Is this forum the Norm ??

Lia · 25-05-06 15:49:23

Dawww, you guys are going to turn me into a right little narcissist.

*slash-tinged cigarette-scented kisses*

Lia · 25-05-06 16:10:16

Warmtouch wrote:

Most separate "work" from "sex" by drawing a line inside their heads somewhere and refusing to step across it. Back in the 70s I read a book that stated flatly that prostitutes never kiss. This is false and ridiculous besides; you might as well say that all painters refuse to paint houses chartreuse. Some will and some won't. The working girls I know usually reserve certain activities for lovers, but which those are varies from one to another.

Ahh, yes, ye olde kissing myth. This was propagated by a lot of idiotic sentiment which suggests that kissing = intimacy and the painful saccharine straining that was Pretty Woman, which everyone somehow utilised rather literal-mindedly as some sort of Mongoloid's Guide To Prostitution. Most of the working girls I know think having the client performing cunnilingus on them is actually the most intimate thing involved in the service, and will consequently charge extra for it, but kissing generally seems to be something that's done regularly but on a case-by-case, at-her-own-discretion basis. Brains create intimacy. Imagination creates intimacy. Kissing does not.

There's been something of an influx of prostitute autobiographies lately, and the best one I've found is Belle De Jour, which was originally based on a blog of the same title. It's a strangely soothing read - it's almost Bridget Jones-esque, only with, er, hooking. The anonymous authoress is well-educated, witty, and amusingly good-humoured about her work, and seems to be one of those incredibly lucky escorts who makes very good money and has a plethora of incredibly well-behaved, well-trained, pleasant clients. As opposed to this other one I'm reading, in which the poor woman keeps on getting misogynistic johns who essentially want to debase and humiliate her.

Warmtouch wrote:

What sets the skilled working girl apart from the run-of-the-mill has nothing to do with sexual technique or athleticism or even youth and beauty. It's actually about attitude and hospitality -- offering a warm welcome and their full attention. Good sex is very much about attention, I find. Having sex with someone narcisstic or self-absorbed (or just plain absent) is extremely disappointing. But of course offering that attention to strangers is much more mentally and emotionally tiring than just getting them off and out the door. Orgasms are cheap, but attention commands a high price.

Yup, this is what I mean by ultra-intense customer service. Just being a good shag doesn't really cut the mustard - you've got to be "on" all the time; it's a really elaborate, hospitable performance. Feigning interest and attentiveness in a situation where you're obviously not doing it "just for fun" or for your own pleasure, I imagine, would be something of a labour. And apparently, a lot of clients will book a girl purely for her company, sans sex, and they're going to want someone who's capable of intelligent, interesting, humorous conversation (and someone who will do a splendid job of pretending to be interested in whatever he wants to talk about, which apparently will somehow inevitably involve his wife or his girlfriend) and intuitive listening. That seems to me to be a good deal more involved and taxing than just being a walking uterus.

Warmtouch wrote:

That's one of the things that makes the Abbywinters videos so hot. Most of the porn on the net seems to take place between people who don't know each other and couldn't care less about each other -- they scarcely even LOOK at one another. The women on AW seem to really be into each other, which is rather surprising considering that many of them barely know each other either... maybe it's just good sexual manners, and the effect of not worrying about the camera.

Some people do hit it off rather quickly in an instantly-good-chemistry sort of way, which in the porn industry makes everything incredibly easier for everyone (there's nothing worse than working with someone you're uncomfortable with), and mayhaps Abby Winters has just captured that sort of zeitgeist. But yeah, I don't recall the last time I watched porn in which there was actual eye contact between the involved parties. It's so incredibly mercenary and detached, and whilst I know that's part of the point, or part of traditional porn's general aesthetic, it bores the hell out of me. So AW is purely a girl-on-girl thing, or are there boys involved as well?

Warmtouch wrote:

Re: the catharsis argument -- there's a huge debate in the US about that, and at least in that society it seems not to be true. But Japanese society is so extremely different from American that it's really apples and oranges.

Japanese society is really a unique microcosm in itself, tentacle rape and panties vending machines and Engrish and all. To be frank, I don't pretend to understand it, though I imagine if I mustered up the cash to visit, I'd spend every second anal-retentively analysing every microscopic hint of minutiae of Japanese culture. For now, I'll just have to contend with my schoolgirl hentai and my sashimi.

Warmtouch · 25-05-06 19:03:22

Lia wrote:

Most of the working girls I know think having the client performing cunnilingus on them is actually the most intimate thing involved in the service, and will consequently charge extra for it, but kissing generally seems to be something that's done regularly but on a case-by-case, at-her-own-discretion basis. Brains create intimacy. Imagination creates intimacy. Kissing does not.

