Forum

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

fanrandom wrote:

Clearly this type of manga isn't meant to confront the issues of what it really means to be gay in Japanese society, but to offer a means of fantasizing about relationships in ways that make them accessible, and possibly non-threatening, to female readers.

Ah, but the implication here is that real (homosexual?) relationships are in some way threatening to women, which is not a very nice notion to perpetuate.

Hmmmm? The "nonthreatening" argument is raised often in discussions of BL, but usually to suggest that heterosexual relationships are what is threatening to young women (because of expectations of stereotypical gender roles and the coupling of romance to disempowered status as wife and mother, etc.) I've seen a couple of academic critiques (and fan arguments) that BL "domesticates" gay men by presenting them as feminine, emotional, etc. and thereby denies them agency, but I think this point of view is utter BS (since it hinges upon the sexist assumption that to be feminine and emotional is to be without agency).

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

Additionally, it arguably provides a sub-textual incentive to think of homosexual relationships as somehow less emotionally involved or impacting than heterosexual ones; not unlike the dime-store romance paperback, this is the "perfect" relationship that always works out, no matter what roadblocks may stand in the way.

I really don't buy this; like het romances, BL presents its relationships as extremely emotional and significant. "Idealized" is not the same as "unimportant".

Sorry for the late response, lebrel, but this was a well-thought out argument and I thought it deserved acknowledgment.

lebrel wrote:

I've seen a couple of academic critiques (and fan arguments) that BL "domesticates" gay men by presenting them as feminine, emotional, etc. and thereby denies them agency, but I think this point of view is utter BS (since it hinges upon the sexist assumption that to be feminine and emotional is to be without agency).

I certainly see what you're saying. However, I don't think it's necessarily a "sexist assumption" to note that literature and various forms of entertainment (not to mention society as a whole) have exploited the feminine identity/expression as a means of presenting the "weaker" gender format from a patriarchal perspective, which is the argument I think detractors of BL and yaoi generally put (or at least should be putting) forth. That's quite different from implying that the feminine identity is inherently weaker or less assertive-- as you put it, at a loss of agency. On the contrary, it proposes that the apparent sexism is present in the very fact that the submissive partner is almost always characterized as feminine, playing a distinctly, nonetheless stereotypically, "female" role in the relationship so as to maintain a hetero-normative dynamic to the coupling where none need be. This is exemplified within the "uke", who is almost invariably small-framed, commonly socially and sexually naive (not necessarily unintelligent, but sheltered in the way a woman might traditionally be depicted and as such tantalizingly innocent), and often enough coerced or outright forced into adhering to the romantic aspirations of their comparatively "masculine", "manly" seme (and it is in this comparison that the nature of the yaoi coupling generally belies itself). As you can see, it's not so much that, in presenting one partner as feminine, a yaoi writer intrinsically subjects her couplings to an arguably irrelevant and inapplicable sexual binary, but rather that the characterization is wielded specifically for that purpose and the romance (and sex) is tailored as such. This likely wouldn't be quite so disconcerting if it was one comic or another (heaven knows there are plenty of feminine gay men out there, and there's nothing wrong with that); the problem is that it has become the literary standard under which virtually all works in this category function (making the ones that don't exceptional in that regard). Again, intent is part of the question at hand.

lebrel wrote:

I really don't buy this; like het romances, BL presents its relationships as extremely emotional and significant. "Idealized" is not the same as "unimportant".

Perhaps you're right about that, but at any rate they run the risk of creating a romanticized perspective, which can be dehumanizing, especially when perpetuated by one foreign collective regarding another, their subject. The difference between het romances and BL is that hentai is generally written by heterosexual authors about heterosexual relationships-- they have a correlating experience that (one would hope) tempers and informs their manifestation of love and sex through their characters (although that hasn't put off criticisms of hentai, valid or otherwise, by any means). Straight women writing about gay men, naturally, lack this, which means their portrayal of gay men in romantic situations is not easily defensible by realistic guidelines (in the same way a white person writing about a black person would have a hard time justifying why she chose to have her character develop as they did from anything but a white perspective, which is somewhat self-defeating if you see what I mean). I'll admit that with porn this is a bit of a flimsy argument since porn is often a genre of fantasy and in fantasy presumably anything is fair play-- but this is only true so long as people don't take it as reality or overtly realistic. With the way that yaoi is promoted and commercialized (something else I'm wary of for similar reasons), and the fact that it doesn't generally restrict itself to a fantastical tone or setting (in fact, as you pointed out, attempting to ground its characters and make them believable, although I would still argue that it often does this poorly with counterproductive results), and the fact that apparently some (many?) people do take it seriously, I think it's fair to assert that there's something to it beyond the harmless porn-fantasy aspect. I don't think it's entirely unfounded to determine that when fans read yaoi, they often expect a genuine story...about gay men, written by straight women. Is there a contradiction at work there?

