![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Fandom Relationships
Andraste had a rather large post about the nature of slashing characters that are traditionally considered straight (even when there is no explicit canon to justify it) that got me thinking about something. I've noticed in fandom generally that there is a rather immature view of relationships.
Let me change that. No immature but rather underdeveloped view. In a group where bisexuality, polygamy and all ranges of fetishes, lifestyles and beliefs are touted as the new culture, we see a mostly adolescent view of interpersonal dynamics.
To clarify, skipping through all sorts of fandoms, you see a vast (one might say overwhelming) flood of pairings; slash, het, canonological, alternative. But rarely do we ever see representations of relationships with any depth outside of the traditional romantic or sexual models. A character and B character want to sleep with each other because they looked a little too long at each other, or they invaded their personal space, or they displayed an aspect of physical intimacy. All sorts of 'clues' to draw them into a romantic or sexual circumstance because obvious that is what they are doing, right?
Very very rarely do you see an exploration of deep relationships without those (I'm sure all of the wannabe subverters of the hetro-fascist sterility conspiracy will hate this) highly traditional and endless clichéd norms. It reminds me of being a boy, and hearing that because Tom and Mandy walked home together on Friday, they must be in love and want to get married. That's an overly simplistic view of the actual situation, but it does carry to correct gut emotive response.
There are few stories exploring the deep relationships and emotional bonds of friendship. There are very few that explore those bonds forged in extreme adversity, such as war, disasters, and constant challenge. The highly complex dynamics of non-sexual friendships between the opposite sex. All of them extremely fascinating and crucial in many of the greatest stories told, often ignored for a more simplistic answer.
I remember having a conversation with Rossi on the slashing of 'best friend' characters, like Iceman and Beast, and she bought up an interesting point that why she reacted so negatively to such portrayals is because "they fail to allow the (Aussie) 'Mate' relationship to be valid". The idea that there is always a sexual quotient in any relationship is an extremely common one in most fandoms. Even relationships with a great degree of physical intimacy, say for example, the classic 'officer and his batman'. Extremely close relations, often forged in blood and violence, and holding all of the elements to allow for a sexual relationship, yet without the slightest inclination for it.
The doctor/patient relationship is also similar. A doctor is able to access all of the most intimate and vulnerable aspects of a patient's body and psyche during the rehabilitative stage, and yet the taboo between crossing those boundaries is one of the strongest in any professional practice. In fact, transference due to the 'Florence Nightingale' syndrome is a common enough issue to be covered by nurses and doctors during their schooling.
The mentor/student relationship, one of the most commonly abused relationships in fandom. To many people, it seems a natural extension of the admiration and trust required in such a relationship to develop on a sexual level. Buffy/Giles, Obi Won/Qui Gon, Batman/Robin, Wolverine/Jubilee, Kitty, and Rogue; all of which are hugely popular pairings despite the fact that sexual relationships of such types in reality are very rare without them showing elements of manipulation, abuse of trust and guilt.
I wonder if there is a specific reason why the deep emotional bonds that do not translate into a sexual desire or a traditional romantic relationship are so often ignored or 'reinvented' to fit into the more traditional modes. Is it simply a lack of interest or is it a lack of understanding? Has the process of 'fandom' itself reinforced the idea that all relationships can (or should) be boiled down to a sexual level, be it hetro, bi or homosexual?
Opinions?
Let me change that. No immature but rather underdeveloped view. In a group where bisexuality, polygamy and all ranges of fetishes, lifestyles and beliefs are touted as the new culture, we see a mostly adolescent view of interpersonal dynamics.
To clarify, skipping through all sorts of fandoms, you see a vast (one might say overwhelming) flood of pairings; slash, het, canonological, alternative. But rarely do we ever see representations of relationships with any depth outside of the traditional romantic or sexual models. A character and B character want to sleep with each other because they looked a little too long at each other, or they invaded their personal space, or they displayed an aspect of physical intimacy. All sorts of 'clues' to draw them into a romantic or sexual circumstance because obvious that is what they are doing, right?
Very very rarely do you see an exploration of deep relationships without those (I'm sure all of the wannabe subverters of the hetro-fascist sterility conspiracy will hate this) highly traditional and endless clichéd norms. It reminds me of being a boy, and hearing that because Tom and Mandy walked home together on Friday, they must be in love and want to get married. That's an overly simplistic view of the actual situation, but it does carry to correct gut emotive response.
There are few stories exploring the deep relationships and emotional bonds of friendship. There are very few that explore those bonds forged in extreme adversity, such as war, disasters, and constant challenge. The highly complex dynamics of non-sexual friendships between the opposite sex. All of them extremely fascinating and crucial in many of the greatest stories told, often ignored for a more simplistic answer.
