<<I was asked if I would react the same way to an original character who was gay, and I said no, but that I wouldn't like the character as much.>>

My memory's hazy, but there's another question I think I asked - would a gay original character bother you as much as a slashed regular character? - and I think you said something to the effect as "Not as much." But I might be confusing a question I wanted to ask with another one that I did get around to asking.

<<The discussion wandered around a bit, it wasn't just me versus them, that was only a small part of it. And I had things to contribute to the discussion that weren't just anti-slash. Neil had some good questions to ask as a neutral non-slasher.>>

I did? That would be a first.

<< It was also concluded that slash has a huge range, and is read for different reasons by different people. Slashers are more likely to see slashy subtext. In arguing from absence of evidence, neither side will ever convince the other.>>

I've had three 12-hour shifts to mull over this (gotta do something while making shampoo tanks for wet-vac hoovers), and I think the only thing that bothers me is the insistence by either pro or anti-slashers that their reading is the only possible correct one. That particular line coming from the pro-slash side bothers me more, but I think that's because they just tend to be so much louder, so much more insistent, and so eager to clutch at the feeblest of straws and claim them as hard evidence. Basically, the pro-slashers just become a noisy nuisance, while the anti-slashers can quite rightly (IMO) point to the thinness and ambiguity of all this so-called evidence, though not so rightly (IMO) claim that this 'proves' that the characters are absolutely straight.

I agree with Fiona that all the strongest evidence favours a heterosexual reading for all the regular characters, at least those who expressed any kind of orientation at all. I agree with Steve that this does not preclude any of them being bisexual, and I agree with Dana (if this is indeed what she was saying) that they may have presented a heterosexual front to conceal their other inclinations. I tend to regard the Federation as rabidly and institutionally homophobic, but that is part of my subcanon, unsupported by the series itself.

In fact, I would say that any sexual reading of any particular character can only be regarded as subcanonical, as opposed to extra-canonical. I can't really see much difference between a slash reading of Blake and Avon (who are obviously 'camp as a row of tents', as I think Ika put it at the panel, or straight as a die according to others), or a cyberpunk reading of Travis' prosthetics (as I did in Wit and Wisdom of the Dead). The only real difference between the two is the relative importance accorded to the sexuality of the characters, and it's not something I regard as terribly important. If Blake is planting explosives round a Federation base, who cares if he's gay, straight or bi?

That's probably my biggest gripe about not just slash readings but het readings too. They reduce the characters to nothing but their sexuality. Nobody, straight, gay or whatever, is that one-dimensional. Adult fic seems to separate the entire universe into Sex and Everything Else, and promptly homes in on the sex. I consider the Everything Else to be not only more interesting but more important as well. Consequently I tend to avoid adult fic not because it squicks me (it doesn't, I'm virtually unsquickable unless animals get involved), but because it's just so bloody *boring*.

Neil