elspethdixon (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
elspethdixon) wrote2008-11-21 08:26 pm
elspethdixon) wrote2008-11-21 08:26 pm
Why I Hate the "Turning Friends into Lovers Demeans Their Friendship" Thing
I delayed a long time before posting this, because it had its genesis as a shipper-war rant (and my HP-trained instincts to start shipper wars-to-the-knife over my OTPs do not need encouragement), but recent events in my fandom have reminded me all over again why this argument pisses me off.
So, a couple months ago I got the traditional semi-annual piece of feedback on ff.net asking why I couldn't "just let the characters be friends," and why didn't it occur to slashers than men could just be straight? (if it hadn't been an anonymous comment, my immediate desire to reply, "ZOMG, you mean some people are straight? I never knew that! All these years I've wondered where the hell babies come from and why so many men and women get married and you've finally enlightened me! Why did no one ever tell me that not everyone is gay?!?" would have been too poweful to resist). This, combined with an argument I got into this summer with someone who didn't like one of my OTPs because she didn't think people should sexualize friendships, has been preying on my mind, quietly irritating me in the way that only someone being wrong on the internet can.
Several years ago, I wrote piece of meta on sexualizing friendship. Said meta was much more cleverly put together than this rant, and there is some really great input from people smarter than me in comments. Here's the link: http://elspethdixon.livejournal.com/73138.html?style=mine because I'm going to revisit the topic now.
When I wrote the first essay, my position on the topic was informed at least partially by the fact that one of my long-time OTPs (also my only RPS ship to date) is Doc Holliday/Wyatt Earp, whose historically close and devoted friendship I was adding romance/desire too (Note: like most regular RPS shippers, I don't actually think Wyatt Earp and John Henry Holliday were knocking boots - I just like the way they work as a pairing and think the "canon" for them, both the historical record and pretty much every movie about them ever made, is slashy as all get out. So slashy. OMG.).
Now, I approach it from the perspective of a woman who is engaged to her (female) best friend.* Needless to say, I have a little more personal stake in the debate now, and a stronger objection to it than my original mild "but saying that platonic friendships are more pure and/or meaningful than romantic love implies that we still think sex is dirty and shameful."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and an opinion is not necessarily wrong just because I disagree with it, but it logically follows that, if someone believes putting Starsky & Hutch, Kirk & Spock, Sam & Frodo, Cap & Iron Man, etc. in a romantic/sexual relationship lessens or demeans their friendship, then they on some level also believe that I, by proposing to my best friend, have demeaned our friendship. When someone criticizes slashers for sexualizing friendship, they are by extension implying that our relationship is in some way lesser than a relationship between two heterosexual women (or two non-heterosexual women with no romantic interest in each other), whether they intend to or not. I'm assuming, for the record, that they don't intend to - unless they're the kind of anti-slasher who just objects to homosexuality in general, in which case the issue at work is homophobia rather than the conviction that platonic love is superior to romantic love.
That said, I do think it's interesting that slash fans are so much more likely to hear the "why must you cheapen the purity of their friendship by adding nasty, dirty sex to it" argument then het fans. I'd say it's due to the fact that het ships are much more likely to be canon, but I bet you Tony/Pepper shippers don't hear that one, for all that their pairing is no more canon than Steve/Tony is (all objections I hear to that one revolve around "but it goes against comics canon," or "but Pepper is supposed to be with Happy Hogan/Tony's supposed to be with [insert alternative slash or canon-het pairing of your choice]," or "you know, I kind of liked that she's the first female lead in an action movie since Aliens that didn't just exist to be the hero's girlfriend," or "but the word 'Pepperony' makes my eyeballs bleed." Nothing about it cheapening or distorting Tony and Pepper's friendship.). If there are any X-Files fans reading this, feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong and MSR writers were deluged with "you're demeaning their friendship/why do you have to cheapen everything by sexualizing it" comments back in the day
If adding romantic love and sexual desire to friendships lessens them -- makes them something less noble/more selfish/less spiritually pure/whatever and reduces them to "all about sex" (as in, "why do we, as a society, always have to make everything about sex? Why can't they just be friends?") -- then that means that I, as a bisexual woman, am doomed to forever have friendships with other women that were "worth" less than those of a completely heterosexual women whose feelings for her friends would be unsullied by physical appreciation of her friends' bodies and (god forbid) romantic committment. (And as a person with a relatively low sex drive, can I also register my discomfort with viewing sex as the sole or most important attribute of a romantic relationship?)
