Rant

[celandineb]

I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't like/read/write, first of all. Just to make that plain. Nor am I saying that if you like the following, I think less of you. It's not directed at anyone in particular nor inspired by any specific fics. This is just me being peevish, okay?

Comments

[a_d_medievalist]

No, it's totally stupid. Although, I wouldn't mind having a wife, and I had a female housemate who jokingly referred to me as her wife, and vice versa, because we really were like wives, except for the not having sex with each other part -- but that's the role we filled -- I would have to say I would use partner, unless I were married and trying to make a specific point. but partner. Lebenspartner.

[celandineb]

Yeah, "partner" is a word I'm very comfortable with, because as a label it's pretty vague -- can mean person of same sex as speaker, or opposite, and doesn't necessarily imply how intimate the relationship is.

Everyone needs a wife, in the sense of someone to take care of you when you need it -- but OTOH since "wife" is by definition female, that is a BIG problem to say it that way.

[tacky_tramp]

I think that vagueness is exactly what a lot of people dislike about the term "partner." They don't want there to be any confusion about what the relationship is, and really, there's no term that means romantic-and-sexual-lifemate except the terms currently used for heterosexual marriage.

[celandineb]

I think that vagueness is exactly what a lot of people dislike about the term "partner."

I'm sure you're right! But they need to get over it. *g* Because people really can't be, shouldn't be, put in little boxes like that. [Says the person who prefers to self-identify as "queer" rather than any more precise label.]

[alisanne]

Okay, so I definitely one of the offenders whan it comes to this.
Why do I do it? I suppose because I look at marriage/bonding/whatever you all it, as a desirable thing, as what the characters I slash should want. :) And, in the ideal world according to Ali, people who are in love and who are committed should be able to "marry".
Sorry. This may be something I need to work on. I'll keep an eye on this tendency.
Any comments on Mpreg? *weg*

[celandineb]

Oh, no, if you like to set things up that way, it's absolutely your prerogative to do so! Like I said, I'm not trying to tell anyone they ought to change. Just venting for myself

[jelazakazone]

Argh! Did I miss some chapters of BTR?

[celandineb]

I doubt it -- I had in mind Happy Christmas, Harry (which you've read, I know) -- the one set about 40 years later. There's allusions to some of the intervening events and years, just not always spelled out. (Though some of them are in my head in more detailed versions... maybe someday to be written, who knows.)

[florahart]

I'm sort of astounded you perceive this as common--doesn't mean you haven't seen it a lot, but I'm kind of shaking my head because I haven't. I mean, there is the forced-bond cliche, and there are marriage law fics and whatnot, but on the whole, I don't think I think it's overwhelmingly prevalent or anything (and by and large, the marriage law ones aren't slash, I don't think. I could be wrong). I'm aware of a few fics where the same-sex couple actually gets married, but I see this as relatively rare, in my reading

[mistressofrohan]

As for calling it "marriage," I imagine that's just a matter of convenience. There is currently no other term which carries the same weight. Civil union is currently kind of viewed as a "second best" thing--can't get married, so you have a civil union agreement or whatever. It doesn't hold the weight of tradition and social validation and so forth.

I think this is a very valid point. Up here in Canada, if two people live together for 365 days, they are considered to be 'common-law'. That is, the government counts them as statistically (and perhaps legally) 'equal' to a traditionally married couple.

That said, the general social perception is that a common-law couple are somehow not as much of a couple as one that has been legally married. Some believe that without an official ceremony, the relationship is easily dissolved if necessary, and therefore lacks a sense of commitment. On the other hand, some people I know of in a common-law relationship are perfectly content to leave it as it is, rather than formalize it with a

[celandineb]

Some believe that without an official ceremony, the relationship is easily dissolved if necessary, and therefore lacks a sense of commitment.

But it sounds as if this isn't actually the case, if living together for 365 days means that according to the law, the couple is married?