Charging by the act necessarily gets you a class of john who is more inclined to regard a woman as a piece of meat to be negotiated over. To get a better client, set fees on a time-basis only and require a minimum. This isn't to say that rich guys are necessarily nicer, but it does rule out the client who is inclined to haggle. I've never yet met a working girl who liked the idea of bargaining for her services.

Lia wrote:

There's been something of an influx of prostitute autobiographies lately, and the best one I've found is Belle De Jour, which was originally based on a blog of the same title. It's a strangely soothing read - it's almost Bridget Jones-esque, only with, er, hooking. The anonymous authoress is well-educated, witty, and amusingly good-humoured about her work, and seems to be one of those incredibly lucky escorts who makes very good money and has a plethora of incredibly well-behaved, well-trained, pleasant clients. As opposed to this other one I'm reading, in which the poor woman keeps on getting misogynistic johns who essentially want to debase and humiliate her.

Obviously one has to remain competitive, but I suspect that there's a price tradeoff somewhere. Above a certain point a john has too much invested to risk getting his ass kicked out early, so is more inclined to behave himself. Go too high, though, and you get the john who says, "I'm paying so much I should be able to do whatever I like."

On the theory that it's the poor and the rich who tend to misbehave socially (the poor have nothing to lose; the rich can get away with it) while it's the middle-class who were brought up to be polite, repressed and well-bred, a working girl should seek middle-class customers...

Lia wrote:

And apparently, a lot of clients will book a girl purely for her company, sans sex, and they're going to want someone who's capable of intelligent, interesting, humorous conversation (and someone who will do a splendid job of pretending to be interested in whatever he wants to talk about, which apparently will somehow inevitably involve his wife or his girlfriend) and intuitive listening. That seems to me to be a good deal more involved and taxing than just being a walking uterus.

Those johns who want to talk at all usually have a need to explain why they're there, and the reason (whether fair or not) often involves the wife or girlfriend. Besides, men need an outlet for their feelings on the subject and it's no longer socially acceptable (in some groups) to bitch about the Old Lady with the blokes down the pub. And even less socially acceptable to do it with female friends. Who does that leave? Priests, shrinks, and whores. I know whose shoulder I'd rather cry on.

Lia wrote:

So AW is purely a girl-on-girl thing, or are there boys involved as well?

In effect, yes. They have one video that I know of that involves a man (I think it's our own Stella and Luke), but the site FAQ more or less says, "We're not interested in doing any more, so don't even ask" without any explanation.

The girl-on-girl stuff at AW involves considerable variety, from just hanging around naked together, to side-by-side masturbation, to mutual masturbation, to full-on sex. AW has the biggest variety of material -- in terms of sexual intensity levels -- I've ever seen on a website. Some of it doesn't qualify as porn or sexual material at all. Watching someone explain her record collection in the nude is probably outrageously erotic in Qatar, but looks to me more like naturism.

digitalist · 25-05-06 21:21:32

Lia,

Excellent point about the Japanese example. This insight originally struck me because I'd noticed that the aggressiveness and dominance of slash tended to, amongst the community I knew, to be inversely proportional to age and sexual experience. This was the hint to me that it had a lot to do with discomfort with the socially prescribed role for women in sex that the culture blared at them (a role, incidentally, i think this site does quite a good job of staying away from, which is one of the main reasons I signed up).

aven frey · 27-05-06 05:37:54

Lia wrote:

Reminds me of the suggestion that because so much of Japanese sexual culture and media is so overtly violent, misogynistic and even rapacious (whereby the idea of stylised sex as an incredibly brutal act is perceived as the norm; tentacle schoolgirl rape et al), it acts as a form of catharsis, so that violent crimes like battery and rape are actually significantly reduced because these forms of media allow readers/viewers to assimilate and mediate violent, destructive, degradational desire through the sanctity of it all being simulated.

how about some Japanese tentacle love making, theres just not enough of it around these days!

stolengirlfriend · 27-05-06 06:29:03

That photo above reminds me of a scene in "The Goonies" that never made it to the actual film.

You can tell because during one of the scenes at the end, one of the kids was, like, "and the octopus was really scary!!!".

And at first you're thinking, "what bloody octopus?" but when you see Cyndi Lauper's video for "Good Enough" (the theme song), they have this huge octopus that was by the pirate ship, it all makes sense.

They just cut him out. Just like that. I always wondered why.

Sorry to ruin your thread. I'll shut up now.