I would contend that introducing sexual/romantic desire into a friendship constitutes an addition, not a substitution or a subtraction. If, for example, Sam feels physical desire for Frodo at the same time that he accompanies him to Mordor, carries the ring for him when its burden gets too heavy, and prepares to die beside him "at the end of all things," that doesn't make their relationship any less meaningful or in any way diminish Sam's willingness to unselfishly sacrifice and suffer for Frodo's sake (something I've seen argued before). Not unless Sam is secretly blackmailing Frodo into sleeping with him during The Two Towers and Return of the King as the price for his help or something (and if that fic exists, don't link me).
If Gilgamesh loved Enkidu as a lover instead of as a brother... well, actually, according to the Epic of Gilgamesh, he, and I quote, loved Enkidu "as a wife," so that one's pretty much a given. And yet their relationship is still the cornerstone of the world's oldest litarary epic.
If we truly believe that sexual/romantic love (eros) is less worthy or less pure than entirely platonic love (phillia), than that also says something less-than-positive about the way we as a society think of heterosexual relationships (not to mention what we really think of sex, deep down). If we believe that eros replaces or even destroys phillia, that slashing friends changes the relationship into something different and lesser rather than deepening an already existing relationship by adding a new element to it, well... I have heard more than one man or woman describe his/her spouse as "my best friend." How do we reconcile that with the idea that friendship and romance are distinct and different, and that portraying friendship as something other than platonic is disrespectful or insulting to that friendship? Are happily married straight people who say that they are friends with their spouse as well as lovers and that this has made their marriage stronger just fooling themselves? Somehow I doubt it.
*Engaged is a lovely term, since it implies long-term commitment and the intention of permanancy in a way that "sleeping with" or "dating" doesn't, without necessarily requiring that you get married right away. You can't truthfully call someone your wife unless you're legally married, but "engaged" simply signals intent-to-marry-at-some-future-point and is a social rather than a legal contract, so you can be engaged anywhere regardless of state marriage laws. Also, fiancee is a nice, gender neutral term that lets you signal that you're in a relationship without telling your co-workers "Hi! I'm bisexual/lesbian!"
So, a couple months ago I got the traditional semi-annual piece of feedback on ff.net asking why I couldn't "just let the characters be friends," and why didn't it occur to slashers than men could just be straight? (if it hadn't been an anonymous comment, my immediate desire to reply, "ZOMG, you mean some people are straight? I never knew that! All these years I've wondered where the hell babies come from and why so many men and women get married and you've finally enlightened me! Why did no one ever tell me that not everyone is gay?!?" would have been too poweful to resist). This, combined with an argument I got into this summer with someone who didn't like one of my OTPs because she didn't think people should sexualize friendships, has been preying on my mind, quietly irritating me in the way that only someone being wrong on the internet can.
Several years ago, I wrote piece of meta on sexualizing friendship. Said meta was much more cleverly put together than this rant, and there is some really great input from people smarter than me in comments. Here's the link: http://elspethdixon.livejournal.com/73138.html?style=mine because I'm going to revisit the topic now.
When I wrote the first essay, my position on the topic was informed at least partially by the fact that one of my long-time OTPs (also my only RPS ship to date) is Doc Holliday/Wyatt Earp, whose historically close and devoted friendship I was adding romance/desire too (Note: like most regular RPS shippers, I don't actually think Wyatt Earp and John Henry Holliday were knocking boots - I just like the way they work as a pairing and think the "canon" for them, both the historical record and pretty much every movie about them ever made, is slashy as all get out. So slashy. OMG.).
Now, I approach it from the perspective of a woman who is engaged to her (female) best friend.* Needless to say, I have a little more personal stake in the debate now, and a stronger objection to it than my original mild "but saying that platonic friendships are more pure and/or meaningful than romantic love implies that we still think sex is dirty and shameful."
