A clarification

[valarltd]

I know I'm being fandom wanked, so I know this is fair game.

I hate explaining.



Why I don't like male-written femmeslash

1) Porno-sensibility. Real sex, esp. real femsex, is not very interesting to anyone but the participants. There's nothing to see, really. Done right, cunnilingus involves all of the twat and most of the face. But, since most lesbians aren't letting men watch, all they have to go on is porn.

2) Most men have no clue about women's bodies. They range from selfish and ignorant to gentle but baffled to clumsy and clueless. The latter can be educated, but tend to end up in the "gentle but baffled" category, despite years of training. My experience is--admittedly--limited, but I've encountered exactly 2 in 20 years who know how to please a woman, and only one of them really enjoys it.

3) There is a general male characteristic that "I have a penis, I'm in charge" any time they move into spaces that have formerly been women's. I've seen this in everything from fandom to Vacation Bible School, in all ages from late teens to retirees. I swear it's Y linked.


These three factors tend to combine in male-written erotica. Coupled with my vivid reading imagination, I often find myself in erotic spaces that are distinctly uncomfortable, if not outright revolting, when reading male-written stuff.

While I can brush off most of the het stuff (not all), the femmeslash feels like a complete invasion. That aspect of my sexuality is not for men. Having a man swagger in, plop down his action figures, proceed to get it all wrong and then ask "Was it good for you too, baby?" leaves me feeling filthy.

I know: don't like, don't read.
So I don't.
Apparently this makes me a man-hating sexist with a double-standard who really needs to get laid.

I'm not saying men aren't allowed to write it. I'm not saying a rare few men don't get it right. This is just my little clarification on why I don't read it, why much of it offends me.

Comments

[morgan-d.livejournal.com]

Well, I read this and only then I went to f_w to understand what the story was all about. And while I completely understand what you said above -- and agree with you about most of it -- I must say I would not have get that from what you posted on fanficrants. I don't see much of a difference between writing "I object to male femmeslash writers on principle" or "men shouldn't be allowed to write femmeslash", to be honest. Of course, I'm not a native speaker and you know that very well, but I still think the kerfuffle was a result of the language of the comment. At least for me it was too vague and short while dealing with a subject that is incredibly complex.

On the other hand, you posted that on fanficrants, a community that says in its userinfo, "This is a RANT community. That means you are not likely to see a lot of positive talk here. People come in, spout off and then others can agree or disagree as they like. (...) This is not set up to be a 'nice' community." So I'm surprised that f_w would care to single out one debate in such a community. Oh well.

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

*shrug* It's fandom_wank, not fandom_rational_discourse. Tearing into things and quoting only the most inflammatory snippets of a conversation is what they do. Getting worked up over it is pointless. Personally I think the quality of the writing and hotness of the smut is what's relevant, not what's between the author's legs, but that's my opinion and I'm not claiming it's the only valid one.

I can't think of any femmeslash written by a man that's any good, though, unless you grandfather in Patrick Califia's earlier works, in which case, pwhoar! *goes to Happy Place*

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

I totally agree.

I get stuffy, pedantic and academic when I'm challenged. It's my natural defense mechanism. I don't express myself well in that mode.

Later, after I've had time to think, I can write more calmly about why I feel challenged and unpleasant. I can put it in simple words and make it make sense.

Let them wank. This too shall pass.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

i'm not sure i agree with your arguments, b/c most of them could be reverted on slash. However, for me there's a real power issue involved that makes all the difference. Just like there is no such thing as reverse discrimination, I think women fantasizing about male bodies having sex for their pleasure is a completely different ballgame than a man using two women to do the same...

then again, the OP was ridiculous in gher universal declarations...i've never posted on fanfic rant and had to jump in on the lube thread :-)

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

Just like there is no such thing as reverse discrimination

Ummm, buh? Do you really subscribe to the "member of a dominant group by definition cannot be discriminated against by a member of a minority group"? Because that makes human agency into a thing that functions in very strange and rather humorously theoretical ways.

Power is an issue, yes. Power is also not a simple one-to-one correspondence with group identity. If you want to define 'discrimination' very narrowly, go ahead, but fields of influence and power overlap fluidly, and I've certainly seen discrimination carried out towards 'dominant' groups.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

yes, i've read my foucault and all, but gut level down, i do feel it's a different thing..

and no, i'm usually very much not in the slash is subversive group, but i also don't think slash=straight guy's lesbian porn is really a true comparison (if for no other reason than that one tends to be visual made by and for straight males whereas our visuals tend to come from the by and for gay males category and the writing is a different thing altogether...)

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

I was thinking Bourdieu (no fan of Foucault, he), but whatever floats your boat. :)

Of course, the original commentary was, IIRC, not on lesbian porn but on men writing femmeslash--also firmly in the camp of writing. The visuals may well come from things marketed to a gay male audience, but at least some gay men find slash fiction tending to be rather ridiculous--not that I want to go in that direction in any way/shape/form. I don't think the two things are as completely different as being presented, but I also don't seen any improvement in responding to women being objectified by men by objectifying men for the benefit of women.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

i guess i've never read a guy writing femslash, so i should just slowly step away from this debate :-)

i've certainly have second thoughts about the objectifying issue, b/c even if i firmly believe that we're not actually writing (gay) men, we're still using their (imaginary & virtual) bodies...

i have this power -> foucault default button :-) sorry!

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with everything Bourdieu talks about, but boy is it fascinating as a way to think about social relations, particularly art. Positions and reactions within a field, instead of your Marxist/Adorno resistance/innovation/blah blah blah paradigm.

Men *do* write at least some femslash--and most of it really is godawful in a particularly insulting and unrealistic manner. I'm not quite sure it's worse than what slash writers do to men, but it's awful in different ways. Just as fanboy wish-fulfillment fic is different from that of fangirls, but equally laughable.

[dreadnot.livejournal.com]

I honestly completely disagree with what you're saying and will point out, if no one else has, that you're committing a classic logical fallacy of hasty generalization (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/hasty.htm). You have put your self-admitted limited experience out as the bar by which you expect all, or even most men, behave.

I just can't take your argument seriously if you can't support yourself in a more rational and logical manner.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

All experience is necessarily limited. I don't have time to sleep with 3 billion men for a complete sample size.

Not counting noncon, my sample size is low double digits. More than most women (who claim 5, but Durex condoms says 7), and more than enough to form an opinion on how men are in bed.

And when the same traits recur consistantly across age and racial lines, I consider that adequate to form an opinion.

Now had I had sex once, with one man, and generalized from that, it would your "hasty generalization." I'm generalizing from between double and triple the average experience.

[dreadnot.livejournal.com]

You have a remarkable degree of ego to make such a sweeping judgement based solely on your experience, regardless of its supposed extent in relation to the average.

My experience outstrips yours significantly (which is neither here nor there) and I would not have the temerity to judge the entirity of men or women based on my still limited sexual encounters. Which, by the way, are clearly superior in most respects to yours since most of my partners have not been selfish, ignorant, clumsy or careless.

Were I prone to your flavor of hasty generalizations, I'd have to say that most people are amazingly good lovers.