In Defense of Boys Love

[Chalis]

[Y]ou may note that this essay is focusing on defending it from those outside the community.

In short, this essay [DOES] contain elements directly addressing "aesthete yaoi fans who perceive a lack of depth or quality in the genre's offerings" but most of that was removed to focus on a defense to dissenters or painting a new picture of yaoi for fans who have never considered [these] ideas. Of course, I think even big fans of yaoi who HAVE considered these ideas can get something out of this essay, but with my next [essay] I would go into more depth in terms of examples, trends, exceptions in themes and portrayals in yaoi, etc.

Repainting Our World Through the Clean Slate of the Male Body: An Essay In Defense of Boys Love

This is pretty much the right community to post this in, seeing as it is dominated mostly by a male audience that know how many fangirls (of the BL variety) there are for Fire Emblem but don't understand how or why they might enjoy BL/yaoi. I guess there's a few female members that don't understand it either, so here's an acknowledgement.

I used to think liking yaoi meant I should be ashamed* by default, but I've never taken the time and think "is that really the case?". It's nice to know what's what, and actually makes me feel a bit, even if it's just a bit, prouder. I know I read yaoi for a relationship where it was two people who stood on equal footing**, and after reading this essay I know the reason why I still had problems with most shojo manga and why exactly I had such a warped outlook on relationships.

For a while now my love for the genre had been wavering, and between crappy BL novels/manga/anime/series (especially with The Tyrant Falls in Love; goddamn I hate that series) how could it not have been. Thanks to this essay, my faith in yaoi has been completely restored.

The author said she would write another essay called "Reading BL as a Feminist" and that it would be "more targeted on actual fans of yaoi." I, of course, am very much looking forward to it.

-

*What I mean is, it is a given that one shouldn't be proud of liking something outside the general norm; because society says it's wrong. Augh, that sounds so vague since it can be applied to just about anything, but this really is supposed to be specific.

**I'm looking for anything containing this. Outside of yaoi, it's pretty rare to the point where I've thought about writing a novel with it in mind.

[eclipse]

*reads through essay*

Still not my cup of tea. Then again, neither is romance in media. If I want romance, I'd rather be the star of it.

Thanks for posting it anyway.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I honestly didn't have a problem with Yaoi in the first place, and I didn't actually think many people really did. I dunno. Well, outside homophobes I mean but do they really count?

[Balcerzak]

I read through the article, and I have to admit there were quite a few stances in there that I took issues with. I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for in terms of discussion in this thread though, and also probably don't care enough to invest considerable amounts of effort on the subject.

[Original Alear]

One thing I remember hearing about Yaoi in terms of feminism is that it allows girls in japan to imagine a "romance between equals" kinda thing, since that is less commonly found in heterosexual relationships in Japan. Of course, I know there's something like seme/uke (are those maybe the female terms?) where there are dominant/subordinate roles in romantic relationships, so I don't know how true that is.

I personally think a lot of the points in the essay are rather weak. For instance, I recognize that pornography is a male dominated industry, but I don't think that calls for a redefinition of pornography to make it seem as though all of it is in service of males. I also think it's blurring definitions to say that all pornography is of whores. I also think that saying that pornography involves women as commodities is not true. Prostitution is the commodification of humans; pornography is the commodification of images of humans. I'm sure that the writer would agree that the male porn star is not the intended audience of pornography. I also found the identification of the viewer of pornography as necessarily bourgeois to be rather confusing; there's a lot of class confusion here IMO. Then there is the point where she says the gov't tolerates pornographic elements in the media given HER definition of porn, not even deigning to address the very important point that the gov't may have a different definition of pornography. That part was just a little lulzy.

Now, someone well-versed in all the uses of the word "porn" might claim the category "soft porn" commonly used for romance novels, erotic books written mostly by women for women, contradicts my claims. Traditionally, explicitly erotic romance novels have been considered "soft porn." I, however, challenge this use of the term. Remember that our definition of porn only includes materials that are made to "stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional reactions," but romance novels definitely elicit emotional reactions and they are created to do so, while depicting erotic encounters. Hence, the word "romance," meaning "a book or movie dealing with love in a sentimental or idealized way" (Oxford), has come into popular use for a genre made for a primarily female audience. Since, romance novels, by virtue of their purpose and very definition, are created to elicit emotional as well as erotic responses in the reader, romance novels, even those that depict explicit sexual intercourse, are not porn.

The point of the term "soft porn" is that it is not actually fully pornographic, thus the adjective SOFT.

I didn't read the full thing. Basically, I didn't find what I read of it to be very persuasive, however I don't have any particular problem with yaoi.

EDIT-Also, I don't have any examples off the top of my head, or rather I don't think I should be posting them here, but the author seems to imply that the more "out of the picture" the man is, the better. There certainly is porn that caters to that direction (POV) but there is also porn that is quite the opposite. Plenty of sites with a recurring guy who I suspect has some sort of defined personality, style etc. as opposed to being a penis and little else.