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and an opinion is not necessarily wrong just because I disagree with it, but it logically follows that, if someone believes putting Starsky & Hutch, Kirk & Spock, Sam & Frodo, Cap & Iron Man, etc. in a romantic/sexual relationship lessens or demeans their friendship, then they on some level also believe that I, by proposing to my best friend, have demeaned our friendship. When someone criticizes slashers for sexualizing friendship, they are by extension implying that our relationship is in some way lesser than a relationship between two heterosexual women (or two non-heterosexual women with no romantic interest in each other), whether they intend to or not. I'm assuming, for the record, that they don't intend to - unless they're the kind of anti-slasher who just objects to homosexuality in general, in which case the issue at work is homophobia rather than the conviction that platonic love is superior to romantic love.
That said, I do think it's interesting that slash fans are so much more likely to hear the "why must you cheapen the purity of their friendship by adding nasty, dirty sex to it" argument then het fans. I'd say it's due to the fact that het ships are much more likely to be canon, but I bet you Tony/Pepper shippers don't hear that one, for all that their pairing is no more canon than Steve/Tony is (all objections I hear to that one revolve around "but it goes against comics canon," or "but Pepper is supposed to be with Happy Hogan/Tony's supposed to be with [insert alternative slash or canon-het pairing of your choice]," or "you know, I kind of liked that she's the first female lead in an action movie since Aliens that didn't just exist to be the hero's girlfriend," or "but the word 'Pepperony' makes my eyeballs bleed." Nothing about it cheapening or distorting Tony and Pepper's friendship.). If there are any X-Files fans reading this, feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong and MSR writers were deluged with "you're demeaning their friendship/why do you have to cheapen everything by sexualizing it" comments back in the day
If adding romantic love and sexual desire to friendships lessens them -- makes them something less noble/more selfish/less spiritually pure/whatever and reduces them to "all about sex" (as in, "why do we, as a society, always have to make everything about sex? Why can't they just be friends?") -- then that means that I, as a bisexual woman, am doomed to forever have friendships with other women that were "worth" less than those of a completely heterosexual women whose feelings for her friends would be unsullied by physical appreciation of her friends' bodies and (god forbid) romantic committment. (And as a person with a relatively low sex drive, can I also register my discomfort with viewing sex as the sole or most important attribute of a romantic relationship?)
I would contend that introducing sexual/romantic desire into a friendship constitutes an addition, not a substitution or a subtraction. If, for example, Sam feels physical desire for Frodo at the same time that he accompanies him to Mordor, carries the ring for him when its burden gets too heavy, and prepares to die beside him "at the end of all things," that doesn't make their relationship any less meaningful or in any way diminish Sam's willingness to unselfishly sacrifice and suffer for Frodo's sake (something I've seen argued before). Not unless Sam is secretly blackmailing Frodo into sleeping with him during The Two Towers and Return of the King as the price for his help or something (and if that fic exists, don't link me).
If Gilgamesh loved Enkidu as a lover instead of as a brother... well, actually, according to the Epic of Gilgamesh, he, and I quote, loved Enkidu "as a wife," so that one's pretty much a given. And yet their relationship is still the cornerstone of the world's oldest litarary epic.
If we truly believe that sexual/romantic love (eros) is less worthy or less pure than entirely platonic love (phillia), than that also says something less-than-positive about the way we as a society think of heterosexual relationships (not to mention what we really think of sex, deep down). If we believe that eros replaces or even destroys phillia, that slashing friends changes the relationship into something different and lesser rather than deepening an already existing relationship by adding a new element to it, well... I have heard more than one man or woman describe his/her spouse as "my best friend." How do we reconcile that with the idea that friendship and romance are distinct and different, and that portraying friendship as something other than platonic is disrespectful or insulting to that friendship? Are happily married straight people who say that they are friends with their spouse as well as lovers and that this has made their marriage stronger just fooling themselves? Somehow I doubt it.
