tv // lbd // shoulder touch

Why do I do it?

Go skipping through irritating folks' ljs, I mean. Probably the same reason I go to Gateworld and why I used to go to SG1Fans back when it was really fun ;) Plus the whole procrastination factor.

Anyway, wrote an... interesting piece on ship and slash and how canon Jack is het. And, as she predicted, the howls of outrage began ;) The usual, of course, about how Sel's nuts (not that that's news to her *g*) and mean and illogical and yadda yadda. But it just amazed me how much yapping there was about it, the same things said, over and over and over... running in proverbial circles. And, you know, I think that happens for the same reason we go read the LJ's of people who we know have their ***** up their ***** -- we just love to know when we're being talked about, love playing the wounded solider, and so on.

I mean, I agree with Sel, which I guess isn't surprising considering that I'm Just Another Homophobic SJHW ;) But that aside... it's funny, isn't it, how easy it is to get a rise out of people?
  • Current Mood: pensive pensive
  • Current Music: Third Eye Blind -- Semicharmed Life
they did?
Wow. Nobody ever told me they were talking about my LJ entries.

::sniggers::

And here was me thinking I laid out the arguments for het-and-not-bi Jack so nicely and logically.

As for being mean... Hello? Who am I being mean to? Someone whose opinion I disagree with? Someone for whom I have little or no respect? I didn't even call them heterophobes, blind, stupid, anti-Sam, brainwashed, or any other of the epithets which I could have. All I gave was my reasoning for why Jack is about as het as they come and my belief that if you slash him (or Daniel) then that's your biz - just don't think that you're writing the relationship with any kind of canonical support.

So, lemme guess who screeched: Morgan (natch), Emony (once again, natch)...and probably any SDJers who happen to have online journals - </i>correctus</i>?
Re: they did?
So, lemme guess who screeched: Morgan (natch), Emony (once again, natch)...and probably any SDJers who happen to have online journals - correctus?

Well, Em began the 'discussion'... didn't see Morgan... saw Xochi and Alyse and Nausea and the rest of the crowd. And, dear, they're all so sorry for you and your woeful ignorance ;)
Re: they did?
Ah. So they're so sorry for me in my woeful ignorance, but none of them have the balls to enlighten me as to why I'm ignorant in my own entry on my own LJ? Ignorant of what? The way the world works as compared to how they, I, or any other collection of people in the universe would like it to work? Homosexuality and it's causes? The fact that all people everywhere have a bias that has been individually developed for them and may or may not be the most-common view of the world?
Re: they did?
Ah. So they're so sorry for me in my woeful ignorance, but none of them have the balls to enlighten me as to why I'm ignorant in my own entry on my own LJ?

Well, cause you're so gosh darn mean, of course. Are you so surprised that they're afraid to directly confront you? Heck, they wouldn't even mention you by name, for fear of invoking your unholy spirit, I imagine ;)

There was some babble about how horrible TV shows are for not giving gay men a fair shake... basically blaming THAT on why we'll never see Jack and Daniel skipping through the marigolds (not the fact that the characters simply don't swing that way). And some kvetzing about how us evil, mean, homophobic shippers will always have eps like D&C and WoO and so on, and the poor misunderstood and martyred dears will just have to suffer through the resultant cackling ;)
Re: they did?
Ooh...no wonder my little demon-horns didn't twitch. I didn't get named!

basically blaming THAT on why we'll never see Jack and Daniel skipping through the marigolds (not the fact that the characters simply don't swing that way).

::gasps:: They don't?

::throws away her Jack and Daniel wuvfest fic and nails hand to forehead:: I'll never write again!

And some kvetzing about how us evil, mean, homophobic shippers will always have eps like D&C and WoO and so on, and the poor misunderstood and martyred dears will just have to suffer through the resultant cackling

Nobody has yet explained this to me: why is it homophobic to write het?

