).
The interaction between 'in characterness' and sexual roles and kinks is obviously tricky, though, 'cause it's not like we generally know what the characters' kinks are in canon, and besides, with slash, we're already consciously twisting canon sexuality to some degree. So pretty much you can definitely write pure top/bottom if you can sell it & don't write just for the kink-- the same as with any other questionable characterization. Defaulting to it isn't kosher because defaulting to -any- characterization cliche isn't good writing. If you're writing your character as 'the top', you might as well be writing him as 'the jock' or 'the slut' or 'the repressed bookworm'-- and on that level, saying 'real gay men' aren't like that seems entirely beside the point, no? The issue isn't with the characterization -or- the kink, but always with sloppy writing. Always.
Anyway... right. Yaoi. I feel a bit guilty 'cause obviously I'm addicted to yaoi and it's not like I believe in rigid sexual roles or 'ukes = must be penetrated = must be submissive = must cry'.
And thank god, a lot of yaoi isn't that cliched/boring, and there are a lot of mangas that buck the stereotype (though of course there are even more that sustain it). The thing is, most-- not all!-- yaoi isn't trying to be a realistic depiction of how men are or even how people are (see: shoujo in general); and just because you're into realism personally doesn't mean you get to judge all stories by that meter whether they fit or not. And I actually love emotional realism, and look for mangas that 'feel real'; it's just that if it's a good story, it'll sell you. It no longer matters if one guy is uke (always bottoms) or seme, because it -works- in that story; I believe it. That's what good writing, fanfic or original is all about, after all-- making it so you believe it. If it doesn't-- and you know you're willing and open as the reader-- then basically that story sucks, yeah, but not the genre/type of story itself.
Well, I guess I should note the original post actually used 'yaoi' to mean 'English-language fanfic for Japanese shows that slashes the male characters and puts them into Japanese-typical yaoi-type roles'. Which isn't really yaoi at all :/ I mean, it's 'yaoi fanfic', but it doesn't actually reflect the original nature of yaoi as it flourishes in its home environment; it may be influenced both by yaoi and slash, but generally there's no way of being certain what 'school' the writer's following, 'cause it's not like slash necessarily equals switching, or mature and modern lifestyles.
Regardless, yaoi dynamics have absolutely nothing to do with fics where the slashed characters are 'forced' into rigid roles, because yaoi characters aren't forced into anything-- they just are the way they are. And in any good story in general, the characters aren't 'forced' either. It's the forcing that's the problem, not the sexual dynamics.
It's a bit funny to me that people who're into switching can be as damned rigid and closed-minded about the idea that 'everyone switches! or THEY AREN'T REAL!' as they accuse the 'yaoi fangirls' of being with the seme/uke thing. Why is it so hard to imagine that some characters might be given to switch & some might not? Boring or not, some people are just... that way. Some people also eat the same type of cereal for breakfast every single day for the rest of their lives-- it's possible! Depends on the person, doesn't it? You can't even say 'everyone's different' 'cause... theoretically, you could find some people that are REALLY similar (if not the same). I guess I'm contradicting myself in that I'm saying 'you can't know!' and 'you can know enough!', haha. But it really depends on what your source is; in terms of one single measly 6-book canon, hell yeah, you can know! In terms of the whole wide world of possible original characters-- you can only sort of know, and what you don't, you can be convinced of by a good writer.
It's funny that these days I see rigidity even in people who're all insistent about open-mindedness in interpretation; it's like that cliche about 'everything in moderation: even moderation'. The people who say there's no such thing as ICness just hurt my brain; even in real life, if I knew someone well enough, I could say 'this isn't something they'd do, unless...'. People like to say about how everything's possible, but that's basically meaningless because it implies a universe where nothing's certain, and that's demonstratively false. I just want things to make sense, and when something seriously doesn't, especially in fanfic, my first thought isn't 'must be 'cause I'm just on a different wavelength'.