Lia · 27-05-06 08:29:38

max wrote:

Lia wrote:
Reminds me of the suggestion that because so much of Japanese sexual culture and media is so overtly violent, misogynistic and even rapacious (whereby the idea of stylised sex as an incredibly brutal act is perceived as the norm; tentacle schoolgirl rape et al), it acts as a form of catharsis, so that violent crimes like battery and rape are actually significantly reduced because these forms of media allow readers/viewers to assimilate and mediate violent, destructive, degradational desire through the sanctity of it all being simulated.
how about some Japanese tentacle love making, theres just not enough of it around these days!
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/6809/hokusai0ld.jpg

Woohoo! Go team tentacle lurve!

I found a toy at my local Club X that was fashioned to look like some sort of deranged tentacle-beastie, and I was so bloody tempted to get it and try to convince you guys into using it as some sort of creepy creepy hentai-themed prop. Trouble was, it was about $200. The bastards.

Lia · 27-05-06 08:44:22

digitalist wrote:

Lia,
Excellent point about the Japanese example. This insight originally struck me because I'd noticed that the aggressiveness and dominance of slash tended to, amongst the community I knew, to be inversely proportional to age and sexual experience. This was the hint to me that it had a lot to do with discomfort with the socially prescribed role for women in sex that the culture blared at them (a role, incidentally, i think this site does quite a good job of staying away from, which is one of the main reasons I signed up).

Slash does, within my exploration of my genre, seem to provide a direct outlet from some of the ulterior subordinations and prescribed gender/sexual parameters that otherwise oppress female narrativity. Conventional or normative culture just doesn't enable that particular form of completely escapist, utopian fantasy-world that slash points directly to, and if portrayals of various sex acts become either ridiculous or outright strange, I'm sure there's a direct, inherent link between that and a fundamental lack of space in society for uncensored, self-directed female imagination.

That's what I like about this site too. It's primarily female-created, or at least dynamically constructed with a primarily female consciousness in mind, and thus doesn't attract a garden-variety, standard pornographic audience who just wants to see what women do within the grounds of the traditional spectatorship model, rather than for themselves.

Lia · 27-05-06 09:09:30

Warmtouch wrote:

Charging by the act necessarily gets you a class of john who is more inclined to regard a woman as a piece of meat to be negotiated over. To get a better client, set fees on a time-basis only and require a minimum. This isn't to say that rich guys are necessarily nicer, but it does rule out the client who is inclined to haggle. I've never yet met a working girl who liked the idea of bargaining for her services.

Oh, certainly, but that's assuming you're working independently. If you're going with an agency, then you have to go with their prescribed financial parameters (and pay them substantial commission), and would then want to get as much money of your own on top of the standard hourly rate as you can which you don't have to justify to them. Most of the agency girls I know will just charge for "extras" in proportion to what the hourly rate it. So if she's getting, say, $300 p/h (of which 50% will go straight to her employers), she'll charge extra for things like cunnilingus, anal, etc, whereas if she was on an $800 p/h booking, she'd be a lot more lenient and laissez-faire with her extras. Mercenary, I know, but if you're working for someone else and consequently paying them a hefty fee, you have to cover yourself.

Warmtouch wrote:

Obviously one has to remain competitive, but I suspect that there's a price tradeoff somewhere. Above a certain point a john has too much invested to risk getting his ass kicked out early, so is more inclined to behave himself. Go too high, though, and you get the john who says, "I'm paying so much I should be able to do whatever I like."
On the theory that it's the poor and the rich who tend to misbehave socially (the poor have nothing to lose; the rich can get away with it) while it's the middle-class who were brought up to be polite, repressed and well-bred, a working girl should seek middle-class customers...

The impression I get is that the "cheaper" ones tends to be the ones with their eyes constantly on the clock, trying to pump out every second of their hour/evening, whereas the ones who do actually have money to burn, who would quite languidly book out half a night at $500+ per hour, are much more likely to behave in a more genteel way. And subsequently, if the girl gets an ill-behaved client who thinks he can do whatever he likes, she's going to be behave with a certain amount of surliness herself and thus provide an otherwise crappy or ordinary service - that is, the more the john nags rudely for extras or whatnot or generally behaves like an arsehole, the more she's likely to tell him to sod off, particularly if he's paying her the absolute minimum (thereby making her feel like something to the effect of a "cheap hooker").

Warmtouch wrote:

Those johns who want to talk at all usually have a need to explain why they're there, and the reason (whether fair or not) often involves the wife or girlfriend. Besides, men need an outlet for their feelings on the subject and it's no longer socially acceptable (in some groups) to bitch about the Old Lady with the blokes down the pub. And even less socially acceptable to do it with female friends. Who does that leave? Priests, shrinks, and whores. I know whose shoulder I'd rather cry on.