Ponderings: why are people unable to distinguish between being 'pro-something' and being 'majority-something'? ie. people can be 'pro-homosexuality' while at the same time writing stories, TV-shows and movies that portray heterosexuality in a positive light.

Or maybe it's just the sign of someone who doesn't have enough space in their brain to process more than a single viewpoint at any given moment.
Re: they did?
Nobody has yet explained this to me: why is it homophobic to write het?

Well, it isn't, as long as you don't think anything as horrible as 'het is more plausible/likely than slash in Situation X'.

Ponderings: why are people unable to distinguish between being 'pro-something' and being 'majority-something'? ie. people can be 'pro-homosexuality' while at the same time writing stories, TV-shows and movies that portray heterosexuality in a positive light.

Hmm... because I think some people believe that in order to support something (i.e. be 'pro-homosexuality', whatever THAT means) you have to be demonstrative about it. Write fic, sign petitions, shout loudly, oppose the opposition. It's part of the 'with us or against us' mindset.

Or maybe it's just the sign of someone who doesn't have enough space in their brain to process more than a single viewpoint at any given moment.

That too.
I still don't see how I feel "sorry for [Seldear] and [her] woeful ignorance."

That was more a comment on the tone of the entire thread. I didn't exactly take notes on who said what ;)

I also posted that other people writing fic pairings other than your own is no threat to your own pairing

No kidding -- but I don't believe that was Sel's point.

And yes, that is one of my cats.
No, that was Emony's point.

She had a point? ;)

Emony was speculating on why the shippers and slashers don't yub each other.

Because they have completely different ways of looking at the characters? Isn't that enough?

Honestly, though... I'm friends with slashers and non-shippers... we don't get into screaming brawls about which characters want to boink who. And the majority of shippers that I know really could care less about slash; I'll be nice and assume that goes both ways *g* I don't think it has as much to do with ship and slash as it does... shall we say... clashing personalities
It's not quite that easy to get a rise out of me. ;)

What makes you think I was trying?

I'm not convinced they do. I think we're disagreeing on how sexual orientation works.

I don't think it has anything to do with sexual orientation, but that's just me.

And I don't think disagreeing with someone is reason to not yub each other anyway. :)

Not the best excuse, no, but it happens... both in fandom and out of it.

I thought you might expect me to leap to Emony's defense.

Hmm, not particularly.

I don't think people choose to whom they're attracted

I don't think so either. But in the context of the discussion, I think it's not unreasonable to look for patterns, similiarities in the people that a specific character is attracted to. I think sex is one of those factors. I've never seen anything that would indicate to me that Jack is anything else than completely, utterly straight.

Now, if people want to write and read and believe otherwise... heck, no skin off my nose. I think the problem - and possibly Sel's pet peeve - is that people become so... dedicated in that belief that it totally blocks out everything else, including canon characterization.

I just object to referring to writing a character's orientation as other than Kinsey 0 as "perversion of sexuality." If I wrote a story with a female Daniel, is that "perversion of gender"?

Yes. Although there are people who would disagree *eg*

If I wrote a story with a Jewish Jack, is that "perversion of religion"?

The characters' religion hasn't really been established either way, has it? If I had to guess, of course, I would say Catholic.

Would a black or Asian Sam be "perversion of race"?

Yes
Seldear said, "It is most common for people to be heterosexual by choice. Apart from getting into the whole mantra of the gay community ('Born gay, can’t change, shouldn’t need to'), I think that sexuality is a choice. Acknowledging that most people will choose the more-common sexuality is not necessarily an inditement on the less-common sexuality. It’s a fact of life."1

I don't think people choose to whom they're attracted.


Bang on the nail there. We don't choose to whom we're attracted - we do choose how we act on that attraction. Humans are not animals who act purely in instinct, pheromones, and pure attraction. Well, at least some of us aren't!

People who may very well be attracted to members of the same sex may choose to have sexual relationships with only members of the opposite sex - for whatever reasons: social, religious, personal, what have you. As such, the sexual attraction factor is fluid, but the choice of sexuality is indeed a choice, not just a mindless urge or an unstoppable drive. To me, the choice of action is as important as the attraction.