Well, I realize we're probably beating a dead horse by now but I'll repeat some of what I posted earlier. The point is there are people who read BL/yaoi and realize it's fantasy. They know it's not real! The problem is that some of the fans are young and immature; they don't seem to understand that these stories are fantasy. And yes, they are annoying, but hopefully most of them will grow out of it. It's just that us mature fans are tired of being lumped in with them and having people conclude that this type of genre is somehow detrimental to real gay men. I read yaoi for entertainment; if I want reality, I'll watch a documentary or read non-fiction.

Now, as to whether or not straight women should write stories about gay men or whether whites should write stories about black people, well, that's one can of worms I'm not gonna even try to open.

rinmackie wrote:

It's just that us mature fans are tired of being lumped in with them and having people conclude that this type of genre is somehow detrimental to real gay men. I read yaoi for entertainment; if I want reality, I'll watch a documentary or read non-fiction.

I'm actually not making much of an argument against readers of yaoi, just using one segment of the fan community to demonstrate that what I'm talking about (i.e. the affects of BL on a still developing heterosexual cultural understanding of gay people and their relationships) isn't entirely baseless. My argument is more geared towards reviewing the production efforts that go into yaoi and what intent those carry-- what happens on the other side is going to vary from reader to reader. Whether it has a significant detrimental affect on the perception of gay men is the question at hand.

rinmackie wrote:

Now, as to whether or not straight women should write stories about gay men or whether whites should write stories about black people, well, that's one can of worms I'm not gonna even try to open.

That's perfectly fine if you don't want to go there, but personally I don't see it so much as a "can of worms", rather as an inevitable ethical conversation that needs to take place.

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

However, I don't think it's necessarily a "sexist assumption" to note that literature and various forms of entertainment (not to mention society as a whole) have exploited the feminine identity/expression as a means of presenting the "weaker" gender format from a patriarchal perspective, which is the argument I think detractors of BL and yaoi generally put (or at least should be putting) forth.

I don't quite follow your argument here. If you are implying that Western culture presents gay men as effeminate to position them as abjected, then I agree, but I don't think that has anything to do with BL.

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

On the contrary, it proposes that the apparent sexism is present in the very fact that the submissive partner is almost always characterized as feminine, playing a distinctly, nonetheless stereotypically, "female" role in the relationship so as to maintain a hetero-normative dynamic to the coupling where none need be. This is exemplified within the "uke", who is almost invariably small-framed, commonly socially and sexually naive (not necessarily unintelligent, but sheltered in the way a woman might traditionally be depicted and as such tantalizingly innocent), and often enough coerced or outright forced into adhering to the romantic aspirations of their comparatively "masculine", "manly" seme (and it is in this comparison that the nature of the yaoi coupling generally belies itself).

A significant aspect of BL (and to a lesser extent shoujo as a whole), something that separates it from both Western m/m fiction and actual gay men's media in both Japan and the West (as well as all of mainstream Western culture) and which I would say is actually part of the definition of the genre, is that in BL male femininity is treated as attractive and desirable rather than contemptible and emasculating.

Quite frankly, I think that observers who insist on describing the seme/uke relationship as "heteronormative" are suffering from a failure of imagination. The entire point of BL is that the uke is not a girl; he may or may not be feminine and passive and innocent, but even if he is, then he is, specifically, a feminine, passive, innocent male, and therefore a legitimate object of the (presumptively female) reader's desire. The uke, just as much as the seme, is presented as an object of the readers' romantic and sexual fantasy; sex scenes, for instance, tend to focus on the uke's body much more than the seme's.

In manga and anime that have BL-fangirl characters (Fujoshi Rumi, My Girlfriend's a Geek, etc.), as well as in BL author's notes, a common running joke is that fujoshi are seme and want their boyfriend to be uke, which I think, while not universally true, is in fact a significant factor in the genre's appeal; BL gives female readers a chance to be the seducer rather than the seduced, the rescuer rather than the rescued, the "top" rather than the "bottom". This is harder to achieve in a heterosexual relationship because of the massive amount of cultural baggage surrounding how men and women are supposed to interact; men who submit to women are pussies, women who dominate men are bitches, etc.

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

The difference between het romances and BL is that hentai is generally written by heterosexual authors about heterosexual relationships-- they have a correlating experience that (one would hope) tempers and informs their manifestation of love and sex through their characters (although that hasn't put off criticisms of hentai, valid or otherwise, by any means).

The love interests in women's romance novels / manga aren't necessarily a reflection of real-life men either, and I doubt most Western straight men would enjoy being expected to behave like the leads in shoujo romances (or josei romances for that matter). The real difference is that straight men, on the one hand, have lots of media made for them and don't have to rummage around in women's media for depictions of themselves, and, on the other hand, mostly avoid "icky girl stuff" like the plague, and are therefore insulated from women's fantasies about men.

Incidentally, "hentai" is usually used to describe straight men's porn. Women's hetero-porn manga are more correctly described as "ladies' comics" or, for the more romantically-driven smut, "teen's love"/TL (which doesn't necessarily involve teens).

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

Straight women writing about gay men, naturally, lack this, which means their portrayal of gay men in romantic situations is not easily defensible by realistic guidelines (in the same way a white person writing about a black person would have a hard time justifying why she chose to have her character develop as they did from anything but a white perspective, which is somewhat self-defeating if you see what I mean).

