The whole point was sexualizing relationships that could not, in canon, be sexual.
Right, and at the time these relationships would've been between characters of the same gender. I agree with you that the term "slash" had to be coined because it's not the same thing as gay literature.
I guess all I'm saying is, this may have been the definition of "slash" then, but the usage has shifted to serve other needs, especially now that we can't be absolutely sure whether a particular relationship with ("slashy") subtext will become canon or not. I don't think any of us could've predicted Willow would be canonically gay when Buffy first premiered, for example.
Re: Ignore my previous comments!
Right, and at the time these relationships would've been between characters of the same gender. I agree with you that the term "slash" had to be coined because it's not the same thing as gay literature.
I guess all I'm saying is, this may have been the definition of "slash" then, but the usage has shifted to serve other needs, especially now that we can't be absolutely sure whether a particular relationship with ("slashy") subtext will become canon or not. I don't think any of us could've predicted Willow would be canonically gay when Buffy first premiered, for example.