I remember having a conversation with Rossi on the slashing of 'best friend' characters, like Iceman and Beast, and she bought up an interesting point that why she reacted so negatively to such portrayals is because "they fail to allow the (Aussie) 'Mate' relationship to be valid". The idea that there is always a sexual quotient in any relationship is an extremely common one in most fandoms. Even relationships with a great degree of physical intimacy, say for example, the classic 'officer and his batman'. Extremely close relations, often forged in blood and violence, and holding all of the elements to allow for a sexual relationship, yet without the slightest inclination for it.
The doctor/patient relationship is also similar. A doctor is able to access all of the most intimate and vulnerable aspects of a patient's body and psyche during the rehabilitative stage, and yet the taboo between crossing those boundaries is one of the strongest in any professional practice. In fact, transference due to the 'Florence Nightingale' syndrome is a common enough issue to be covered by nurses and doctors during their schooling.
The mentor/student relationship, one of the most commonly abused relationships in fandom. To many people, it seems a natural extension of the admiration and trust required in such a relationship to develop on a sexual level. Buffy/Giles, Obi Won/Qui Gon, Batman/Robin, Wolverine/Jubilee, Kitty, and Rogue; all of which are hugely popular pairings despite the fact that sexual relationships of such types in reality are very rare without them showing elements of manipulation, abuse of trust and guilt.
I wonder if there is a specific reason why the deep emotional bonds that do not translate into a sexual desire or a traditional romantic relationship are so often ignored or 'reinvented' to fit into the more traditional modes. Is it simply a lack of interest or is it a lack of understanding? Has the process of 'fandom' itself reinforced the idea that all relationships can (or should) be boiled down to a sexual level, be it hetro, bi or homosexual?
Opinions?
Taking a long path to simple agreement,
The most important thing is that Joss Whedon has stated, repeatedly, that there are no non-sexual relationships on his shows. This worries me, especially when you factor in Joyce Summers, Connor, and the Buffy/Giles relationship. There are good Buffy/Giles stories, but they tend not to depict anything like a healthy relationship. For the rest, Joss took a collection of hormonal teenagers and traditionally sensual Creatures of the Night, at the time still working off the Anne Rice associations, and set out to write a comic soap opera with horror elements. Under such circumstances random coupling is inevitable. Even so, it seems to have gone out of control.
Pick any two characters who have been regulars on Buffy, and you'll probably find multiple archives dedicated to that pairing. Some of these I find profoundly disturbing, but a significant majority can make sense within the context of the characters. They were designed this way; all interaction is sexual on at least some level, especially when it involves Giles or Faith (Tony Head and Eliza Dushku seem to have dealt with Whedon's policy by simply having chemistry with everything else on screen at once. Not that I'm complaining). There are almost no canon relationships on this show that don't have at least some element of sexual tension involved. Willow/Cordelia and Oz/Buffy are the only exceptions that spring to mind, and I've seen these written well, if not convincingly.
My point is that within the framework of the Buffyverse, there is almost no such thing as innocent friendship. Everybody wants to fuck everybody else.
Set against that we have the X-Men. Most people point to Wolverine, but I would say that Scott is completely, comprehensively, unslashable. He's not homophobic, he's not repressed, and if I knew what it meant I'd probably be able to assert that he's not metrosexual either. He's just straight, and in love with Jean. An affection he shares, to some degree, with half the other male X-Men.
Which doesn't quite bring us to what was, for a time recently, the central relationship of New X-Men. Scott and Wolverine. I can think of few more convincing fictional friendships, and from my perspective it's totally free of slash. Scott and Logan are not going to sleep together, ever. Not even in a threesome with Jean. They've gone from crazed animosity to absolute respect without stopping for empathy along the way. Their friendship is based on acceptance of their differences, on mutual reliance, and, above all, on respect. There is no slash there, and the X-Men currently more or less orbit around these characters.
X-men has a history of open love triangles. In Buffy you have the undeniable homoeroticism between Angel and Spike, even as they alternately vie for Buffy's attentions, and the almost overwhelming lesbian subtext of any shared scene between the main Slayers that, when it boils over, results in Faith having sex with or at least pursuing one of the men in Buffy's life. In X-Men, you have Jean and Scott and you have Jean and Logan. You have Scott and Jean and you have Scott and Emma. And you have a token gay character who, never mind that he's highly intelligent, a successful businessman, a disgraced Olympic athlete, a long-term and highly experienced superhero, one half of a fucked-up family, a bereaved parent, and an arrogant prick, is currently characterised almost exclusively as 'the gay one'. The moment he shows the faintest trace of attraction to one of his teammates, he's shot down, with out of character homophobia to boot.
Why, then, finally getting to my point, do the X-Men, both comic and movie, attract almost as much random romance as, to pick an example not-actually-at-random, Buffy the Vampire Slayer?
I don't have an answer, unfortunately. But just writing this has made me think some, and with luck reading it will help others think some more.
And, for the record, I regard Wolverine/Jubilee romance to be utterly contrary to all established incarnations of both characters.
if I recall correctly, what Joss Whedon actually said was...
Oh, and he also said "Bring your own subtext".