#slash meta

Why it appeals to so many, its gender demographics, and how it will change with the expansion of mainstream fandom.

you can also read this meta on ao3 here.

Let’s begin by defining slash. According to TV Tropes, “The most common definition of Slash is a Fan Fic that pairs two (or more) characters of the same sex. Often, ‘slash’ is used for male/male pairings only, while ‘femslash’... [is] used to define a female/female pairing.” For the sake of clarity in this post, I’ll be using “slash” to refer to m/m ships only, and “femslash” for f/f ships.

So...seems simple. Most of us ship male characters together. This has been a hallmark of transformative fandom, way back to Kirk/Spock in the 60s. It’s only recently that the vast amount of slashfic consumed and written by mainly women, presumed to be cishet women, has been slid under the microscope of the critical eye. This isn’t a bad thing, of course; being self-aware of why people do what they do is always beneficial, especially when that has to do with hierarchical social structures. However it is a marked, albeit slow-progressing, change.

Prior to modern fandom, where social media usage was not the primary source of fan gathering (let’s just call tumblr a social media for organizational purposes), there was generally an unspoken understanding that slash shipping (and shipping in general) was the way it was. It did not reflect one’s values, nor their desire for canon (though of course, for many it did). So to continue on in this exploration of pre- and post-social media slash, we have to talk about shipping in its own right.

I’ve noticed there is a large tendency towards slash pairings in fandom and I feel like there are two main reasons for this.  

1) The writers/showmakers are queer baiting the characters.  The actors might have great chemistry and so the show makers are taking advantage of that and writing scenes that imply or tease a relationship without ever actually giving us one.  As such, fandom takes over and provides stories to fill in the gap. 

2) Poorly written female characters.  It’s a lot more fun to write about dynamic, and interesting characters who have personalities and struggles and value.  Most female characters are flat and uninteresting so it’s really no surprise that people don’t tend to write about them.  Fandoms that have prominent het pairings are ones that have well-written female characters.   

If the media we consumed produced shows where there was equal gender representation, where all the characters were well-written, and where shows didn’t queer bait with no follow through, we would have a lot more balance as far as shipping types are concerned.  

Not that there is anything wrong with Slash (I personally tend to write slash), but I hate the notion that ‘fangirls just like fetishizing gay men and that’s why there is so much slash’  as if it were just a problematic choice made by fandom creators when, in fact, it is a specific response to larger tendencies within the media.  

So moral of the story, instead of trashing on fan creators, demand more balanced media representation and better pairing balance will result.  

Basically, het genre romance is super tropey, full of fate mating and do-or-die soap opera type stuff. Possibly because there's still way more het romance than LGBT stuff being published out there (unlike fandom), even now. So I've been reading overwhelmingly more het these past few months. And I have to say... it's weird. It reminds me how I also fell into reading only slash for years, as well, with only tiny interruptions for authors and series I was already following. When I read slash fic, I'd moved almost entirely to fanfic and LGBT novels or established series. And now the converse is true.

And it's not on purpose. It's just that there's a lot fewer tropey m/m books (unlike the situation with yaoi manga, which is usually much more up my alley thematically, but I'm on a book binge). Most LGBT romances are about partners or friends and coworkers rather than fated mates and barbarians and alpha aliens or shifters, etc. And on the one hand, I can understand. I mean, you'd probably get pushback for feminization if you wrote similar storylines in the West (yaoi and some slash already gets this pushback). But it's certainly possible to avoid that, as the Captive Prince books show. They're super tropey and have a beautiful classic alpha male character and cool barbarians, all while still being acceptable in the West (in my opinion). It's probably harder, of course. I mean, you can easily hand-wave fated/instinctive mates as genetic or partly gender-based. As in, Tarzan-- man, Jane woman, all that. In fanfic, writers can do it easily with two men mainly by relying on their established characters. In fic, the character building has already happened, so your basic starting point can begin with the tropes.

