I was on the NaNo boards where I had started a discussion about those of us that would be writing a queer romance novel for the coming year. Someone mentioned that they felt odd, as a straight woman, writing gay fiction -- but that she felt most comfortable with it, reguardless.
I tried looking up some statistics on the amount of straight woman in the gay romance genre (especially in slash fiction), but I ended up getting distracted by
this article.
Flipping through it, most of it was information I either already knew or that I didn't find all too credible. There was one paragraph in particular, however, that grabbed my attention, and I was curious what you guys thought about this writer's thesis.
"Further many heterosexual slash writers make the mistake of assuming that the roles of male/female must translate into all relationships. The stone butch/ultra femme and top/bottom emphasis in pairings is often an expression of this. While there is some element of truth in the dynamic, there is not always a clear cut division. One partner may be the dominant (read butch or top) in one setting and the submissive (read femme or bottom) in others. The insistence upon such roles is an extension of the misogynistic prejudices that filled the world for most of human existence."
Trying not to veer too far into the idea of misogyny being obvious in heterosexual relationships where one's gender defines which person is dominant, I thought I'd focus on the idea that the dominance of perceived roles in queer fiction is a projection of perceived heterosexual norms onto non-heterosexuals.
It's something I've been thinking about lately-- the reasons behind the predominant belief in fandoms that one person in the relationship is always the top, the other the bottom, etc.
I remember just a little bit ago, in an AS/S (Harry Potter) fan fiction I was working on, someone commented telling me that I had given one of the characters too many physical characteristics of a bottom, and that I was making it too obvious that he was the submissive (based on his physicalities). This baffled me-- sure, I made him slight and willowy, but that's because his father is also canonically willowy, and I saw him as looking like his dear old dad. It also confudled me even more because the character was the dominant/master in their BDSM relationship. ^^;;
It's something I regularly deal with in RL: it's quite popular in lesbian magazines to have columns where it's split up based on whether someone identifies as butch or femme. I'm not saying that these categories do not exist -- but I'm saying that as far as the queers that I know, it's not nearly as solid as people are saying.
On top of that, for many of the queers that I know, what happens in the bedroom (who tops or bottoms) doesn't always have anything to do with how genetics make someone look -- if they are naturally willowy, have natural long fingers, are naturally athletic looking, etc. Yes, someone's chosen role (if they take one) may influence their appearance in the form of hair, clothes, and working out, but some things a person can't change (especially in extrenuating circumstances). To say that someone must be the submissive because he prefers long hair boggles my mind -- just as saying that because someone identifies as butch she doesn't like being eaten out doesn't make sense to me.
I remember, this same issue was the one of the first of many that I had with an ex-friend. At first I assumed he was clueless (I thought he didn't know better than to say these things, or to out me to friends and family W/O my permission) -- later behaviors proved otherwise-- but I still look back on this with a sort of sketchy, below-the-surface disdain. When I first came out, way back, he would continually tell me that I didn't look 'lesbian' or 'bi' so I clearly couldn't be one. He wouldn't answer my questions on how queers were supposed to look, but he seemed to think he would know one when he saw one. ^^;;
As far as roles, me and my wife do not conform to butch/femme or top/bottom roles. Even when we dabble in kinky activities, we're both switches. ^^;; So I've had my share of trying to explain to others that not everyone follows those roles ((sometimes I'm more subconsciously Dionysian than even I always realize)).
A lot of my "old school" lesbian friends see things as a matter of roles and political power -- in their era, as far as I can tell, it was more common. I think. Though, if it's anything like modern times, everyone just says it's common, when it's not. No matter: the point is that in modern times, many couples do not conform to the stereotype.
Personally, I find the insistance that people fill these roles offensive -- it's not realistic, and it makes no more sense to me that I be forced into a role to be able to love who I love than if I were only allowed to love someone of one gender. Willingly taking the role on is one thing -- being forced into one by outsiders looking at me is another, and a highly offensive one, at that.
So what's the deal? Why are these so cemented in slash writers minds (I can't speak for femmeslash, since I haven't read enough of it to know one way or the other), that they complain when someone dares to deviate from the standard roles?
I'll admit-- it's a charged topic for me, so I'm a bit sensitive in posting this. But I trust you that you guys can be mature in your responses (or else not make them). Thanks!
ETA: I was flipping through the archives on
thisthingwedo, and I thought this thread might offer some more opinions on the topic. It was a very interesting read, at least. ^^