Oh, some guys don't so much actually want a good-looking psychiatrist to whinge to so much as just company. Inferring that they're lonely and just desperately in need of conversation/company/catharsis, they'll book a girl for half a night, mayhaps feed and booze her, and sit there watching tv for most of the night whilst talking a lot of crap, without sex being so much as an issue. The rich ones will apparently do this incredibly frequently, particularly if there are drugs and whatnot involved - ie. "Oh, I'm really high on these marvelous high-grade narcotics, but I'm rather bored and want to chat - I might order a couple of girls to talk to, and Christ, I've had so much coke, there's no way in hell I'm going to be able to get it up..."

Warmtouch wrote:

The girl-on-girl stuff at AW involves considerable variety, from just hanging around naked together, to side-by-side masturbation, to mutual masturbation, to full-on sex. AW has the biggest variety of material -- in terms of sexual intensity levels -- I've ever seen on a website. Some of it doesn't qualify as porn or sexual material at all. Watching someone explain her record collection in the nude is probably outrageously erotic in Qatar, but looks to me more like naturism.

Oh, okay. I didn't know it involved actual full-on sex; I was under the vague impression that it was relatively softcore, or just photographic rather than video-based. Must check this out at some point - must cunningly keep one's eye on the Australian-based porn market.

cynicism · 27-05-06 09:42:37

Lia,

I can claim very little experience reading slash (I do NOT envy your depth of knowledge, because of the suffering you have endured in garnering it), but I thought it wasn't limited to male-male. I have seen pieces that I thought qualified as slash, rather than straight fanfic, that were male-female and female-female.

Being something of a Buffy fan, most of what I've come across is Giles/Buffy and Buffy/Willow - there are few opportunities for male-male slash in the Buffyverse (well, maybe Angel/Spike, or Xander/Xander - you have to be a serious fan to understand that one). There are vast opportunites for slash involving female characters (Buffy, Willow, Tara, Anya, Cordelia, Harmony, Drusilla, Faith, Glory, the various Potentials, particularly Kennedy, and then the lesser characters, even including Sam). Heck, at one point I sketched the outline of a Buffy/Willow/Tara piece, but I have too much work to do to write the whole piece.

So have I misunderstood? Is there a different name for non-male-male slash? I'd really like to know. (a rather crude friend of mine has just suggested a vulgar name for female-female slash which I hesitate to share with you - suffice it to say that it rhymes with "slash").

BTW: please do post your essay. Even if you post it elsewhere, just give us the URL - you might be surprised how many of us read it.

Lia · 27-05-06 11:44:20

cynicism wrote:

Lia,
I can claim very little experience reading slash (I do NOT envy your depth of knowledge, because of the suffering you have endured in garnering it), but I thought it wasn't limited to male-male. I have seen pieces that I thought qualified as slash, rather than straight fanfic, that were male-female and female-female.
Being something of a Buffy fan, most of what I've come across is Giles/Buffy and Buffy/Willow - there are few opportunities for male-male slash in the Buffyverse (well, maybe Angel/Spike, or Xander/Xander - you have to be a serious fan to understand that one). There are vast opportunites for slash involving female characters (Buffy, Willow, Tara, Anya, Cordelia, Harmony, Drusilla, Faith, Glory, the various Potentials, particularly Kennedy, and then the lesser characters, even including Sam). Heck, at one point I sketched the outline of a Buffy/Willow/Tara piece, but I have too much work to do to write the whole piece.
So have I misunderstood? Is there a different name for non-male-male slash? I'd really like to know. (a rather crude friend of mine has just suggested a vulgar name for female-female slash which I hesitate to share with you - suffice it to say that it rhymes with "slash").
BTW: please do post your essay. Even if you post it elsewhere, just give us the URL - you might be surprised how many of us read it.

We-elll... There's some debate as to the actual usage of the word 'slash', and there are constant arguments which go on amongst slashers and slash communities as to whether the phrase can be used to delineate any form of sexual fan-fiction.

In my academic usage of the word, and in general, I use the word slash to denote male-male pairings, and this seems to be the general consensus amongst more of the 'purist' slashers. Lesbian fan-fiction (and yes, I rather do like that vulgar moniker; I ought to use it more frequently ;P) is generally referred to as either 'femmeslash' or, well, lesbian fan-fiction, but the former more frequently. Hetero fan-fiction is generally just considered erotic fan-fiction. The reason there's some much emphasis on homoerotic shenanigans in the word 'slash' and throughout the genre in general is because of the hoity-toitiness involved in a lot of slashing elitism, whereby slash's roots are still somewhat grounded in the original Kirk/Spock business. There's another debate that goes on as to whether fan-fiction which concerns homosexual pairings already present in the canon (eg. the gay sex that goes on in Queer As Folk and Brokeback Mountain, and the whole Willow/Tara business) can be classified as slash or femmeslash, because it's been constantly claimed that slash is based on subtext rather than 'real' gay action.