In a tropey LGBT genre novel, there's already a higher bar. You'd need to build that characterization basis instead of relying on broad stereotypes about gender relations. At least, I think that's the idea. With yaoi, identity is not usually an issue, but in the West, people feel most alpha-type straight men won't normally 'go gay' without some kind of warning or an existing queer identity. And you can't just go on about how the alpha and/or his clan or society wants/needs children as an excuse (one trope I can do without). I mean, all those 'Mars needs women' stories can be subverted the way they often are in slash, but that's probably more work as well. And remember, I'm not particularly looking for trope subversion (though I don't mind it). So all that's messier and requires more background. Even though it's actually not unlikely that all those popular alien slavers would kidnap some men along with the women (and sometimes there's certainly some reference to male sex slaves or prostitutes even in the straightest romance), the fact is that there's a barrier there. These types of stories are primarily written in fic. Anyway, I think this might help lead to less action-packed, more character-based and 'modern' stories overall. In a modern story, identity doesn't need to be altered or specially developed (unless you're talking about the gay-for-you trope, which aren't as nearly as common as they are in slash).

Overall, it's really made me realize a big reason why representation is important: it's easy to fall into a rut. Like there's some sort of hemisphere division between LGBT and straight romance writing beyond genre. Both of these types of stories primarily stay in their own lane. Though there's a few fantasy genre stories where there are queer side romances (like The Raven Cycle), these aren't romance genre novels in the first place. And a series like The Raven Cycle is far from typical or common even so, obviously. So it's easy to just kind of stay in your lane and develop a comfort with the familiar. Even for me, coming back for the first time to either straight fic or gay fic after a few months or years is jarring.

Partly the issue is the underlying focus in straight romance being on the female reader and the heroine, regardless of the males often having a dedicated point of view. This is most probably why the only queerness I've seen in these books is in the rare MMF threesome (rather than harem) genre trope romance, where it's mediated by the woman. That underlying sense meta writers in slash fandom have had that the story is being mediated by the female gaze is front and center in an actual romance novel. The woman is there to mediate queer desire, quite literally. The acceptance of the idea of the female gaze being sublimated is still unique to slash, even though the great majority of both straight and LGBT romance novels are still written by women, as far as I can tell.

This tumblr is basically now all about Fandom Things That Irritate Me... When Suddenly Reminded. On today's episode, I'll have to say that I'm really tired of the discourse around the 'fetishization' of gay/bi men in fandom, and particularly how this is the first and best thing people like to throw at shippers when they're being too... shippy (which is shocking, I know).

It's ironic 'cause, of course, I'm often irritated at the excesses of shipping in general and the way people fixate only on the parts of characters and their relationships that they want to. I've written a post about friendships vs. the role of Bluesey, and a recent post that deals with Pynch (if indirectly) in a similar manner. Of course, instead of insisting people who can't appreciate the line between the platonic and romantic dynamics in The Raven Cycle are fetishizing gay relationships, I've highlighted the differences and the importance of both. Implying that the platonic dynamics are more interesting or important to discuss isn't something I'd ever want to do, however.

The thing about the ever-popular fetishism discourse is that it assumes some sort of underlying questionable intent, whereas surely most people are simply acting in the most natural manner possible as fans. It's the more canon-centric friendship flag wavers that are weird and unusual in the fannish context. It's honestly weird if one had somehow not noticed this basic fact of life in fandom. I mean, not that there's anything wrong with enjoying canon 'as is' (to say the least), but it's not like we're somehow the average. And because canon-centric fans are rare, it seems oddly disingenuous to question the motivation and moral fiber of the great majority of all ship fandom, or to act like naturally shippy behavior is limited or specific to fans of a particular pairing. And of course, not least because many of the people involved in it are themselves queer.

I should clarify that I do think a certain 'fetishism' of gay relationships is not uncommon in fandom. In the sense that many straight/bi fangirls (and women in general) often have a special interest in two guys being in a sexual relationship. I haven't made a study of this, but speaking of myself, I'm not immune. I definitely have a special interest, being a slash fan. I *particularly* enjoy gay-themed fanfic, manga, movies and published fiction. I don't know if psychoanalyzing myself is relevant here, but I'd still say this isn't fetishism in the sense that I have no sense of reality or proportion, or I confuse stories for some kind of documentary, or I wouldn't treat actual gay men like human beings. I don't go around following gay couples and cooing, or ask them who's really the wife, or whatever it is the worst case scenario would be. However, I'd go out on a limb and say the great majority of slash and/or BL manga fans and even fag hags aren't completely tone deaf and offensive in that manner. If a person is offensive, surely one can at least entertain the idea that it's their personal issue or a lack of maturity, rather than blaming their special interest.