Edited September 26, 2010 by SeverIan

[Defeatist Elitist]

Holy shit, that's the shit that article says? That's fucking retarded.

Seriously, I think that's the dumbest way you could possibly defend Yaoi.

Gah. Started reading. The author things there is somehow something wrong with pornography, or pornographic content, or at the very least feels that calling Yaoi porn is some sort of defamation. There's nothing inherently wrong with pornography. I also think it's absurdly silly to use a definition of the word that was obtained by looking at the word roots, in their original language, completely literally, instead of using a definition even approaching what is commonly used.

I really just have to ask again, why?

It also is completely fucking self defeating to say Yaoi "is not pornography by virtue that [it] is not made by men or for men and that it does not depict whores", because if you so narrowly and semi arbitrarily define pornography you essentially remove any meaning the word previosly held. To put it differently, if I say that (and this is an extreme example to demonstrate a point, because I don't feel like thinking of a more basic one), say, black people aren't human, and then go on to define human as "people who aren't black", sure I may be right in the context of my statement, but I'm sure you can see the fundamental flaw. Basically, if you change the definition of the very thing you're discussing and insist on using that definition despite it not being particularly widely used, then you don't really have an argument, you're just saying "this is what I say it is providing we use this particular and very specific definition that I just arbitrarily decided to use".

Also, this is just a cheap parting shot at those bourgeois comments, but seriously, who the fuck pays for porn of any type? And I'm pretty sure working class men consume a lot of pornography. :P

Edited September 27, 2010 by Dark Elves Suck

[eclipse]

Re: Seme/uke

They're used outside of yaoi. One is "giving", the other is "receiving". Think technique practice in martial arts. One person does the technique (seme), and the other's the interactive practice dummy (uke).

The meanings are a little different in yaoi. . .wait, why the hell do I know this?

[Chalis]

Whoo. I forgot this topic existed.

A reply:

Severian claimed I didn't address the fact men are objectified in porn--but I do: working class men (men as a whole cannot be objectified, if anyone wants to argue men are objectified, they're going to have to disprove my argument about the male point of view being default in patriarchy). I have counter arguments addressing Severian's claims--of course, he/she admitted to not even reading the full essay in the first place.

Another person claimed that I thought the word "pornography" "defamed" yaoi. I never made that claim at all. The premise of my essay is that "porn" denotes materials that fall in line or help promote a patriarchal system, therefore, yaoi, which is subverts these norms, cannot be called porn. I have several arguments that support that major premise (pornography being made primary by and for men being only one of them). I carefully constructed many arguments to support that idea, I did not just rely on that definition.

Severian's definition of "soft porn" is not something most people would agree on either. Many romance novels would depict penises and just as much explicit goings on as books ordinarily called "pornographic." But soft porn, like soft sci-fi, focuses less on the sex and more on the story or romance. Lack of explicitness is not a defining characteristic of soft porn.

I also have a footnote addressing Severian's and Dark Elves Suck's claim that anyone can watch porn. Does everyone own a computer? Every member of the middle class certainly, and a growing number of the working class. But I addressed the growing access of porn to the working class in a foot note, as well. Here's a link, it's under footnote

Also, addressing Dark Elves Suck's complaint about my definition of pornography: all definitions are composed by people. But I make an argument to re-frame our common definition of pornography to consider the function of pornography in our society. If we lump in yaoi with all pornography, then we ignore porn's connection to a physical market of bodies and its role in patriarchal society. Lumping yaoi with porn would be pretending women and men have an equal share in a market of bodies and in controlling images of humans--when they don't. It would be ignoring yaoi's subversive role in empowering women to reimagine romantic and sexual relationships. Yaoi did not exist when the term "pornography" was coined. I lay out an argument for redefining pornography with these ideas in mind. I'm not just saying, "oh pornography is rooted in Greek for whores THEREFORE" no, I'm pointing to its root first as a starting point, then laying down its connection to REAL whores, women in a market that still exists and has very real ramifications, and all women who are connected to images of those whores. I lay out many other differences between yaoi and porn, not just the gender of who makes it (although this is an important thing to consider). Even if you can take down my argument that porn is made by men for men, you can't ignore many of the other claims I make about a market of bodies, about yaoi's reliance on story and depictions of equal relationships, the female image, and the male point of view in patriarchy.

[a later post]

I did some more thinking, and I don't think arguing with people in the traditional sense really works for what I'm trying to do. So I wrote this post for anyone who disagrees so they can understand where I'm coming from: http://agadflysview.blogspot.com/2010/09/before-you-wage-war-on-me-please-read.html

I'm hope people can start viewing my essay as more of a discourse than a PAPER. Maybe I'll change the title! I'm not trying to just CLAIM things and say YEP, THAT'S IT. I'm trying to open up a new way of talking about porn and yaoi.