*Engaged is a lovely term, since it implies long-term commitment and the intention of permanancy in a way that "sleeping with" or "dating" doesn't, without necessarily requiring that you get married right away. You can't truthfully call someone your wife unless you're legally married, but "engaged" simply signals intent-to-marry-at-some-future-point and is a social rather than a legal contract, so you can be engaged anywhere regardless of state marriage laws. Also, fiancee is a nice, gender neutral term that lets you signal that you're in a relationship without telling your co-workers "Hi! I'm bisexual/lesbian!"
no subject
the slash writer in question is looking for plausible story hooks rather then any belief or lack thereof on the possiblity of a strong non-sexual non-familial relationship
Honestly, when I slash, I'm usually not just looking for story hooks - my reading of canon is that the characters I write about are attracted to/love each other in canon. There are exceptions, like the one Tony/Bruce Wayne fic I did (which was just for cracky fun), or the background Sharon Carter/Winter Soldier het in some of my Marvel fic, but my PotC OT3 fic, my Steve/Tony fic, my Remus/Sirius fic, isn't just my wanting an excuse to write slash. All those pairings are canon in my head, and when I read/watch, "Steve & Tony are deeply in love," "Carol Danvers is/was attracted to the Scarlet Witch & Jessica Drew" "Will & Elizabeth & Jack are all attracted to each other to some degree" etc. is as vital a part of my interpretations of the characters as "Ginny had a crush on Harry" or "Rogue and Gambit are in love."
And I don't sexualize every relationship. Really I don't. Just the ones where the slash vibes are painfully obvious or where slashing the characters makes the canon more meaningful to me. Steve & Bucky, I think have a platonic sibling relationship. Steve & Sam, I believe have a platonic friendship. Steve & Clint, firnedhsip with some sibling vibes thrown in. Tony & Rhodey: Tony clearly had a crush on him that Rhodey didn't return.
Steve and Tony, on the other hand, read like the kind of romance operas get written about. And I have a laundry list of personal issues tied up in the ship that make me incapable of reading things like the linked review without wanting to hit people. Which is wanky and over-invested, I'll freely admit, but I'm a very wanky and irrational person ^_^.
Some slashers do sexualize every relationship. Most of us don't. I don't. I don't even sexualize every strong relationship. When I seriously ship people, it's because I think the best (and in cases of OTPs, most valid, to the point that I actually can't support or read any others, because I OTP harder than a crazed Harmionian) reading of canon is that they're in love. I mean, it probably says something that all of my het OTPs are canon ships.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-11-24 11:28 pm (UTC)(link)I'm not an OTPer and I tend to think in terms of plausiblity (and does this make a workable and entertaining story) so I'm afraid I didn't think to clarify.
My main opinion; which is that you can't tell what the author's beliefs on strong non-sexual, non-familial relationships are from a slash story should still hold.
BTW My opinion about the canon for this particular pairing
After reading the eyes dialogue in particular I would agree that some degree of romantic feelings (plus appreciation of physical attibutes) should be considered canon for both Steve and Tony. It's also pretty obvious that they are also good friends they like each other, enjoy doing things together and support each other(my working defn of friendship).
While I wouldn't insist that this must mean that they desire each other sexually, it would be very difficult to argue that a story where they do desire each other sexually could be considered against canon or that such desire could, in itself, demean their friendship (which was already highly romanticized).
I would consider any story which did not take both their friendship and the idealized and romantic view they've had of each other into account to be implausible. With their history any relationship between them can't be casual.
no subject
Sorry for getting all snarly. I'm extra twitchy right now, recent political events being what they are, and so my immediate instinct is to claim that all opposition to slash under any circumstance is inherently illegitimate. I know that's not true, though, because there are slash pairings I don't ship, fandoms I don't have any real interest in reading slash for, and het pairings I like a lot. For one thing, I'm one of about twelve slashers in fandom who doesn't really slash anyone in SGA (unless Teyla and that Genii girl with the red hair count).
it would be very difficult to argue that a story where they do desire each other sexually could be considered against canon or that such desire could, in itself, demean their friendship (which was already highly romanticized).
I would consider any story which did not take both their friendship and the idealized and romantic view they've had of each other into account to be implausible. With their history any relationship between them can't be casual.
That sounds... similar to the way I see it, actually (I want even gen writers to ship them at least on an emotional level), only with a sizable helping of "I got engaged because of this pairing, because their doomed love inspired me to take a risk so that I wouldn't be left looking back, years later, and saying 'It wasn't worth it.'"