It certainly seems to me that it's predominantly people who categorically reject slash fandom as a whole that tend to be fond of charges of shipping as gay fetishism. There's a sense among progressives in general that one shouldn't step outside the bounds of one's people, shouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, which often translates into not being too *interested*. I've seen people claim that owning certain kinds of souvenirs or buying culturally unique items made in other countries was offensive and appropriative. We're supposed to 'show respect' for minorities by keeping a certain polite distance, not taking too many liberties. In this case, even with fictional characters. Which is where it all seems to become a bit of a farce, honestly.

First of all, the idea of people needing to be sensitive and polite to real people *through* their relationship to fictional characters needs to be addressed. It's truly irrational. Sure, there are some queer men out there who seem to take issue with how gay relationships and sexual behavior is often portrayed in slash fic. The portrayal of the role of friendship vs romantic relationships is along those lines. However, people's feelings and opinions can easily be ill founded and unrepresentative. As an example, there are also feminist activists who think all women are being offended by the fact that any man anywhere enjoys masturbating to (probably violent and certainly very unrealistic) porn in the privacy of their home. That porn is offensive and inappropriately/unrealistically depicts women, so supposedly all the men in the world have a responsibility to boycott this porn, and hopefully all other porn, if they want to show their respect for 'women'. I don't know if these feminists really think most women agree on the importance of eradicating all porn, but I assume the women who disagree are simply judged to be not feminist enough. Easy. If the men don't agree, well, these men are pigs who don't respect women. In sum: it's too many silly exaggerations and irrational arguments to count. This is why we can't have nice things.

It's one thing to critique the way fandom fixates on shipping, or ignores canon context. Heaven knows I rant about the latter all the time, and twice on Tuesdays. But it's another thing to imply Pynch fans squeeing about the ship and not writing essays about the importance of Ronan and Adam's other relationships aren't treating the characters as real enough human beings. Even if that was true, it wouldn't follow they *should* treat fictional characters as human beings anyway: that's a gift a reader may or may not bestow, if the author is good enough. It certainly wouldn't mean they actually don't do so in another tag and/or context. And besides that, it wouldn't follow that the fixation on the romance isn't due to its inherent attraction, but just because it's hot being *gay*. Like, surely it seems highly counterintuitive to say we don't *really* ship the things we ship, but instead any two guys would do in the end. Surely there's enough actual gay porn on the internet for people not to resort to YA fanfic to get off, and surely there are actually pairings with both more fics and more hardcore and/or explicit material than you'd find on the Pynch tag.

One of the things that can cause the most tension in fandom is how every close friendship between men *has* to be romantic. I'm not always immune to the frustration, though I'm generally more annoyed at people who refuse to consider queer romance than those who insist it can well happen (unless people are saying it *has* happened when it hasn't). Of course, a lot of slash fans are not just into it if there's intense character chemistry and it feels inevitable, but anytime there's more than a friendly nod and a break for beer every now and then. It's definitely not surprising, and usually not a big deal, of course-- that's just slash. However, the Raven Cycle fandom is different, 'cause you're talking about a canon where there's both close male friendship *and* a queer couple in a romantic relationship. And it's still not enough: the friendship is still read romantically. Literally the only difference a canon queer relationship has made is that people are more confident and self-righteous about the reading, although it must be said that slash (and/or the fannish queer reading) has become increasingly more about simply erasing canon and Authorial Intent.

I'm not here to bemoan that yet again. What I'm thinking about is how all those infamous anti-slashers are definitely onto something in regards to the negativity and disdain-- if not total contempt--so many slash fans seem to have towards the breadth and depth of male friendship, and the way it can include strong feelings. This, no matter how many times female fans beat our chests in frustration about 'toxic masculinity' and all the ways men are hobbled by society from showing any vulnerability or honest emotions, from sharing emotional intimacy with one another. That's all well and good, but not as sexy or cool or *relatable* (the ultimate comeback) as the male characters being secretly in love. Toxic masculinity may be a bad thing, but it's sure convenient when you need a good excuse for two men boinking. And the unlikelihood and rarity of truly deep platonic love between two men-- particularly if it's actually expressed in any genuine fashion-- is so very convenient, isn't it?