Oh, as for posting my pretentious sheiser... The thing is, it isn't an essay. It's an Honours thesis, which makes it a good sixty pages long (it's a good 17,000 words), so posting it isn't very... practical. I may find a nice little website for it at some point, but I'll have to wait until it's been marked and returned to do that.

P.S. I'm something of a fan of Giles/Spike, which there's surprisingly a fair bit of. This is a bit disturbing, I know (and more disturbingly, I totally get the Xander/Xander thing), but I have this thing for bisexual British men. And the pairing works surprisingly well - it's all *suck suck* "Ruddy hell!" *pump pump* "Oh, sod!" Ahem. Quite.

cynicism · 27-05-06 23:07:00

Thank you for clarifying that. I'm a little disappointed, 'cause I'd rather liked the idea of female-female slash, but oh, well, we can always use the other term

I had already gathered that slash involved relationships not explored in the source (eg: Willow & Tara is a relationship that's part of the canon, and hence not slash).

Lia wrote:

P.S. I'm something of a fan of Giles/Spike, which there's surprisingly a fair bit of. This is a bit disturbing, I know (and more disturbingly, I totally get the Xander/Xander thing), but I have this thing for bisexual British men. And the pairing works surprisingly well - it's all *suck suck* "Ruddy hell!" *pump pump* "Oh, sod!" Ahem. Quite.

Giles/Spike? I'm not sure I'd want to read that. I suppose one of the arguments in its favour is the hostility shown between them, which might be argued to be a cover-up (always thought it was simple hostility, though).

Angel/Spike makes sense to me - there's enough of a relationship there in the source material to make it more credible, and they have had ample time together over the years. In the Darla-Angel-Drusilla-Spike quartet we've seen Darla/Angel, Angel/Drusilla, Drusilla/Spike, and even Drusilla/Darla, so Angel/Spike seems almost inevitable.

Spike would, I imagine, feature in most male-male slash in the Buffy-verse. He's simultaneously strongly sexual and androgenous. Almost all my female fellow fans express sexual interest in him, even those who are primarily lesbian. One even described as perfect fantasy material a threesome with Spike and Faith (we must remember that it was Faith in Buffy's body who made the "it would be wrong" speech to Spike, possibly the most erotic piece of dialogue to appear in the show)

I suspect that one of the reasons I find the idea of slash in the Buffy-verse less disturbing is that (almost) all of the characters are adults - some of them are centuries past the age of consent Your comments on Harry Potter slash make it sound quite stomach-turning; come to think of it, though, even adult pairings in that universe would be disturbing (Snape/Dumbledore?? or Dumbledore/Hagrid?? please, no!)

Lia · 28-05-06 17:52:14

cynicism wrote:

Thank you for clarifying that. I'm a little disappointed, 'cause I'd rather liked the idea of female-female slash, but oh, well, we can always use the other term

Oh, I've already used the other term about five times now, much to my supervisor's amusement. It sounds so much more authentic than 'femmeslash', which has this nasty, vaguely political redolence to it.

cynicism wrote:

Giles/Spike? I'm not sure I'd want to read that. I suppose one of the arguments in its favour is the hostility shown between them, which might be argued to be a cover-up (always thought it was simple hostility, though).
Angel/Spike makes sense to me - there's enough of a relationship there in the source material to make it more credible, and they have had ample time together over the years. In the Darla-Angel-Drusilla-Spike quartet we've seen Darla/Angel, Angel/Drusilla, Drusilla/Spike, and even Drusilla/Darla, so Angel/Spike seems almost inevitable.
Spike would, I imagine, feature in most male-male slash in the Buffy-verse. He's simultaneously strongly sexual and androgenous. Almost all my female fellow fans express sexual interest in him, even those who are primarily lesbian. One even described as perfect fantasy material a threesome with Spike and Faith (we must remember that it was Faith in Buffy's body who made the "it would be wrong" speech to Spike, possibly the most erotic piece of dialogue to appear in the show)

A lot of slash is based on the interactions between enemies or hostility or general adversity rather than on a pre-established friendship, because it lends an edge of 'danger' or power-play to the piece (which is indeed why pairings like Snape/Harry is so attractive to so many people). A lot of the time this is just a rather retarded cover for hierarchical bollocks and sadomasochistic shenanigans, but it's often a rather fertile ground for slashers to really explore and renegotiate characterisation, and to 'redeem' otherwise canonically screwed characters through the 'sanctitity' of 'intense intimacy'.

