Leah wrote:
<< But we don't know how many do in the B7 case-- also we don't know quite
how
much they know about what goes on in them.<<
It's not going to stop, no matter what you think of it.
I've been racking my brain trying to work out how Leah's response relates to my comment, and drawing a total blank.
They
generally ignore it as part of the down side of celebrity.<<
So we're agreed, it's a down side.<
Let's rephrase that. They generally ignore it as a part of the down side
of
celebrity, like hoards of autograph seekers
Bit of a difference between selling autographs and having someone draw pictures of you shagging another actor. If you can't see the difference, signing a cheque must be a very interesting experience for you.
and screaming and squealing
crowds. Yes, it's a down side. If you are playing a character on a TV show
or
movie, it's the production crew's intent to have the audience fall in love with your character.
This is a bit of an odd thing to say in such general terms, since 'a character on a TV show' also includes unlikely lust objects such as Orac and Giroc. It's particularly odd, though to say this about Blake's 7, which was sent out as an early-evening action-adventure with a political twist, aimed primarily at the family market, not a soap opera or a bodice-ripper. As such, I very much doubt that the production crew were deliberately trying to excite the audience. Why do you continually equate Blakes' 7 with soaps and boybands?
There are collateral effects that come with having
people fall in love with you and being unable to express those feelings directly in reality.
True.
In other words, it's not going to stop, no matter what Shane thinks of it.
So why are you bothering to argue about it with me then?
Excuse me, I may not have a degree in biology but as a gay man I find
this
statement frightening.<<
You took yourself out of the biological loop, by conscious decision.
Actually, no, I just happen to be gay. Nothing conscious about it.
Why would you find love threatening? Don't gay men fall in love? They aren't
from
Mars. They have the same emotional biological mechanism hard-wired into
their
brain. That's not going to change. No matter what you think of it.
Misrepresenting my words again, Leah. Oh dear. I don't find love threatening. What I find threatening is your statement that love is meant to be for the purposes of procreation. As a gay man I don't procreate; I have sex for fun. If you think sex is only for procreation, then you are anti-love and fundamentalist. And, might I add, homophobic.
anfic, fan art or any
other sort of fantasy that satisfies that unattainable bond is
inevitable,<<
So what you're saying is you're catering to a market, providing a
service?
Cars need petrol, houses need insulation, people need pornography, is
that
it?<
You've got the wrong end of the process. Cars being fueled by petrol
produce
exhaust and speed. It's what they're built for. Living organisms produce children and creative outlets as a by-product of reproductive activity.
And you haven't answered my question. The question of whether people "need" sex aside (there's celibate people out there who are perfectly happy, believe it or not), I'd like to remind you that sex does not equal pornography. If, as you claim, sex is for procreation, I can't see how looking at a drawing of two male actors together is going to produce many children. Rather the opposite, in fact.
OK, now this is a genuine and serious question. If slash fiction is
meant
to satisfy the unrequited procreative urges of female fans with regard to
male
actors, why does it revolve around male/male couplings?<<
This question has been answered over and over again. Since there is
usually
no satisfactorily-written *female* character in the lead role of most
popular
fannish TV shows
There are a number of strong female roles in Blakes 7. Servalan, Cally, Dayna, Jenna etc...
, and since the second male role has already established a
relationship with the objectof the fan's idolitry, it's much more credible and satisfying for the average female fan to project herself into the
second
role and write themselves "into" an already-existing relationship with the lead.
This still doesn't answer the question of why the relationship is a gay one. There are relationships between all the lead characters on B7. Why Avon and Blake? Why not Blake and Jenna, Cally and Avon... or Avon and Anna (who, in case you've forgotten, _were_ lovers)?
In order to fantasize the sexual part of that fantasy relationship, they can (and do) make that final leap and turn both of the characters bisexual or gay.
Again, why? Why do women, in your opinion, find it difficult to identify with Jenna or Cally?
There have been THOUSANDS of independently-produced slash fanzines published and stories written over the past three decades. It's
not
a conspiracy. It's a wish-fulfillment with sexual role manipulation.
Never said it was a conspiracy. I believe it is a phenomenon. Why do use the word "conspiracy"? And another thing-- you have spoken for other fans, but what about you? Why are you interested in it?
And it won't change, no matter what you think of it.
I'm not naive enough to believe that one voice can change something that's been around for twenty years. But at least I _am_ providing a voice for the other side of the question. Instead of passively accepting it, I want to know more about the nature of slash art and its impact on fans and actors. You don't begrudge me a voice, do you, Leah?
No one seems to be immune, whether we label it something harmless like
a
'crush' or worry that it's reached a dangerous obsession.<<
If it has reached dangerous levels, though, surely there's a problem.<
Please explain this 'danger', Officer Shane. Does slash fiction make gay
or
straight individuals run right out and molest actors and actresses?
