a bit of top, a bit of bottom, a bit of nothing at all...

[reenka]

You 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.

Comments

[dahlia-777.livejournal.com]

Huge post, but I only have a couple of meagre points to make.

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. The gay men I know don't switch. I haven't asked why - it's clear that they just like what they like, they're only interested in pursuing that... and that's that as far as they're concerned. Also, their preference one way or another reveals nothing whatsoever about their characters. I'd never have guessed if they preferred top or bottom if they didn't talk about it.

I only wrote gay characters that switched because I could vary the smut more that way :D.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

You know, this made me wonder about QaF US-- 'cause Brian sure acts like a top and -is- a top (literally) and Justin's definitely a spunky bottom, hehe, though I dunno how far I'd go with QaF's realism or lack thereof. I don't even know how much or in what way realism matters in this precise subject. I'm sure there are also gay men who both only like to top or bottom -and- are actually submissive or aggressive/dominant in real life. I guess that was my point? Even though I don't know any gay men in real life~:) I could see how in a story, anyway, it'd make sense to have the topping or bottoming matter more towards characterization 'cause while real life may be random, in fiction, everything tends to be more meaningful, y'know. Possibly you don't know why a person prefers to bottom 'cause you just don't know that person as well as you'd know a character (hell, no one but themselves may know them that well).

I tend to write switching for fun, too, aaaaand also 'cause my characters end up being total sluts willy nilly :D Though I still prefer one or the other as top in terms of reading fic, largely because for some reason people who write one of the characters as bottom tend to therefore write him as OOC (bottom!Harry's a great example of this, heh.)

[dahlia-777.livejournal.com]

Possibly you don't know why a person prefers to bottom 'cause you just don't know that person as well as you'd know a character (hell, no one but themselves may know them that well). It's possible they don't know themselves. I don't know where most of my kinks come from. Anyway, in the case of my friends, they don't over-analyse sex - they're interested in doing it not wondering why they want it or why they do it. It's very simple, and practical, and prosaic for them. I think they agonised a bit before they came out, but that was years ago and now they just get on with it.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I realized that after I said it-- people aren't always going to be either too self-aware or very introspective. In fiction, though, depending on the writing style and how much you get into a character's head vs. it being dialogue driven... you get the feeling there are reasons for things. Just because it -is- a preference rather than natural fact (the way it is with women), so like with any kink/preference, something about it probably appeals on the meta level. Like, uhh, the way there are groups of kinks about control, or losing it, or degrees of desperation, or humiliation or what have you-- the feeling that's behind the action, because there's always -some- feeling even if it's pure mindless hedonism (ie, associating 'hedonism' with sexual passivity is already telling, etc).

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh, perhaps I should say, actions (preferred kinks being actions) imply emotions and emotions have meanings, but that's only when one's doing it because one wants to on a deeper level. If you're having sex 'just for fun' or you don't really want to or aren't deeply/intensely attracted to the person or the activity (thinking of 'straight' guys who do it with gay men just 'cause they like the easy fuck or whatever)-- then there's really nothing to it but 'it feels good there'. I wouldn't call that a kink or a preference, though-- if one's continuously choosing something, it seems more emotionally significant than going with the flow 'cause something works physically. But maybe some people are more purely physical than I am, too. It may depend on the person and their relationship to sex/intimacy in general to some degree :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

*jumps at a QAF mention*

Justin's more like a versatile bottom - until S5, he topped everyone who wasn't Brian. Michael's a total bottom. Emmett's a bottom-who-vaguely-wishes-to-top. Ted's the only real versatile one. Randomly, this is all apparently because Ron Cowen has top-bottom issues. I'M SURE YOU WANTED TO KNOW THAT.

And the thing is, the show itself isn't realistic, and Brian is REALLY not realistic, but I do think the variety is fairly realistic. Not everyone likes to do different things all the time. I think the unrealistic thing is more the way fans so often make the small person the uke and the large person the seme, because I always read stories about the huge jock guys who are the biggest ever bottoms and these fey guys in makeup and high heels who are the rigid tops. Because, ok, sometimes one's sexual role preference is linked to deep personality issues and sometimes it's just linked to what feels best to them.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Because, ok, sometimes one's sexual role preference is linked to deep personality issues and sometimes it's just linked to what feels best to them.

Heh. Yeah, that's the conclusion I came to when I realized some people are just... physical, later in the thread :> On some level, perhaps this is semi-difficiult for girls to fully get 'cause while we may have psychological preferences with het or homo relationships with other women, in the end our physiology is what it is. Unless wearing a strap-on is a 'sexual preference' for lesbians, y'know, but even then it's not just 'what naturally feels good'. So perhaps there's a bias for making things psychological? I dunno. I'm fine with ficks where the psychological thing -is- that it feels good (that means something too), I just like it to fit the person.