I'm just fond of Giles/Spike because I find each of them stupidly appealing, and generally rather enjoy a bit of bally British buttsex. They're also the only Buffy characters I find particularly sexually intriguing (apart from Xander and Faith, the former only marginally so).

Angel/Spike has indeed be done to death, and the history between the two of them in turn makes it very easy for slashers to sex it up - Giles/Spike, or really, Spike/anyone non-vampiric is somewhat more challenging. Spike is incredibly popular. There doesn't seem to be a Buffy slasher nor general fan who doesn't want to boff his peroxided, ambiguously evil, slightly fey brains out. And inevitably, because he wields that sort of canonical power, he always seems to be the top, or the dominating party, unless he's rooting Angel, who always, for some reason, makes the poor bastard beg for it.

A threesome with Spike and Faith... No, no, really, don't further furnish my already dangerously fangirlish ideas.

cynicism wrote:

I suspect that one of the reasons I find the idea of slash in the Buffy-verse less disturbing is that (almost) all of the characters are adults - some of them are centuries past the age of consent Your comments on Harry Potter slash make it sound quite stomach-turning; come to think of it, though, even adult pairings in that universe would be disturbing (Snape/Dumbledore?? or Dumbledore/Hagrid?? please, no!)

Eww. Yep. Seen it, read it, analysed it purely for the sake of academic research. Was consequently rather sick. There's a horribly perverse little ditty lying around somewhere, entitled (I think) 'Size Queen', featuring both Hagrid and Snape, in which Snape has to stand on a bloody milk-crate (Hagrid's member is apparently proportionately gargantuan), where the slasher in question doesn't have quite the attention span to keep Hagrid's accentuations and speech patterns (those sodding annoying inflections of his) consistent. Horrible. I hadn't wanted to poke my eyes out with a fork so desperately since Showgirls.

Dumbledore thankfully stays mostly out of it (particularly since he's now dead, though that doesn't always bother the crazier slashers), though I recall a particularly fucked up, idiotic slashfic featuring Snape as a hermaphrodite, being raped, abused and knocked up by an evil evil half-human Dumbledore. These things are generally so hysterically convoluted and incongruous, and inevitably appallingly written, if not outright sub-literate, that one rarely takes them at all seriously.

Oh, and if you want to get really revolting, try Dobby/Dumbledore on for size. Or Dobby in general. Think about it - he's the perfect (albeit vile) basis for a really awful S&M ditty.

As I think I've said, a lot of slashers manipulate the canon a fair bit so that under-age characters are somewhat older (ie. setting the story after graduation, or after the war, or ten years down the track, or some such bollocks) to make it all kosher, but because of the heavy fantasy-driven slash sensibility, age doesn't seem to bother a lot of the Potter slash community, particularly when the sexual acts at hand are described as inherently consensual ('non-con' slash, which essentially involves actual rape or dubious consent, does exist, but it's a relatively marginal sub-sect, and quite icky at that) - that is, 16 year-old Harry isn't doing being bent over a desk in the Potions classroom because he's being bullied into it or exploited, but because he's "come to terms with his own sexuality" and is apparently gagging for it.

Last edited by Lia (28-05-06 17:52:51)

Warmtouch · 28-05-06 23:25:59

How much of this stuff is written by Americans, do you think? The British are so everlastingly paranoid about paedophilia that I imagine the mere possession of Harry Potter slash (even with age adjustments) in the UK could land someone in serious trouble if their employer/local council/local plod found out about it.

I can't seriously imagine much of it is written by Aussie women. You're all too busy boffing each other on camera and off to have time.

So when do you get your marks?!

msnevil · 29-05-06 00:40:03

Believe me or not! A lot of Americans except (Maybe?) on the coast's don't like "underage" fantasy stories. For exp, A guy in "Ohio" was jailed for his writings in a journal.

Of course, The hypocrisy of America is also rampant as well. A "sex offender's" journal is a pedophilia crime. While the Kinsey's Visual\Analytical studies into Kid orgasms is ok.

A child Nude photography like Hamilton's is ok. But a Nudist got arrested (agian in Ohio) For taking pictures of her Nudist children. (And thus me and my wife. Have no “Baby onward” nude pictures of our kids.)

Of course, It all depends on the area the "action" happened. Some area's Applaud "extreme behavior" (San Francisco) and other's outlaw "minor behavior" (Salt lake city).

Personally, I think writing of "extreme's" is needed to channel the action in written prose. Instead of reality. Like Porn is a escape Valve for people as well. (And the whole Porn leads “Rape” is mostly bullocks).