Like, usually even if I dislike something, I should be able to 'get' it and see where the other person got it from-- and of course I expect it from others. I once said this to someone and they said I was lucky 'cause they find they can't get other people all the time... whereas I guess I'm a bit too obsessed with understanding everything to the point where I take it for granted I can, given the right tools? Maybe.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 01:05 am (UTC)Eh, it's not hard for me to get? I can't speak for other women though, obviously. Still, I can't see how it's any different than understanding that some women like fast and some like slow, or some people like breastplay and some don't. It's all just what works for a given person.
Partly might be because he never really wanted to 'cheat'
Blah. That's the theory fandom had, and CowLip responded by making him bottom for everyone he had sex with in S5, haha. That said, name a romanticized interpretation and they dissected it that season.
I have no comment on the Sentinel caaause I have never seen it, nor have I ever read fic about it! But yeah.
It'd be interesting to write a fey guy in make-up being a rigid top, but it'd be difficult to write it without it being a reflection on his issues, 'cause come on, no matter what the realistic situation might be, that's sort of begging for issues, isn't it? :>
Honestly? I really, genuinely don't see why.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-10 01:22 am (UTC)Haha. *cough!* It's not entirely silly to romanticize -Justin's- behavior the way it would be Brian's though, 'cause Justin's the romantic one! :P
The glittery top thing... I think instinctively, I'd say the difficulty would because it's hard to be a gliterry fey boy who's totally okay with himself and doesn't have masculinity/identity/gender-based issues at all. I don't mean 'gender-based' in the gender-queer sense, more just some insecurity 'cause they are growing up in this culture and their topping preference -is- seen as more 'masculine' by a good percent of people in general (guys, I mean), so. While it's certainly possible for a fey guy who physically likes to top to exist, the issues exist all around him in the ether, I suppose, which is where the 'begging to be written' comes in. I'd have to consciously ignore/refuse to go there and give excuses/explanations to myself/in the fic for why the person happens to have so few hang-ups. As an aside, I can see a fey guy switching or being totally slutty/uncaring about who fucks whom, or being bi-- it's the 'rigid' that sets off alarm bells for some reason. If he were a bottom, I wouldn't call him a 'rigid' bottom 'cause I guess he'd be going with the overall 'girly' gender-stereotype flow-- whereas there's some element of resistence implicit to countering people's expectations that seems interesting/begging to be noticed psychologically. I dunno, this is all beyond theoretical, of course :>
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 11:16 am (UTC)I'm not going to deny that it irritates me to some degree, though. I mean, one of the things about fandom that I really don't get is this tendency to insist that there be some kind of emotional/relationship significance to everything one does while naked, and I just don't get that. Which brings me to...
Justin. It's actually not that I think it's silly to romanticize Justin's behavior? It's more that I think most of the time it has more to do with the fan than the character - like, the whole "Justin only bottoms for Brian" thing reminds me of another fannish assumption, which was that Brian only fucked Justin face to face (and everyone else from behind). And it just strikes me that these assumptions become um, emotionalized because in the absence of a traditional/monogamous relationship model, the fan is trying to stake out part of Brian and Justin's sexuality as belonging only to each other as compensation. Which just bugs me in the same way that bringing any personal baggage to the table bugs me (even when I do it! Or, well, especially when I do it. Which I totally do, and everytime I notice it, I get annoyed at myself, hah.)
