Well gosh that is just fascinating

Feb 05, 2011 07:28

•The male sexual brain resembles a reckless hunter, while the female sexual brain resembles a cautious detective agency ( Read more... )

wot?, that ain't right, that's wrong

Leave a comment

tyra_amria February 5 2011, 15:01:40 UTC
..........

(Also, hetrosexual men? What?)

Reply

demoerin February 7 2011, 19:38:41 UTC
Why can't our cautious detective agency brains figure this out, Tyger? Something must be wrong!

And I kind of get where they're coming from with the "heterosexual men" thing - the characters in question are often meant to be heterosexual, or at least their sexuality isn't really touched on - but it rubs me the wrong way something fierce. A whole spectrum of interpretations is reduced to "you're hallucinating!" so that their back cover blurb will look interesting.

Reply

tyra_amria February 7 2011, 19:49:08 UTC
Obviously we're too busy deciphering the evidence to hunt down the root cause! Or something!

Well, maybe. Maybe. In canon. In fic, though pretty much everyone in a m/m pairing fic is either explicitly gay or bi. I've occasionally seen straight-with-an-exception, but it's pretty rare. =/ (And then you have characters like Axel, which is. THERE IS NO WAY THIS GUY IS STRAIGHT. Bi, quite possible, but straight? Are you kidding me? ...of course, I've seen people write him as 'thought I was straight but then I met you', so, yeah. People. *stinkeyes*)
PRETTY MUCH! I mean. Okay, maybe even some people are in it for that! BUT CERTAINLY NOT EVERYONE, and fffff, wtffff.

Reply

demoerin February 7 2011, 20:19:40 UTC
In fic, though pretty much everyone in a m/m pairing fic is either explicitly gay or bi.

Yes! That's the other thing. Somehow it's deeply annoying that it seems to ignore how fandom does acknowledge that there's homosexuality involved. It's missing the point on multiple levels, with wild abandon.

Reply

tyra_amria February 7 2011, 20:23:14 UTC
Fandom is WAY more well-adjusted to reality than these guys! And given some bits of fandom that's actually saying something!
And fucking hell, you could at least try to accurately portray that thing you say you're researching! *shakes head* Just. Wrong.

Reply

demoerin February 7 2011, 20:32:56 UTC
Fandom is WAY more well-adjusted to reality than these guys! And given some bits of fandom that's actually saying something!
Now that you put it that way, there's something about this that I can laugh about. Thank you.

Not only are their attitudes about the whole project inappropriate, the 'research' they did makes me want to smack 'em. Googling is not wildly innovative research! Stop pretending it is!

Reply

tyra_amria February 7 2011, 20:48:04 UTC
Aww, c'mon, you've gotta laugh. They're just so pathetically stupid.

I know, right? Sure, google might be a good first step, if you - oh, I don't know, maybe tried to find out why search terms for [blah] are popular/unpopular - I mean, it's the internet, some things are famous because of trainwreck syndrome and rickrolling, &c - and what this shows about the internet community/fandom/etc.. Though of course to do that you'd have to do a whoooole lot of surveys/etc., and even then your results probably wouldn't be definitive. Also it'd be a project about google, not... whatever it is they're trying to pull off.
And it might be a good indicator of fandom size - fandom x has this many google hits/ff.net stories/LJ(IJ/DW/etc) comms/forums/AO3 stories/ETC. But I think that might have been too much work! (Even fandom doesn't remember all those steps, apparently! *rolls eyes at Yuletide*)

Reply

demoerin February 7 2011, 21:03:25 UTC
You talk so much sense! I can but nod in enthusiastic agreement. It's soothing. Aah, good sense. The best thing to do is probably dismiss this book, because it's largely nonsense. Might be interesting to look through, but certainly not to take seriously.

Reply

tyra_amria February 7 2011, 21:12:17 UTC
And I'm still only an undergrad! Haven't even started writing my honours thesis yet! *laughs*
But you certainly wouldn't want to buy it, I mean. Just. No. (That's the problem that immediately springs to mind if you want to refute it, too - if you bothered you'd actually be giving it some sort of legitimacy, and yeah, no. There is so much no about this book.)

Reply

demoerin February 8 2011, 17:27:58 UTC
So no one should touch it with a barge-pole ... this is a plan I can get behind!

Reply

tyra_amria February 9 2011, 00:15:31 UTC
Pretty much, yes! :D And it's so easy, anyone can do it! *grins*

Reply


Leave a comment

Up