(At least your Brit's have "breasts" in your newspaper's. Any TV "Cleavage" in america is a "FCC" criminal offense.)

aven frey · 29-05-06 05:21:28

msnevil wrote:

Of course, The hypocrisy of America is also rampant as well. A "sex offender's" journal is a pedophilia crime. While the Kinsey's Visual\Analytical studies into Kid orgasms is ok.

I think from what I remember of Kinsey he actually used a paedophiles journal to research boys orgasms and was condemed for this to some extent (but not as much as he was for his book on female sexuality!).

msnevil · 29-05-06 10:56:22

Actually Max, Kinsey Did Visual\analytical study on children. (With parents permission, or 2nd hand source's like paedolphilie's journals.) Along with many "other" sexoglists

Kinsey was a maverick for his time, and wanted to do away with all social norms. He advocated that 40% of Men had a sexual encounter with another man. For exp. And that all children are sexual in Nature. (Much like it is in the animal world.)

Abrham Maslow was right, and his data was skewed from the Get go. But he did
lead to other researcher's that were not so Biased in thier research.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUN … ILDORG.HTM

Warmtouch · 29-05-06 12:54:24

When science develops a political or social agenda it ceases to be science.

I had no idea that Maslow had criticized Kinsey, though. Going to have to look that one up. I'm rather fond of Maslow.

cynicism · 29-05-06 21:56:32

msnevil wrote:

Actually Max, Kinsey Did Visual\analytical study on children. (With parents permission, or 2nd hand source's like paedolphilie's journals.) Along with many "other" sexoglists
<snip>

How terribly appropriate! I'm going to claim that "sexoglists" is a Freudian typo - the combination of "sex" and "ogle" seems the perfect description of Kinsey et al.

cynicism · 29-05-06 22:18:11

OK, Lia, I think you've managed to turn my stomach multiple times. My respect for your dedication (and intestinal fortitude) grows without bounds.

I hadn't seen your mention of the ways the writers try to avoid paedophilia (10 years after, etc). I suppose we have to give them points for trying.

Still keen to read your thesis, though.

Some years back Melbourne Univerrsity held a day-long seminar on the Buffy-verse. They thought they'd get perhaps 40 attendees, but they advertised it quietly, to see if they could up it to maybe 60 (to alleviate costs). When bookings reached 500 they had to close them, because that was all the largest lecture theatre they could get held. I, like a number of others, took a day off work to attend. Some of the presenters were excellent, discussing various themes in detail (one speculated on why Buffy adopted a cruciform shape while diving to sacrifice herself for Dawn; another analysed the ambiguities in Spike's portrayal; another looked at why Buffy doesn't drive...).

I'm just pointing out that you may be underestimating the level of interest outside the academic community.

msnevil · 30-05-06 05:01:52

http://lts.brandeis.edu/research/archiv … tique.html

And yes, LO and behold. I can't spell. Good find on my spelling pun fiasco.

cynicism · 31-05-06 12:24:28

msnevil wrote:

http://lts.brandeis.edu/research/archiv … tique.html
And yes, LO and behold. I can't spell. Good find on my spelling pun fiasco.

No no no no no! It's not a mis-spelling. It's a wonderfully witty reflections on the scientists who claim to be "studying" sex so they can do pornographic things all day. It's brilliant!

Nothing implied about Lia's work, of course. She is working tirelessly, reading all the slash so we don't have to (thank goodness!). Nothing questionable about her work (except the obvious question of how she manages not to throw up regularly...).

Lia · 31-05-06 18:28:04

cynicism wrote:

msnevil wrote:
http://lts.brandeis.edu/research/archiv … tique.html
And yes, LO and behold. I can't spell. Good find on my spelling pun fiasco.
No no no no no! It's not a mis-spelling. It's a wonderfully witty reflections on the scientists who claim to be "studying" sex so they can do pornographic things all day. It's brilliant!

Precisely! I thought the sublime intertextuality of msnevil's Freudian slip (Freudian slit? ) deliciously encapsulated the irony of otherwise entirely perverted sexologists.

cynicism wrote:

Nothing implied about Lia's work, of course. She is working tirelessly, reading all the slash so we don't have to (thank goodness!). Nothing questionable about her work (except the obvious question of how she manages not to throw up regularly...).

Ahh, yes. Funnily enough, I'm not a sexologist (though I like to facetiously brand myself a "pornographer" from time to time; I read too much Erica Jong when I was but a wee spring chicken); I'm a cultural studies scholar, and thus *cough* don't derive any *cough* pleasure from my entirely professional, academic work. Mind you, I started writing academically about slash because I had a little secret perverse fixation for a particularly Harry Potter slash pairing, and wanted to reconcile and sancitfy my own itty bitty pseudo-fetish by making it all dry and scholarly and shit.