So no matter what, it's secretly queer, although especially and particularly if it involves a canonically queer character such as Ronan Lynch. Ronan is pretty much implicitly considered incapable of feeling strongly for Gansey as a good friend, let alone being able to appreciate him physically without wanting in his pants. Of course, the fact that he even mildly flirted with Kavinsky means he was lying about not wanting an actual relationship with him, either. In both cases, Ronan has explicitly stated his lack of romantic/sexual interest in The Dream Thieves, but of course that's not nearly enough. Categorically, the sexualization of queer characters (canonical or projected as queer by fandom) is treated as an inevitability. Just like how men and women aren't supposed to be able to be just friends. Ronan's clearly only allowed platonic relationships with Blue and his family, unless the other man is purely a casual acquaintance as yet. No one thinks he really wants Henry, for example. Yet.

Like I said, I'm certainly very sympathetic in general, being a longtime slasher for almost twenty years now. But all arguments about the higher good or the need for relatability and representation disappear with The Raven Cycle. There's no 'higher ground' when it comes to sexualizing Ronan's platonic relationships in direct opposition to canon and Authorial Intent, or in regards to not taking him at his word with Kavinsky. There's simply no excuse except fannish greed, contempt for canon and an implicit acceptance of toxic masculinity. Essentially, the idea that men have no feelings unless they want to fuck.

Fannish greed and the open preference for fanon over canon is more or less just part of the nature of the beast, of course. The implications about progressive or feminist-friendly fans supporting toxic masculinity in such a brazen manner are more troubling to me. It's really ridiculous to me that the same old explanations about needing to feel included and represented are nevertheless trotted out, as if gay men don't get to *have* close friends or a wide range of relationships and connections with other people. That's really what upsets me. It's one thing to deny a supposedly straight man friendship and closeness outside of romantic interest. You definitely can say that real-life Gansey types have all that and more, all across literature as well as in reality. (Of course, most Gansey types in real life aren't lucky enough to have real love with a great woman as well as friends as close as Ronan and Adam.) Ronan and Adam don't deserve this, however. They deserve to have true friends, to be portrayed with a range of close platonic as well as romantic relationships. A good representation of a real life, with all different types of bonds and necessary relationships. That's how actual people are. That's *who* we are.

So I saw the new Kingsman movie and as I told my mom: this is why slash happens. It remains odd to me sometimes, because as I just wrote recently, I have a strong bias to not ignore canon in terms of characterization and even the underlying philosophy of any given work. And yet I'm into transformative works, reading against the grain enough to love slash. Even times when I don't ship a popular pairing-- and Harry/Eggsy is not my thing at all-- I can frequently see it (though this doesn't happen with random pairings at all). And Kingsman: The Golden Circle shows why even a canon-whore like me could see why people go for it, basically.

It wasn't so obvious in the first movie, but even my mother had to admit that the dynamic between Harry and Eggsy is literally the only emotional anchor in the film. Their scenes are intense when nothing else rings true. There are attempted moments of angst and romance between Eggsy and his devoted girlfriend, but they fall totally flat, whether due to the acting or writing or both. The scene where his girlfriend was about to kiss him after his trip through the sewers is about as subtle as a sledgehammer: Eggsy declared that this is 'true love', and we're supposed to believe, except there was no emotional punch and zero chemistry. Compare this to the scene where Eggsy tells an amnesia stricken Harry that he needs him: BOOM! Eggsy was shining with sincerity, with intensity. And this is the problem, right there.

It becomes completely ridiculous in Kingsman in a way it isn't in BBC Sherlock with John and Mary (as opposed to his relationship with Sherlock) because Kingsman is a farce, and the only really good acting is in Colin Firth's role as Harry. Firth really makes Taron Egerton shine in their scenes together. By contrast, Sherlock is consistently well-made, almost always strongly acted. And yet the huge divergence between the things we're asked to believe about the heterosexual couple ('true love'!) and the attention the relationship gets and its emotional intensity is still staggering.

