> > Good Point! It was this in that newspaper article that I wanted to > question originally, before I got caught on my scholarly digression. No > attack at all on M. Bunster here (I thank him for bringing this interesting > topic up!), just (if anyone in particular) the newspaper: It seems that > the mention of these women's sexuality was an attempt at > marginalization--as if lesbianism is in any way marginal or even unusual! > These assumptions are more than the normal play of identity politics. It > strikes me that this sort of tacit association of sexual practices with > these fan writings is an attempt to slot the whole phonomenon as merely > some strange, and slightly distasteful, erotic game--thus avoiding the more > in-your-face political implications of this conscious "fixing" of Star Trek > (by altering and highlighting the unquestioned heterosexism implicit in the > series). I don't mean to harp but... It isn't just the marginalization issues that bother me, when slash writers are refered to as Lesbians. Many of the slash writers I know consider themselves straight. So it isn't just a an attempt to marginalize an "odd practice" but actually negating the participation of others who don't necessarily associate their sexuality as lesbian. The issue with slash isn't the erotica, nor is it the same sex erotica but the fact that fans of television shows are taking the fictive universes and doing with them as they see fit. This argument also goes for crossovers, that is fan zine fiction that features 2 or more universes and sets of characters. Andrea MacDonald. [log in to unmask]