[Esau of Isaac]

Severian claimed I didn't address the fact men are objectified in porn--but I do: working class men (men as a whole cannot be objectified, if anyone wants to argue men are objectified, they're going to have to disprove my argument about the male point of view being default in patriarchy).

No, they won't. A culture leaning more towards patriarchy doesn't preclude the objectification of males. Arguing that men as a whole cannot be objectified is ridiculous. They're objectified every day.

A

nother person claimed that I thought the word "pornography" "defamed" yaoi. I never made that claim at all. The premise of my essay is that "porn" denotes materials that fall in line or help promote a patriarchal system, therefore, yaoi, which is subverts these norms, cannot be called porn.

Except that is incorrect. Porn does not inherently denote materials that fall in line or help promote a patriarchal system. The fact that yaoi involves male romance doesn't make it inherently pornographic. But it does lean towards erotic situations, and thus the majority of yaoi content can be said to be pornography. So, while I wouldn't say that yaoi is always pornography, the use of the word does evoke the thought of such.

I have several arguments that support that major premise (pornography being made primary by and for men being only one of them). I carefully constructed many arguments to support that idea, I did not just rely on that definition.

I hope the rest of those arguments and points do a more bang-up job of proving her idea, because so far from what I've seen they're rather lacking.

Severian's definition of "soft porn" is not something most people would agree on either. Many romance novels would depict penises and just as much explicit goings on as books ordinarily called "pornographic." But soft porn, like soft sci-fi, focuses less on the sex and more on the story or romance. Lack of explicitness is not a defining characteristic of soft porn.

Yeah it is. Softcore pornography is defined by the lack of explicitness. It doesn't need to rely more on story or romance, even though I could suppose it often does.

Also, addressing Dark Elves Suck's complaint about my definition of pornography: all definitions are composed by people. But I make an argument to re-frame our common definition of pornography to consider the function of pornography in our society. If we lump in yaoi with all pornography, then we ignore porn's connection to a physical market of bodies and its role in patriarchal society. Lumping yaoi with porn would be pretending women and men have an equal share in a market of bodies and in controlling images of humans--when they don't. It would be ignoring yaoi's subversive role in empowering women to reimagine romantic and sexual relationships. Yaoi did not exist when the term "pornography" was coined. I lay out an argument for redefining pornography with these ideas in mind. I'm not just saying, "oh pornography is rooted in Greek for whores THEREFORE" no, I'm pointing to its root first as a starting point, then laying down its connection to REAL whores, women in a market that still exists and has very real ramifications, and all women who are connected to images of those whores. I lay out many other differences between yaoi and porn, not just the gender of who makes it (although this is an important thing to consider). Even if you can take down my argument that porn is made by men for men, you can't ignore many of the other claims I make about a market of bodies, about yaoi's reliance on story and depictions of equal relationships, the female image, and the male point of view in patriarchy.

This entire argument is a train-wreck. I can't begin to decide where to jump in on all of the craziness in this, so I'm going to throw up my hands in exasperation.

[grandjackal]

Re: Seme/uke

They're used outside of yaoi. One is "giving", the other is "receiving". Think technique practice in martial arts. One person does the technique (seme), and the other's the interactive practice dummy (uke).

The meanings are a little different in yaoi. . .wait, why the hell do I know this?

Because you know some Japanese and know that seme and uke come from the verbs semeru and ukeru which mean "To Give" and "To Receive" respectively.

As for the argument being held with the topic at hand....Yeaahhh, no, not jumping into this one.

[eclipse]

Because you know some Japanese and know that seme and uke come from the verbs semeru and ukeru which mean "To Give" and "To Receive" respectively.

As for the argument being held with the topic at hand....Yeaahhh, no, not jumping into this one.

I knew the seme/uke part from martial arts class. The mindset I was taught was "practice well, and remember that you're next." :P

How I knew the subtle differences between that usage and the usage in yaoi. . .don't ask.

The seme/uke part of yaoi really reminds me of something I'd see in a straight relationship.

[Original Alear]

Severian claimed I didn't address the fact men are objectified in porn

?!? What ?!?

I was under the impression that I was claiming that men aren't always objectified in porn? I was therefore attacking the idea that men are always objectified in porn:

EDIT-Also, I don't have any examples off the top of my head, or rather I don't think I should be posting them here, but the author seems to imply that the more "out of the picture" the man is, the better. There certainly is porn that caters to that direction (POV) but there is also porn that is quite the opposite. Plenty of sites with a recurring guy who I suspect has some sort of defined personality, style etc. as opposed to being a penis and little else.