I'd forgotten about Justin topping people! D'oh. I can see it. Partly might be because he never really wanted to 'cheat' :> Partly 'cause he's just probably not as hung up about it in a different way than Brian.

The big/little thing reminds me of The Sentinel (where Jim = big muscular hulk & Blair = small geeky guy with long hair), where some people justify Jim bottoming with the fact that 'hey, it feels good', except then sneak in the actual desire to let go/submit as if it's a natural part-and-parcel of bottoming (therefore making it psychological anyway). That's the sort of thing I really don't like. I can see where Blair would like to 'let go' with Jim in a submissive-sexual way because that fits his psychological profile and also he just happens to be smaller. While Jim may 'let go' occasionally, no way in hell does he have the same sort of relationship with either authority or sex (he's the uptight one, Blair's the flirty one). Meh.

Often enough, the way (romance) fanfic gets written, anyway, any good intentions about things just being about feeling good become mirrors of the writer's opinion of sexual roles in general and the character's personality & social role in particular. 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? :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

On some level, perhaps this is semi-difficiult for girls to fully get 'cause while we may have psychological preferences with het or homo relationships with other women, in the end our physiology is what it is.

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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, no, in terms of a bias for psychologizing things, that's just the more emo/psychological(?) way a lot of women would approach sexual relationships. Not just about what one would prefer in sex (kink) but the practice of attaching emotional motivation to the things people do in relationships. I mean, you may not do that, but it's pretty prevalent? It might be unrelated to the penetrating thing, but I was just saying that women themselves don't experience that in a pure way, just because penetration one way or the other is more culturally/emotionally loaded than liking fast/slow (which no one thinks is psychologically related unless it's a function of that particular encounter).

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 :>

[malafede.livejournal.com]

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.

Ha. Yeah, definitely, which is why I liked the other post linked from metafandom, the one about fetishized equality. Because at that point it's no longer about equality per se but about your fetish -- just as much as top/bottom is about fetish sometimes. I think people have troubles separating the individual from the social; what I get from these rants is that characters shouldn't be written as bottoms because people shouldn't be bottoms, because of some screwed up concept of what feminism or subversive gender politics are about. I can't help thinking of the implication, of fiction being nothing more than a pretty awkward political statement that ignores what the reality of sexuality is. Of course bad writing is going to be bad... but that's because substituting a sexual stereotype for characterization is bad (ie the uke being nothing more than the consequences of his taking it up the arse), and it goes for both compulsive bottoming and compulsive switching.

(Aside, it actually amuses me when people rag on yaoi for other reasons than the bad writing, namely the lack of realism and the screwed sexual politics, because I view yaoi as highly aestheticised porn which isn't even pretending to offer political or moral commentary -- it wants to give literal and emotional orgasms.)

And I know this is unintentional, but it's pretty ironic when people say stuff like "it's boring when characters do it the same way all the time" because it's not like topping/bottoming or switching is the only defining choice in regards to one's sexual life. If it was, switching would be just as boring as always topping/always bottoming, because um, so they do it the same exact two ways all the time, huge improvement from always the same exact one way?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I knew you'd back me up on this :)) It's pretty sad I cared enough to rant more from the yaoi angle, 'cause the slash thing is way too repetitive and boring to me at this point :> The 'people shouldn't be bottoms' thing cracks me up, in particular 'cause there are so many ways to be a bottom, even in cliche-land! They don't -all- weep/act submissive/etc. Haven't these people even heard of a spunky bottom? *chortle* Although I realize I shouldn't say that word around you :>

I think yaoi varies on how much it's purely for the emotional orgasms depending on how well-written/well-drawn it is... like, I think once you reach a certain quality of writing/art, the masturbatory aspect becomes merely an aspect & not 'the point', or something, just as a function of it being good/art & having internal cohesion. Um, I mean, at a certain point of quality, a yaoi manga can stand on its own aside from its effect on the fangirl audience. Or something. Art!porn, united at last <3.

...what's really ironic is when I wind up arguing against switching, which (I'd always thought) was my own preference. Though lately... I dunno, I've gotten to the point where I have more definite ideas about characters. Maybe I've been brainwashed by yaoi, oh noes! D:

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I prefer "bratty". :D

Yeah, yaoi does have stories that trascend genre, but I see them as having literary worth precisely because they trascend genre -- which isn't meant as a put down to yaoi, just saying that yaoi has a whole different purpose than literary worth. Although you're right that certain stories still inside the genres have more to offer than tropes, but at that point maybe it's fair game to criticise the tropes, at least if they come across as more stubborn than natural.

heh, well, it's not really about arguing against switching, more against switching as the paradigm. I actually am all for switching, think certain characters definitely would, get a kick when it's used well -- I just tend to defend top/bottom more because it's attacked more.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but seriously that is a personal bias more than it is necessarily related to anything in reality. Which, I mean, you know cause you just said that. Woot.