As for the inevitable question of how I manage to keep my breakfast down... I try desperately to examine the more icky, foul slashfics as pure parody, as complete satire, as opposed to the genuine erotic desires of really rather demented slashers. That's really the only thing that keeps me sane (or keeps me from retching) when it comes to the erogenous liaisons of Dobby and Hagrid and bloody Dawson.

Lia · 31-05-06 18:54:48

cynicism wrote:

OK, Lia, I think you've managed to turn my stomach multiple times. My respect for your dedication (and intestinal fortitude) grows without bounds.

See, this whole time I've been always unclear as to whether my dedication and intestinal fortitude signifies either my own ulterior sick twisted pathological perversity (I've always been far too open-minded for my own bloody good), or some higher form of ethereal tolerance and nobility.

cynicism wrote:

I hadn't seen your mention of the ways the writers try to avoid paedophilia (10 years after, etc). I suppose we have to give them points for trying.
Still keen to read your thesis, though.

It's often done in rather dynamic, well-crafted, imaginative ways. That is to say, these attempts at reconciliation aren't always completely absurd and convoluted. The ability to successfully and aptly characterise and reconfigure an under-age protagonist through time extension in itself is quite a taxing exercise for the writer, and when it's done well, it's actually quite a pleasing read.

All in good time, lovey, all in good time.

cynicism wrote:

Some years back Melbourne Univerrsity held a day-long seminar on the Buffy-verse. They thought they'd get perhaps 40 attendees, but they advertised it quietly, to see if they could up it to maybe 60 (to alleviate costs). When bookings reached 500 they had to close them, because that was all the largest lecture theatre they could get held. I, like a number of others, took a day off work to attend. Some of the presenters were excellent, discussing various themes in detail (one speculated on why Buffy adopted a cruciform shape while diving to sacrifice herself for Dawn; another analysed the ambiguities in Spike's portrayal; another looked at why Buffy doesn't drive...).
I'm just pointing out that you may be underestimating the level of interest outside the academic community.

You mean the level of interest outside the academic community in regards to more formal slash analysis or the level of interest outside the academy regarding slash itself?

What has always been a continual trope of interest and contention is that in Cultural Studies, we examine and interrogate both popular and academic texts, and in a sense, attempt to destabilise or renegotiate high/low cultural binaries. We'll analyse Top Gun as rigorously and as seriously as we would King Lear (well, mayhaps not King Lear). So just as we study texts which are just as potently popular amongst a non-academic audience, academics have always been very aware of - or have tried to keep informed of - 'popular' interests and matters of debate, precisely because we're essentially exploring their terrain (as opposed to the highly dry, curmudgeonly, 'classically' academic stuff which popular culture displays minimal interest in).

cynicism · 01-06-06 11:09:16

I'm saying that you may be underestimating the interest in your thesis from outside the academic community. Certainly the academics discussing Buffy vastly underestimated the interest they'd receive.

You do realise that you will have to divulge the pairing that evoked your fascination, don't you?

I've found it wryly amusing how the clash of high and low culture can lead to errors in judgment on both sides - the academics ignoring "populist" culture, and being shocked when they discover how well-structured it can be, and the non-academics being surprised to learn how entertaining some high literature can be. Gives me an excuse for a joke: a self-made man has made some cultured friends, and said friends decide to expose him to some of the culture he missed while growing up; they take him to see a performance of Hamlet, and ask him what he thought of it - his response: "Why do you think it's so clever? It's just a bunch of quotations strung together."

#51 25-05-06 15:49:23

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#52 25-05-06 16:10:16

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#53 25-05-06 19:03:22

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#54 25-05-06 21:21:32

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#55 27-05-06 05:37:54

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#56 27-05-06 06:29:03

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#57 27-05-06 08:29:38

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#58 27-05-06 08:44:22

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#59 27-05-06 09:09:30

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#60 27-05-06 09:42:37

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#61 27-05-06 11:44:20

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#62 27-05-06 23:07:00

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#63 28-05-06 17:52:14

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#64 28-05-06 23:25:59

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#65 29-05-06 00:40:03

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#66 29-05-06 05:21:28

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#67 29-05-06 10:56:22

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#68 29-05-06 12:54:24

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#69 29-05-06 21:56:32

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#70 29-05-06 22:18:11

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#71 30-05-06 05:01:52

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#72 31-05-06 12:24:28

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#73 31-05-06 18:28:04

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#74 31-05-06 18:54:48

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

#75 01-06-06 11:09:16

Re: Is this forum the Norm ??

Board footer