Just to clarify, when I said "the more 'out of the picture' the man is, the better" I did not mean to imply that is what the author wanted from porn; I meant to imply that she was saying that is either what men who watch porn want from their porn or that she thinks that porn caters to an audience of men who like to see other men objectified (or six of one, half dozen of the other).

BTW as far as yaoi goes, GO GUTS AND GRIFFITH. I love the part where they have a water-fight with buckets. They like splashing their fluids on each other 8]

Also Ike/Soren is cool.

Edited September 28, 2010 by SeverIan

[icey]

Not that I have a problem with people reading yaoi, but here's my two cents.

Who purchases and sleeps with whores? Men, of course. Who creates pornography? Men. For whom? Men.

According to who? I work at a sexual education centre and in fact I just met a female porn director this weekend. You say that there are depictions of women being raped in porn. Well, guess what? There are depictions of men being raped/abused/humiliated in porn too. They're not very hard to find.

Yes, I agree that the majority of porn is marketed towards men, but saying that porn is "for men by men" and then using this to DEFINE porn is a gross generalization. Saying that porn is for men by men is like someone saying "romance novels are for women by women because women enjoy reading about relationships" -- a blanket statement that does not define what the term really means. Romance novels are marketed towards women, but that does not mean a romance novel written by a man and marketed towards men is not a romance novel.

Moreover, you seem to have a problem with pornography and "whores". Females and males who work in the porn industry are, in fact, real females and males. Some of them may have chosen to work in the porn industry; some may enjoy their careers. But consistently maintaining that pornography depicts "whores" (an extremely charged word, by the way), are you not perpetuating the belief that people work in porn should be dehumanized?

However, even Playgirl, despite its title, is not geared exclusively toward women and is, in fact, turning more and more away from women as its sole audience.

In 2003, Playgirl's gay readership was around 30%, according to Wikipedia. Women are still the main audience of consideration of Playgirl. In addition, by citing Playgirl's more recent trends, you are ignoring the fact that in the past, before Playgirl's gay audience grew, Playgirl WAS marketed exclusively to women.

----

Moreover, you claim that yaoi does not represent gay men because the characters do not identify as gay. I would argue that yes, they do not necessarily represent men who actively identify as gay, but on the other hand, they do depict same-sex male relationships. In our culture today, you do not have to identify as gay to experience marginalization. We live in a heterosexist society - a society in which heterosexuality is generally taken to be the natural, the norm, and the superior - and men who have sex with men (MSM) are a historically marginalized group, regardless of whether they identify as gay, bi, or otherwise. Depicting MSM in yaoi IS misrepresenting MSM - characters in yaoi don't have to deal with feelings of being oppressed, marginalized, or silenced; they do not have to fear being discovered; and in real life MSM relationships there may not be a "seme and uke". Since you are so contemptuous of women being misrepresented in porn for the purpose of men in a patriarchal society, I wonder why you do not feel the same way when another type of people, MSM, is misrepresented for the purpose of women in a heterosexist society.

In the same vein, women who have sex with women are a marginalized group, and depicting girls having sex with girls in porn - whether they identify as lesbian/bisexual or not - do not change the fact that same-sex female relationships are being misrepresented.

Finally, if the only purpose of depicting men in yaoi was because they are "blank slates" and "cannot be whores", why are genderless beings not used? Or a third gender?

Edited September 28, 2010 by icey

[Der Kommissar]

Do you REALLY need to have an extended, thoughtful discussion on gay cartoon porn? If it's your thing, good for you. If it's not, leave well enough alone.

[Original Alear]

Do you REALLY need to have an extended, thoughtful discussion on gay cartoon porn? If it's your thing, good for you. If it's not, leave well enough alone.

Is that guy ejaculating sperm from his mouth?

I guess yaoi is your thing too :P

[lolDeath]

Do you REALLY need to have an extended, thoughtful discussion on gay cartoon porn? If it's your thing, good for you. If it's not, leave well enough alone.

SINCE WHEN ARE YOU STILL HERE YOUNG MAN

As for the topic.. uhh.. the fact that it's gay isn't what makes me not into it or whatever, it's the fact that people are wanking to cartoons.

[Esau of Isaac]

SINCE WHEN ARE YOU STILL HERE YOUNG MAN

As for the topic.. uhh.. the fact that it's gay isn't what makes me not into it or whatever, it's the fact that people are wanking to cartoons.

You jacked off to Jasmine from Aladdin.

Admit it.

[Der Kommissar]

SINCE WHEN ARE YOU STILL HERE YOUNG MAN

I'm always watching.

Is that guy ejaculating sperm from his mouth?

I guess yaoi is your thing too

It's from this.

[Furby]

DER KOMMISSAR!

Anyway, if Shinji was like that, I think I could actually understand the ending of Evangelion.

[lolDeath]

The ending is easy to understand when you take into account the fact that it isn't actually supposed to mean anything at all.