It's especially ridiculous when the two men have a vulnerability with each other, an emotional intimacy that is all but taken for granted, while the heterosexual couple gets married... for much less of an apparent connection. Again, it's much more obvious in Kingsman, but the problem is the underlying understanding of women and relationships by the men predominantly writing these stories. Of course, the Kingsman movies were co-written by Jane Goldman, just as Sherlock was co-written by Mark Gatiss, so there are attempts to break the mold at multiple points. It's just not enough. In Kingsman, Eggsy calls his girlfriend to ask her permission to have sex for a mission. This is some next level feminist-friendly behavior, in my opinion. Except then she tried to say it's only all right if he married her, gave her that commitment-- proved he was on a leash. This is extremely manipulative, stereotypical female behavior to the point I'd consider using marriage in an ultimatum this way to be a misogynist trope. And Eggsy looked queasy and completely unprepared, just as John was at the idea of Mary's pregnancy. These are not things that they wanted, not the life these men wanted to lead. And yet both ultimately fell in line after the inevitable break to adjust and/or 'man up', I suppose. After all, this is 'true love'.

Essentially, the problem is that the relationship with the love interest is taken for granted and often uses multiple sexist tropes or stereotypes as short-cuts, including behavior that should be unforgivable in Mary Morstan's case. It's not as well-acted, not as important. Understandably, since it's not part of the plot. The real issue is that the story nevertheless treats the male friendship which it's actually focused on as subordinate, as less vital. In the end, Eggsy seemingly quits his job as an undercover agent to marry a princess, and John becomes a family man (though at least we know he still helps out on cases). On one level, this can be seen as the natural end of a Hero's Journey, or the natural progression of a heterosexual man's life... except then there's Harry (or Sherlock), and Harry doesn't fit. And Harry has a problem. Harry is a problem.

The thing is, we're not supposed to care. It's supposed to be normal, or at least acceptable. Like Sherlock, Harry is a man who consciously chose to be alone, though unlike Sherlock, he regrets it. However, there's nothing to be done, and we see Harry at Eggsy's wedding, just as John and Sherlock obviously remain very close. The thing is, though, to get back to my original point: Eggsy and Harry (or Sherlock and John) are real in a way the heterosexual couple can't begin to match. That's where the emotional intimacy is. That moment when Harry tells Eggsy he didn't think of anyone in the moments after he was shot, and he wants more for Eggsy: in my opinion, that's what romance is actually made of. That's where the actual story is. It just seems deeply unnatural to give the happy ending to someone else (though with Sherlock, this is more fudged, and you can argue John and Sherlock have their happy ending after all). Kingsman is more classic in that regard.

It's not that I personally ship Harry/Eggsy and think they should literally be together instead. I agree with my mom that their relationship is a lot more like father/son than lovers. That's my point: that's why it's transformative, that's why it's slash and not a reading of canon. It's not that I think Eggsy wants Harry that way or even should, which clarifies my thought processes in a way Sherlock has muddled. It's the contrast between the natural and central platonic dynamics and the forced and unnatural heterosexual couple which is given way too much primacy and respect by the narrative. This had long been seen as the foundation for slash, and it's going strong. It's not simply about heteronormativity, because it's all right to say 'Eggsy is straight' or even 'John isn't gay' and take it at face value, in the end. It's all about the toxic concept of masculinity in these sort of action-adventure heroic narratives. That's behind the way heteronormativity intertwines with the portrayal of women and the sidelined yet pumped up heterosexual relationships in these types of action-adventure stories. That is what's simply unnatural.

Since I'm on a paranormal romance kick (Nalini Singh is only the tip of the iceberg), it's become clear to me just why I prefer LGBT romance in many ways. Why my current fixation is temporary, and I'll come back to slash, BL manga, and/or gay romance in the end. Basically, male characters are important to me, and I've gotten spoiled in the way they're so much more real in a gay romance or slash fanfic, even with all the romanticizing that goes on. One example is the internal dialogue you typically get in a male POV attraction to a woman as opposed to another man. You'd think there would be a variety, and there is, but there's also a lot of consistency in theme, and certainly common elements. In paranormal or contemporary romance, the heterosexual man mainly shows his sexual attraction to the woman two ways: he wants to touch her to please her and make her happy, or he wants to touch her to claim or 'own' her body, exert his dominance. These motivations would also exist in a gay male character in LGBT romance fiction, but there's a strong current of attraction meaning he himself wants to be touched. For his own sake. For its own sake.