I wasn't talking about slash fiction, Kommisar Leah. I see you still haven't learned how to read posts. I was talking about crushes on actors. And may I remind you that it was _you_ who used the words "dangerous obsession." You should be the one to explain what you meant by it.
Name me the career of the actor it's ruined.
I wasn't the one who brought up careers being ruined. But if you care to read any tabloid and count the cases of celebrity-stalking... well, I'm sure you could argue that the careers of John Lennon, Sharon Stone, Jodie Foster etc. weren't _ruined_ (although Lennon was in no position to enjoy the publicity that his assassination at the hands of a fan brought him), but I'm not sure even you could justify what happened to them.
It seems to me that YOU find this gay sexuality a threat; not at all characteristic of the general run of gay people, by my experience.
I wasn't talking about gay sexuality; in fact, more people than just me have pointed out that slash has very little to do with actual homosexuality at all (including yourself, I might add). I was talking about frustrated fans of whatever gender, fixated on an actor of whatever gender, which, even if it doesn't harm the actor, can hurt the fixated fan and his/her family emotionally. Obsession isn't pretty, as I'm sure you know.
This is why we have limits, censor boards, warnings and sex-addiction
support groups-- because unrequited lust can turn dangerous, and there needs to
be
ways of recognising this and heading it off before someone or several someones get hurt.<<
Your opinion is not a popular one among fans.
Oh, so most fans don't think sex addiction needs to be treated before it turns violent? Excuse me, I think I'm in the wrong hobby here.
I'm sorry this upsets your fundamentalist sensibilities, but that's the way it is, and you aren't
going
to change it by bible-thumping or making dire predictions alluding to the law. You're just going to look like the local church lady.
Bible thumping? Please. You're the only fan I've met who appears to think that we're better off without the censor board and the warnings on 18+ websites. And if having censor boards, warnings and sex-addiction support groups is fundamentalist, then the governments of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Holland and Canada are made up entirely of down-home, Bible-thumping maniacs. If this really is your opinion, I suggest you remove the "adults only" warning from your own zine, since it's obviously an attempt at fundamentalist moralising.
Bit of a difference between a teenager with a teenage crush and a
long-term
fan who has been obsessing about an individual for decades.<
There is none whatsover.
I detect a certain lack of a sense of proportion in that statement.
And your facts are wrong, wrong, wrong
Sorry Leah, three wrongs don't make a right.
, once
again,
based on your lack of experience.
And you, no doubt, are speaking from years of experience of having crushes on boy-band members?
The average fannish 'crush' on a character or actor very seldom lasts longer than 4 years.
I want statistics on this.
Over the past 30+ years in fandom, with hundreds of fannish acquaintances, I've only ever seen about
5
fans whose affection (not obsession) for a performer lasted beyond 8, and they were rational professional adults, not dangerously obsessed
individuals
who wallowed in filth.
But if these crushes don't last, then why are you still producing slash art? What's your motivation here? Surely any crushes you may have had on the actors must be long dissipated after thirty years, by your argument.
Your refusal to make the distinction makes me wonder just what you, as a 'gay' person, think of the sexuality of your own lifestyle.
Oh, wonder away, Leah. Wonder away. I don't intend to fuel your fantasies in the slightest. However, _I_ wonder a bit about your inability to distinguish between dangerous obsessions with celebrities and normal, healthy, gay relationships.
Nice to know that the exploitation is mutual. But as I said to huh,
there's
a difference between a boyband member with mansions, millions and
security
guards, and a jobbing actor with a wife and a dog and a semi-detatched house.<<
How does the degree of material goods affect the right or wrongness, in
your
eyes, of a fan's obsessions? Wealth and morality are unrelated in this
issue.
Once again, Leah, you haven't read the question. It doesn't make the fan obsession more or less right or wrong. It makes the object of their obsession more or less able to defend themselves from unwanted attention.
I'm very sorry you are so upset by this naughtyness, Shane.
And I'm very sorry that people daring to disagree with you upsets you so much, Leah.
Of course, censorship of this same naughtyness really, really upset you in the discussion of that topic involving Diane Geis a few weeks ago, so this
about
face is really confusing (and amusing) to anyone with the patience to
involve
themselves by reading it.
I have explained about the link between your opinions and those of Ms Gies before, in Archive Post #45058. If you are so interested in reading my earlier posts, you might want to go back and pay more careful attention to that one. Attention span of a goldfish, honestly.
But slash? Adult fanfic and illos? No matter what you think of it, no
matter
what ANYONE thinks of it, it's not going to change.
Exactly the problem. I don't know about other fans, but you just keep going on about exactly the same things over and over, fighting the same argument over and over. Time to move on, Leah. Find something else to obsess over.
And I'm not in charge of the phenomenon,
You say you're not in charge of it, but you're hugely protective of it, aren't you, Leah? And you're not exactly allowing yourself to engage in free and rational debate on the subject.
Shane
"You really are insane, aren't you?" --Avon
Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015