Another of Seldear's points was that Jack is straight in canon, so slash is inherently AU. (I actually agree that slash is AU because they're not involved in canon. I just object to referring to writing a character's orientation as other than Kinsey 0

Kinsey?

as "perversion of sexuality." If I wrote a story with a female Daniel, is that "perversion of gender"? If I wrote a story with a Jewish Jack, is that "perversion of religion"? Would a black or Asian Sam be "perversion of race"? If not, why is sexual orientation inviolable when these other qualities are not?)

These qualities are inviolable if you wish to remain within canon - or within the parameters of the character's personality. There have been fics written where SG-1 changes gender but nobody (the author least of all) is kidding themselves that it's anything but an AU.

Gender, race, religion, and sexuality are very defining things for an individual - as much so, if not more, than experience. These characteristics will define the types of experience we have, the social filter through which we will view them and the manner in which we handle them.

The characters as written with different sexualities, race, religion, gender would be different to the people who are depicted in the show - possibly a little, possibly a lot. But whether it's a little or a lot - it's still AU.

Technically, all fanfic and fanon therein is AU - it's certainly not canon, although it may follow canonical lines of the show. And I have greater appreciation for those who write within the boundaries of the characters as depicted in the show - with some extrapolation. If you're going to create 'new characters' who do exactly as you want in the way you want it with little or no reference to the depiction of the characters, why not write your own stories with your own original characters?

So yes, a female Daniel is AU and a perversion of Daniel's gender. A Jewish Jack is an implied perversion of Jack's religion (a white O'Neill would most likely be nominally Christian along the Catholic/Protestant line). An Asian or black Sam would be a perversion of Sam's race. And a bisexual or gay Jack is a perversion of Jack's depicted and generally assumed sexuality.

And don't get all emotive with the word 'perversion' - all it signifies is swinging something completely around from the way it is depicted to the way it most definitely is not.
kinsey 0 and stuff
You're arguing that Jack is a Kinsey 0, while I'm arguing that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Jack isn't a Kinsey 1.

Sure there isn't. That was the argument I referenced in my original LJ entry: my friend said there was insufficient evidence to prove Jack wasn't Kinsey 1 (as the scale indicates above).

Part of my objection is that while it is generally considered acceptable to say "assumed Kinsey 0s could actually be Kinsey 1s", it would be unacceptable to say "assumed Kinsey 6s could actually be Kinsey 5s" - that was the point of the making-Tara-straight example.

Phrased differently: Why is it unacceptable for 'straight' bars to throw out gay couples, but perfectly acceptable for 'gay' bars to throw out straight couples?

Discrimination works both ways.

Personally, I see Jack as a Kinsey 0 because I've never seen anything to suggest he's even faintly Kinsey 1. And in my view, characters on shows are assumed het until indicated otherwise in the show. Simply put, yes, Jack could be a Kinsey 1 by virtual of the fact he's never outright said he's not gay. But he's in the Kinsey 0 bracket for me and a million other viewers simply because he's never shown anything to eke him into the Kinsey 1 bracket.

Comprehendhe?

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i?yes,>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>You're arguing that Jack is a Kinsey 0, while I'm arguing that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Jack isn't a Kinsey 1.</i>

Sure there isn't. That was the argument I referenced in my original LJ entry: my friend said there was insufficient evidence to prove Jack <i>wasn't</i> Kinsey 1 (as the scale indicates above).

Part of my objection is that while it is generally considered acceptable to say "assumed Kinsey 0s could actually be Kinsey 1s", it would be unacceptable to say "assumed Kinsey 6s could actually be Kinsey 5s" - that was the point of the making-Tara-straight example.

Phrased differently: Why is it unacceptable for 'straight' bars to throw out gay couples, but perfectly acceptable for 'gay' bars to throw out straight couples?

Discrimination works both ways.