It seems almost too simple, but I've read a whole lot of contemporary and paranormal romance at this point, and I can't recall the last time there was anything that genuinely focused on male desire that wasn't implicitly filtered through the woman's needs and desires, even just a wanking session, for example. Simply focusing on the male perspective certainly happens, though it's not as common as it could be. That's when you already have a book with the male love interest's POV. But yeah, depiction of internal desire to the point of masturbation, say, isn't such a high bar. What's different in LGBT romance novels is the content and framing of any fantasy or reference to male desire. In a queer male character, you'd often get fantasies about being touched, being desired or perceived as an object of lust, even if it's a top or alpha character of the same sort as the typical het romance hero. He's allowed these fantasies and desires in LGBT fiction. His body is an object of exploration as much as his partner's. In heterosexual romance, the man relentlessly sees the woman as the object, while the woman's object of desire is him. However, the text's treatment of desire is inevitably different.

The 'progressive' or modern aspect is that the woman also lusts after and objectifies the man's body, normally. The thing is that no matter how much the text also objectifies the male body in relation to the woman (which seems like progress), the female gaze ultimately becomes as limiting and oppressive as the male version. What I'm ultimately arguing about is the same thing that the male gaze used to do to female desire in male-written romance.

In a paranormal or contemporary romance, almost every time, there's a sense that the woman is doing the man a favor by giving him oral sex in the books I've read, for example. This is even when the female character is super excited and enthusiastic. My point is that there's a textual awareness that she didn't have to, and it's a bonus. Meanwhile, the man's desire to happily offer her oral satisfaction is presented contextually as a sign of what a man should be. This is explicitly presented as being what makes him sexy: this fixation on pleasing her, this knowledge how to treat her body right. Conversely, in a gay relationship, it's simply that both people are great at sucking each other off and are dying to both give and receive. The pleasure is simply shown to be mutual and there's no sense of one having to be grateful or needing a reward. And further, it's okay for either man to just want to be serviced, whereas in a heterosexual narrative, that's only okay for the woman. If a man gets serviced and is happy with it without always needing to reciprocate, usually it's a sign there's something wrong with the character or the relationship (or both). Needless to say, it's perfectly fine and healthy for the woman to just be happy being sexually serviced, and indeed this is often described as what makes a good man happiest.

It's weird to fixate on how I feel like gay romances have more enjoyable dynamics for me because of the men's increased selfishness, but it's really true. To me, it's ultimately about a male character being more genuine and having a believable interiority rather than selfishness, of course. I don't actually think of it as selfishness, and it's certainly not generally portrayed that way in a gay romance. It's just the natural course of desire. It's simply that in a heterosexual romance, the natural attitude would be portrayed as selfishness, or understood as the attitude of an immature man or a womanizer who hasn't been broken in yet. The same man who's being passionate (or at least hormonal) in a gay romance would suddenly be a bad lover-- or worse, not manly or alpha enough-- in a straight one.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to gender roles and dynamics. Not surprising. Taken in non-sexual contexts, plenty of heterosexual romances seem organic and believable as well as desirable to me, as plenty of writers consciously resist gender roles, at least for women. Certainly the female authors I often read. This seems to become complicated once female bodies are sexualized. Once you introduce a sexual component... suddenly the treatment of women feels like a trap. I feel like I'm supposed to feel good that this super cool man is only dying to please and possess the woman he loves, but I just... I feel so tired of the way vulnerability is only ever emotional. The man is plenty vulnerable to the woman he's in love with in a romance, generally, but his body is in control 95% of the time. Because that's how he proves his devotion. By holding back and controlling his strength and putting her sexual needs first even if it near kills him. And ultimately, I just think it's suffocating and it gets boring to me in the end. I do think that sort of alpha behavior is also relatively common in LGBT romance, but it's not as loaded when there's no sense of expectation implicitly based on gender.

Sometimes there's less of the alpha crap than others, particularly with a well-written male POV, of course. There's certainly plenty of pining and loving descriptions of endless hard-ons out there, to say the least. But a queer man may fantasize about a lover's helping hand or willing mouth, may actually dwell purely in his body without holding back or thinking of the other person. A queer man, in other words, may actually act like a normal man. A straight man must act like a woman's fantasy of a man to be romantically/sexually attractive. This is true even though a lot of women write LGBT romance, to the point of it possibly being mostly women, for the simple reason that women generally predominate within romance writing.