From: Fiona Moore nydersdyner@yahoo.co.uk
but I'd bring in as a counterargument Norbert Walter in "Cybernetics" (backed up by Barbara Smuts' primate studies) who argues that partner-seeking exists as much for reasons of social bonding as for producing offspring, if not more. Arguing that we go for the person with
the
most attractive genes (as Leah says) or memes (as Dawkins says, and which
is
the more interesting theory, as it explains why the girl prefers the
nerd),
still excludes the recreational and social aspects of sexual bonding.
Not really. Sex is a massive con trick that nature pulls on us to get us reproducing. Since we're the only species with the conscious reasoning power to see through the con, the selfish gene has had to get subtle, removing sexual activity from its procreative purpose. It has also come into competition with sexual memes, some of which run directly counter to the gene's interests. There should be, for example, no such thing as a celibacy gene, since it would drive itself to extinction in pretty short order. There is such a thing as a celibacy meme, which can perpetuate itself and survive over generations, as indeed it has.
There may well be a gene which makes an individual disposed to a mindset whose cultural expression - eg; a monastic lifestyle - might include celibacy, but so long as sufficient carriers of that gene fail to follow that disposition then the gene will be passed on.
I don't think anyone would argue that conforming to prevailing fashion gives you a head start if you want to get laid.
Actually I would, being someone who tends to go for the nonconformist type :).
Non-conformity is itself a fashion, with its own memetic expressions to attract potential partners.
Actors, at least the good ones, are the best imitators, and by inference capable of imitating those 'trendiest memes' that one looks for in a
partner.
Um, well, debatable. I'm not sure, for instance, that anybody particularly expected Patrick Stewart to become a sex symbol ... Furthermore, actors' desirability and their acting ability are not fixed factors: Peter Cushing started out playing young hunky heroes, but is
better
known for the sinister villains he played in his fifties onwards, and the actors who seem to inspire the biggest crushes are not always the ones
with
the best acting/imitating abilities (witness Leonardo DiCaprio).
I'd rather not, thanks:) It's certainly not a straightforward equation, Actor = Preferred Bedfellow. That is just one factor among many, including acting ability, and the various factors that induce us to watch a particular presentation. Nevertheless, it is not at all uncommon to cast films on the basis that at least some of the audience will be there to see the star. I've only fallen for it once, and never again (yeah, Sigourney Weaver was good, but the script was crap). When I went to see Saving Private Ryan I ended up sitting behind a group of teenage girls who were not there to see a war movie, indeed some of them were visibly distressed by the on-screen carnage. And crowd-pulling power can of course override acting talent, as in little Leo. He does have all the right memes, give him credit for that.
Peter Cushing? *Hunky*?
Additionally, I think Tavia's point about the crush often being either totally or partially a form of identification with the character the actor plays is a good one, and again suggests that the crush is more than a biological phenomenon.
All part of what you might call the Actor/Character Complex, of which various facets will appeal to different viewers. There are Avon fans who do not follow Paul Darrow's career, Paul Darrow fans to whom Avon is but one of his many performances (though perhaps the most important, since it is mainly through Avon that I suspect people come to encounter PD). As for it being more than biological, which I take to mean genetic (ie; the purely physical, phenotypic manifestation of the actor), then I'd agree. Identifying with a *character* suggests memetic appeal, such as the Avon meme-plex, as immediately visible at conventions with the various people - nearly all if not all of them women - dressed as Avon.
You could say that we are genetically programmed to develop crushes on actors!
I would rather say that we are socially conditioned :)-- and repeat that
I'm
not entirely sure that the function of the crush is purely one related to the propagation of genes....
As I said above, not 'purely', because genes can't work directly. They have to hoodwink us with other satisfactions peripheral to their purpose.
Which again makes fandom a rather interesting phenomenon. B7, for
instance,
has a cult following, but I would hardly describe it as a big
international
hit-- and it's been off the air since 1981, other than the occasional
rerun.
Which makes the trendiness of its actors' memes a bit questionable, even though we do seem to be sunk in the morass of an early-eighties revival right now (I have nightmares at the thought of the return of the poodle perm).
And I look forward to a Kajagoogoo revival:) No, B7 is not a global cultural icon (though another fannish series is, of course, and has capitalised on that in an ... enterprising fashion), it is just a cult, and memetically a very untrendy one in society as a whole. But *within* the cult, things are different (a rather tautological thing to say, since if you don't buy the B7 meme-plex you're hardly going to be within the cult, are you?). Most fans, I think, have been with the series since it first aired and was hence trendier (ie; more firmly located within the memetic landscape of its time).
This is particularly true for actresses, unfortunately. They pass their sell-by date all too quickly.
Agreed, though I think that has more to do with social factors-- it seems to be more socially acceptable to view an older man as
a
sex symbol than an older woman.
There is also a simple biological dimension. Men remain reproductively capable into middle age and beyond, whereas women don't.
Is it ever more than a crush? In the overwhelming majority of cases, probably not. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a small percentage of fans that seem to stake an unreasonable (and quite unrealistic) claim on particular actors.
True, and I'd add that this doesn't always have to be sexual, as witness your remark about people expecting actors to read their scripts or whatever.
All part of the social dimension of sexual bonding, surely? Or at least it can be. If I were to get an actress I fancied (not that there are any) to read my script and she approved it, I would be over the moon in a completely different than if I'd got, say, Chris Boucher to read and approve it.
- stalking is a manifestation of social dysfunctionality that resides
within the stalker, not his or her society or subculture.
Subculture, perhaps not-- but society, I'd take mild issue with.
So would I, actually, but it's a bit too complex to delve into. Stalkers are a by-product of society, along with other undesirables like serial killers and terrorists, but society doesn't set out to create them, and certainly doesn't approve of them having incidentally created them.
Exactly *why* this obsession is as much lauded as condemned is a debatable one-- I tend to think it comes down to capitalism, myself (publicity sells more movies, and encouraging obsessive behaviour sells more photographs of Gillian Anderson, etc.), but then I'm aware that not everyone takes the neo-Marxist view.
I certainly wouldn't deny the importance of economic imperatives, and capitalism is certainly my favourite dumping ground, but I don't think it's the whole story.
However, the top-shelf-mag boy example may not be the most analogous to the actor/slash example which you cited above. For a bloke to send top-shelf mags to a woman is sad, annoying and IMO constitutes sexual harrassment. However, for the bloke to draw nude pictures of that same woman and to send them to her... well, if I was that woman I'd be ringing the police and looking into restraining orders. And if he continues to do this, and to show (even sell!) the pictures to his mates despite her protests... I agree that in both cases these are the actions of a disturbed minority-- but I think that sending slash to Paul Darrow is in a more extreme category than sending girlie mags to a workmate.
Girlie mags are there in abundance, whilst the Paul Darrow Nude Picture Weekly has yet to establish its niche in the marketplace. Surely fans create their own porn precisely because it is not there for them to pick up for a few quid? Had there been no girlie mags available, maybe Sad Bloke would have created his own material.
Your point about restraining orders and such like is interesting, because I have no record of any B7 actor doing this. Perhaps they should. But then maybe a female stalker can't threaten - or seem to threaten - a man in the same way that a male stalker could threaten a woman. And it's a pretty low level of stalking anyway. I've never heard of a B7 fan breaking into an actor's house, pulling a gun on him in the street etc. Though I suppose it could happen.
I should reiterate here that I am *not* trying to suggest that slash fans are a crowd of obsessive stalkers. That would be like saying that every John Lennon fan wanted to blow him away, and Chapman just happened to get in first.
Neil