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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, if if it, er, makes you feel better, I was just throwing that out there (about the topping-others thing for Justin) 'cause I default to silly romantic when not thinking actively and don't automatically think 'wait, but it's Brian so I can't'. With Justin I feel I get him more on an intuitive level. It's the sort of thing he might do, whereas for Brian the separation between sex & emotion is complete. He's the juggernaut. Justin isn't; he's like, a total pansy in denial (and he came out of denial, it seems, when he broke up with Brian, realizing his values-- aka pansy self-- were not to be, well, denied). Note, this isn't the most serious assessment I've ever made :D I can see how it'd annoy you, though :> :>

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 :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

HAHAHHA, that first paragraph is freakishly funny. But yeah, the thing is, it's the romanticizing bit that bugged me more than the only bottoming for brian thing. Like, for years, you only ever saw him bottoming for brian so it's a reasonable assumption that he... only bottomed for brian, but it's when that becomes "BECAUSE OF THEIR LOVE" that I start twitching. And always did, actually - the more I think about my ancient B/J=OTP days, the more I remember how much people's general assumptions weren't my assumptions. Which is in part because I never really thought about it that much, maybe. and I don't really default to romantic perspectives. Uh, I wasn't annoyed when you said it, though. Or, well, I was but not at YOU. ;)

...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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Assumptions are bothersome because they are assumptions, romantic or not. I don't really make assumptions, I just uh, make random guesstimations, bullshit, and generally rarely approach the amount of certainty 'assumption' implies :>

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

[doctor-bendo.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I don't think that "not switching" is realistic, because it's really all about what feels good, and top and bottom is much more of a...porno thing. Meaning, position as domination is important in front of an audience, but actual fucking is about what feels good and that changes with situation, partner, mood, ect. Also, I've made a few requests for fics and I do specify who I would prefer to bottom and who I would prefer to top, and I explain that I prefer it that way because --for some weird unexplainable reason-- the top/bottom dynamic affects the way writers think about their characters and they tend to make the "bottom" overly feminized --which has nothing to do with effeminacy-- emotional, needy or even "nice."

My favorite category is fast becoming genslash, because this sort of thing tends not to happen, this kind of bleeding over of the top/bottom mentality affecting every single fucken action taken outside the bedroom.

[doctor-bendo.livejournal.com]

Oh, and when I say feminized, I'm talking about stereotypes, not about the real definition of femininity if there is one.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Heh. It's nice to be agreed with, but my actual point was to steer away from any dogma re: characters, so some characters may be made to fit the top/bottom stereotype & some... not. I mean, um, people have all sorts of different kinks for psychological reasons as -well- as just doing things 'cause they feel good. Or maybe some people don't care about feeling good as much as they care about pleasing their partner. Or some people care most about achieving some sort of 'feeling of intimacy'. I've seen a gay propaganda site once that was like 'anal sex is not manly! stop it, stop it right now! back to manly cock-rubbing!' :D

But really, only bad writers (not counting yaoi) make the bottom nice or girly, though the needy thing... I'm probably guilty (but I make any pov character the needy one a lot). For instance, if you're writing about Draco Malfoy... even though he works as a bottom, to make him nice & sweet & dependent is just so wrong.

[doctor-bendo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I understand, and I agree with you about the dogma, because of the realism thing. Or did you mean that you dislike that top/bottom thing purely for lahdida, spiritually higher writer-ly reasons?

Not only bad writers make the bottom "feminine." It seems to seep in through vulnerability, neediness, or the whole "I want to give you this" (meaning the ass) mentality, as if it was some sort of sacrifice. It does seem to change the way writers view their characters, or so it's been my experience, and with writers I consider to be good. I won't use specific names. I don't wanna piss on somebody just to make a point.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't dislike the 'top/bottom' thing, depending on whether it works for the characters & story. I guess I don't see anything inherently wrong in a needy/vulnerable bottom per se (though I like 'em of different kinds... even in yaoi, there must be like 5-10 different bottom stereotypes). It's only when some characterization is the default that it doesn't make sense to me; if the characterization is made to work for the character, it's all good.

You're right though, about how 'feminine' (if you would consider them that) traits seep in in terms of 'giving' vs 'taking'. I mean, in yaoi, you have aggressive bottoms (and some slash does, too), but I suppose you don't need to be a bad writer overall to like all your bottoms needy/vulnerable/desperate/etc. I guess I'd say it's a bad writer if they -always- make -every- bottom fit that mold; even in yaoi they tend to shake it up more than that! When you become more stereotypically predictable than yaoi manga, there's definitely a writing problem :> I can even see how some boys can be brainwashed by some aspects of pop culture to see the bottoming as being 'giving it up', so it'd be a big sacrifice for them, though I like it when that whole shtick is humorous or made light of in the story. It works well in adolescent humor situations, I think. But that's something of a tangent. ^^;