Hmm, the glittery top thing - I'd agree with your first sentence, but I'm not sure I get why the idea of a guy being fey and yet a strict top is setting off alarms. I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with implicit resistence or more, I think it might but it really doesn't need to be that complicated. Which goes back to the psychologizing thing, which does bug me (again) just on principle. I guess just because I think its problematic to assume everything one likes in bed is linked to some kind of personal issue.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 11:33 am (UTC)Like I said, it's the 'strict' thing-- why is he so rigid about this? Seems odd. The dressing-up-uber-gay is loaded/coded behavior, plus is a sexualized behavior. Not like 'well, that girl wore a red leather miniskirt, she was asking to be fucked'-- it's a lot more literal if you're a fey boy in glitter baring your belly-button. Men are also more literal-minded in general. So it's something of a case of mixed sexual signals that would therefore confuse me if the message is really 'I want to fuck you, and no way am I being fucked or seen as a sexual object to be 'done to', no sir'. That seems... ripe for issues of some sort :>
It doesn't have to be complicated, but the gliterry fey androgyne you described is what makes it complicated :> Sexuality isn't just confined to the bedroom, y'know? That's one of the things people who're entirely rational miss, I guess. People walk and talk and act sexual without actually penetrating-- and the whole danceclub scene is one big orgy of ritualized foreplay. Hell, you can call almost anything you like foreplay if the people involved are attracted to each other. So it's just as problematic to assume that 'what you do in bed' stays over in bed and 'what you do elsewhere' stays everywhere else. Especially a highly-charged sexualized person (see: glittery fey sex-kitten type) is unlikely to make that sort of rigid and rational distinction. That's the sort of behavior I'd find more probable in more uptight/rational/controlled types who're all 'lalala, I'm a fixture of authority & self-control' or 'lalala, I'm a cute/flirty yet emotionally distant socialite', and then they do a total 180 in the bedroom-- yeah. But when one's roles are in conflict and it's not obvious that one's a social mask (ie, one's other behavior seems more 'natural'), it's weird to see that split, so I would think of issues. Or something. Also, basically I think everyone's sex life is connected to their overall issues one way or the other; it's the rare person who's sexually healthy/uninhibited/inhibited but in a completely controlled and genuine way :>
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 11:51 am (UTC)...maybe just because he doesn't enjoy the feeling of taking it up the ass? I don't know, there's all kinds of reasons, and actually I totally don't miss the entire "sexuality isn't limited to the bedroom" thing (in fact, i just wrote a whole thing about exactly what you're saying here, especially the club thing). I'm really not making a rational/rigid distinction, in fact I'm making a rational non-distinction, but along different lines. Because, what it is, is that I don't think bottoming can be defaulted to feminine and thus associated with effeminate behavior, and thus I don't necessarily see a conflict between being effeminate in behavior and being a top. And while yes, society as a rule tends to associate top with masculinity and bottom with femininity, I think it's a flawed and inaccurate association. So while I might say someone who is effeminate in behavior and yet a top would very likely have issues imposed from society's assumptions, I wouldn't assume that they have an INTERNAL conflict/issue, if you know what I mean.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-11 12:20 pm (UTC)There's probably a slight disconnect because of my free-association problem and my thinking about it along a different axis; I don't have an issue with effeminate types topping (because, whatever), but them being rigid in their ass-fucking preferences seems odd purely from the rigidity vs. openness/flexibility standpoint. So my confusion was never about the femininity vs. topping but a certain -kind- of amped-up androgynous femininity (glittery! fey! self-on-display-as-object) vs. an -insistence- on topping. And all of this isn't me saying 'this can't happen' but rather 'in my mind, this invites issues'... but then I free associate. I think as usual I was sort of... messing up my own point by bringing up other things as they occurred to me ^^;;;;
I totally know that even entirely cross-dressing "feminine" men can have 'normal' toppish hetero sex-drives fine. I think I just associate fey glittery androgynes with the whole 70s glam aesthetic? And not to mention all the Japanese yaoi-style aesthetic clogging up my head. So I pictured a certain kind of type when you said that; mostly it's that because they inhabit a sort of liminal space in a gendered/sexuality sense and they put their sexuality 'out there' to be seen/desired, I wouldn't expect them to assert control. It would just be weird. But interesting. But I mean, it just seems to -mean- something, and that's my runaway Ne (http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Intuition)... heh. I love that excuse. I should just tell people 'excuse me, that's my runaway Ne again, sorry, sorry, coming through...' :>
Also, gotta love the fannish casualness of having a totally rational & not even risque discussion about the intricacies of why/how gay men would/wouldn't take it up the ass. :D