I guess I feel that if a couple (het, gay, whatever) live together long-term and consider themselves committed to each other, it really doesn't matter if they make it "official" -- because in practice it's going to be complicated to separate, once your lives are intertwined. I didn't particularly feel the need to get married for myself; it was more because this was a way to mark our commitment to our family, friends, etc. We had a minister do it because that was the easiest way to arrange it in our particular circumstances, but I would have been at least as happy to have a civil ceremony (whether it would then be called a civil union or a marriage, who cares).

[mistressofrohan]

But it sounds as if this isn't actually the case, if living together for 365 days means that according to the law, the couple is married?I was trying to mark the difference between the government's statistical (legal?) POV, and the general opinion held by most Canadians that I know of

[tacky_tramp]

Fanfic is fantasy, and for some people, no matter how unconventional their sexual tastes may run, many people still have very traditional ideas about romance. Happy ending = marriage 4eva. That's what OTP means to some people.

I see no canon support for tolerance of homosexuality in the Wizarding world. In fact, on my recent rereads, I've been astounded by how pervasively heteronormative the text is. That's JKR's prerogative, of course; it just strikes me as odd, given the lengths she goes to to make things happyshinyprogressive on the racial front, what with interracial relationships being totally fine and all. Then again, in a society where the people in power are obsessed with breeding, homosexuality would pose a significant threat -- maybe it's not JKR being blind to sexual politics, as I've always suspected, but an actual facet of Wizarding society that makes total and complete sense. Hmmm ...

[celandineb]

I see no canon support for tolerance of homosexuality in the Wizarding world.

Nope, me either. "Heteronormative" is the word I think I was looking for in the original post -- that unspoken, unquestioned assumption that This Is How The World Is, Boy+Girl, and that if you don't have Boy+Girl then you're going to come as close as you can to the same setup.

Now, granted that in canon there is no evidence for toleration of homosexuality, there's also none I can think of for overt intolerance either. So in fanfic it could go either way -- perhaps wizards would be more tolerant because they are themselves a minority, compared to Muggles. But I don't think so. Given that they are a small community, it's pretty important to continue that community, and biologically speaking homosexuality is not useful for that. I figure that the wizarding world might be AS tolerant as Muggles, but not MORE so. Some would be, some would be very much not.

[tacky_tramp]

Actually, we have one and exactly one reference to homosexuality from a Wizard:

"He's obsessed. Just don't get him on the subject of his boss. According to Mr. Crouch ... as I was saying to Mr. Crouch ... Mr. Crouch is of the opinion ... Mr. Crouch was telling me ... They'll be announcing their engagement any day now." GoF, from "Weasley's Wizard Wheezes" (bold mine).

Percy marrying Crouch is a ridiculous idea -- sort of like, "Well if you love that candy bar so much, why dontcha marry it?" -- but it's also not such a horrifying, disgusting idea that it can't be incorporated into a simple joke at a brother's expense. So, yeah. As tolerant or less than Muggles.

[celandineb]

*bows before your researching skills*

[snegurochka_lee]

I've seen it, and I agree with you, although it's a tricky issue. On the one hand, if it's an effort to naturalise gay relationships and give our fanfic heroes the same rights as everyone else, then that's cool, it's nice to have that escapism going on. But on the other hand, when it's not done quite right, it strikes me in a bad way as an attempt to slot a gay relationship into a heteronormative motif. :/

[celandineb]

Heteronormative is the word I was looking for and didn't think of in time. I guess partly I want to question WHY the ultimate happy ending has to be marriage (by whatever name)? Do we all have to go two by two off into the sunset? What about people who love more than one other person equally, or those who are quite happy by themselves?

[tacky_tramp]

What about people who love more than one other person equally, or those who are quite happy by themselves?

Come on, Cel. You're not really surprised that most people, even in fandom, don't get polyamory and don't idealize solitariness. Ficcers are just people, and can have the same dreary conceptions of love and romance as the rest of the dull world.

[celandineb]

Of course I'm not surprised. Just regretful. It seems ironic to me when someone who challenges canon by writing slash nevertheless doesn't challenge other ideas. Oh well.