...Oh. I didn't realise you were trying to argue against same-sex pairing being part of the definition of slash at all.
Um.
What's wrong with 'subtext' or 'UST' as terms for the Mulder/Scully relationship?
I think there's an important difference in kind between people writing Mulder/Scully (before that became canon) and people writing Mulder/Krycek or Mulder/Skinner (or Mulder/Scully/Skinner, for which the label would be 'polyfic', but it still contains slash.) I think this distinction is particularly important in that there's such a history of bad feeling and hard words between the various shippers.
I agree that slash should not be equated with homosexual relationships, but it's still been part of the definition all along, and I think is as necessary to the definition as is the subversive element.
And even if homosexual relationships ought not to be categorised as subversive, they still bloody are.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 06:33 pm (UTC)Um.
What's wrong with 'subtext' or 'UST' as terms for the Mulder/Scully relationship?
I think there's an important difference in kind between people writing Mulder/Scully (before that became canon) and people writing Mulder/Krycek or Mulder/Skinner (or Mulder/Scully/Skinner, for which the label would be 'polyfic', but it still contains slash.) I think this distinction is particularly important in that there's such a history of bad feeling and hard words between the various shippers.
I agree that slash should not be equated with homosexual relationships, but it's still been part of the definition all along, and I think is as necessary to the definition as is the subversive element.
And even if homosexual relationships ought not to be categorised as subversive, they still bloody are.