Personally, I see Jack as a Kinsey 0 because I've never seen anything to suggest he's even faintly Kinsey 1. And in my view, characters on shows are assumed het until indicated otherwise in the show. Simply put, yes, Jack <i>could</i> be a Kinsey 1 by virtual of the fact he's never outright said he's <i>not</i> gay. But he's in the Kinsey 0 bracket for me and a million other viewers simply because he's never shown anything to eke him into the Kinsey 1 bracket.

<i>Comprehendhe?</i>

<i?Yes, but I don't think anyone is kidding themselves that slash isn't AU. The traditional definition of slash specifies that the characters can't be involved in canon.</i>

The feeling I get from many slash writers on Stargate lists and boards is that their depiction of the slash relationship between Jack and Daniel <i>is</i> canon. And not only that, that it's <i>more</i> canonical than the Jack-Sam dynamic developed throughout the show.

Definitions tend to get lost as time goes on. Time was when a same-sex relationship was definitely non-canon. Now, with pairings like Willow-Tara in BtVS, 'slash' (or femslash) is canon.

<i>don't you find that sad and sucky? I think that some people are, well, actually straight or gay, IOW not interested in both genders, and saying that gay people shouldn't become involved with members of their own sex for "social, religions, personal," or whatever reasons... well, I don't want to condemn anyone to a life of celibacy, whatever their orientation. I also don't see what's wrong with having a same-sex relationship. I figure that they're not hurting anyone and they should do what makes them happy. (Of course, I would; I'm pro-gay.)</i>

I'm not saying that people <b>should</b> or <b>should not</b> become involved in a relationship (of any type or kind) for reasons social, religious, or personal - only qualifying the difference between feeling an attraction and acting upon it. The initial interest and the action are two very different things IMO. The initial interest or attraction is uncontrollable, but what you do about it is not. I'm sure a lot of women find RDA attractive - but just because they find him attractive is no reason to jump him. (Okay, for some it is. Personally, I think they're nutbars.)

In my opinion, you can be attracted to whoever your interest takes. Whether or not you act on that attraction is at the discretion of your own system of beliefs and values.

As for the term 'perversion', it was used on the SDJ BB to make a point and, I believe, caused a great deal of uproar there. The poster's denotative use of the word sparked outrage from people who only saw the connotative use of it and threw mini-tantrums all over the place. I don't claim to know the original poster's purpose - but I do think that making the characters what they are not is certainly 'twisting' the character around.

Sure, there's a time and a place for that - in fanon, the characters will have to be developed in areas which they aren't seen to be developed in the show. But I don't generally fool around with the sexuality of the characters and that's my choice.
Re: kinsey 0 and stuff
I remember that thread. Jen was quite taken aback, if I read her correctly, when she realized people thought she meant homosexuality was a perversion. She also said that slash was not an accurate depiction of homosexuality, and if she qualified that to "some slash" I'd actually agree with her. :)

Yes, you're right, I was extremely surprised by the reaction I received after using the term perversion to describe slash. All fanfiction is a perversion of some kind, but wow, some people can be really touchy about slash, I guess. The whole reason I entered into the SDJ bulletin board discussion was because Annie had suggested that all HW are homophobic, which is so absolutely wrong and way over the line, IMO. That's just way to personal a thing to say, I think. Never, never would I suggest homosexuality is a perversion. For personal reasons, it would be against everything I believe in to say such a thing.

Just clarifying :)

As for slash being an accurate depiction of homosexuality - I really don't think it is, but mostly, that's because I've not read any slash I thought was an accurate description. Perhaps it's out there, but I can only speak from my own experience in what I have read. So the statement "some slash" is not an accurate depiction of homosexuality would be more accurate.





Re: One more comment...
Well I was so enjoying your and Sel's discussion, I hated to interrupt ;)

Point is, I know this is just one of those many (many, many, many... did I mention many?) things we're probably not going to agree on, and I think it reflects best on everyone to just leave it at that. Interesting conversation, though *g*