As a black woman, I would absolutely not agree that white authors should not or cannot write black characters, or that male authors should not or cannot write female characters. But that aside, I really don't think BL is trying to be realistic, as a genre; in fact, I think that one of the major motivating factors in women's desire to create and read BL is dissatisfaction with real-life men and real male behavior as shaped by current gender expectations. In other words, I think BL is appealing and satisfying to its fans specifically because it does not depict "realistic" men; it depicts idealized men who look and act in ways that are defined solely by female desires for men, not by men's desires for themselves or men's self-image. And so, obviously, real men don't find much to relate to in BL men.

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

I don't think it's entirely unfounded to determine that when fans read yaoi, they often expect a genuine story...about gay men, written by straight women. Is there a contradiction at work there?

I think the readers expect a "genuine story" in the sense of an engaging or moving narrative that fulfills the specific expectations that the BL genre carries with it (one of which is that there will be a romance with a happily-ever-after ending). I don't think that readers are looking for realistic depictions of gay men or gay male culture, and I don't think that the writers are trying to achieve that. BL is, by definition and by design, a female fantasy, and as such it is completely internally consistent that it is produced by women (not all of whom are straight, I must note).

lebrel wrote:

Quite frankly, I think that observers who insist on describing the seme/uke relationship as "heteronormative" are suffering from a failure of imagination. The entire point of BL is that the uke is not a girl; he may or may not be feminine and passive and innocent, but even if he is, then he is, specifically, a feminine, passive, innocent male, and therefore a legitimate object of the (presumptively female) reader's desire. The uke, just as much as the seme, is presented as an object of the readers' romantic and sexual fantasy; sex scenes, for instance, tend to focus on the uke's body much more than the seme's.

That is a very good way of explaining it. Why would women be interested in reading BL when the stories are by definition outside of their ability to experience? Answer: because there is something in the way these characters are portrayed that resonates with a female audience, because this is manga written by women for women. So for those fans who read BL with this in mind, questions about how it may portray people and situations in the real world is irrelevant. For the others, I suppose the same can be said for any type of fiction that people take to be fact.

Wow, once again really interesting comments.

lebrel wrote:

I don't quite follow your argument here. If you are implying that Western culture presents gay men as effeminate to position them as abjected, then I agree, but I don't think that has anything to do with BL.

That's precisely what I'm arguing (although I wouldn't limit that description to Western culture)-- I disagree that it has nothing to do with BL, but I suppose you can gather that.

lebrel wrote:

A significant aspect of BL (and to a lesser extent shoujo as a whole), something that separates it from both Western m/m fiction and actual gay men's media in both Japan and the West (as well as all of mainstream Western culture) and which I would say is actually part of the definition of the genre, is that in BL male femininity is treated as attractive and desirable rather than contemptible and emasculating.

Quite frankly, I think that observers who insist on describing the seme/uke relationship as "heteronormative" are suffering from a failure of imagination. The entire point of BL is that the uke is not a girl; he may or may not be feminine and passive and innocent, but even if he is, then he is, specifically, a feminine, passive, innocent male, and therefore a legitimate object of the (presumptively female) reader's desire. The uke, just as much as the seme, is presented as an object of the readers' romantic and sexual fantasy; sex scenes, for instance, tend to focus on the uke's body much more than the seme's.

Ah, yet you make the contradiction so clear. You claim the relationship is not hetero-normative because the couple is not heterosexual- the uke is merely a stereotypically effeminate yet still emphatically male archetype. Consequently, you insinuate that the purpose of this characterization is to engage a female sexual fantasy; in short, to provide a blank space for the female reader to insert her voyeuristic impersonation of the gay male partner, whether as the uke or the seme. So the question arises: why does (or does) this fantasy require an often clearly divisive gender-trait format between the two partners if not to foster a more securely heterosexual impression of what is clearly a non-heterosexual couple which could in turn help women feel more susceptible to the roleplay it's attempting to communicate? Why are the men, particularly the uke, so rarely overtly masculine, muscularly built, generally lacking in body hair-- could it be that to have two overtly masculine men falling in love would come across as too foreign for the presumably-straight-female reader to interject her self-oriented fantasy believably? I don't mean to imply that feminine men are any less men than any other, but quite frankly, I think observers who insist that the seme/uke relationship is designed solely or primarily to harmlessly explore and celebrate the emasculate aspect of the male gender are willfully naive-- I would put forth that the intent of BL, pornographically speaking, is to act as a proxy for a female desire that can never be realistically achieved and that in order to fulfill that end it submits its sexual interactions as stylistically normalized and relatable for its target audience so as to cultivate the fantasy it exists upon.

lebrel wrote:

BL gives female readers a chance to be the seducer rather than the seduced, the rescuer rather than the rescued, the "top" rather than the "bottom". This is harder to achieve in a heterosexual relationship because of the massive amount of cultural baggage surrounding how men and women are supposed to interact; men who submit to women are pussies, women who dominate men are bitches, etc.

This is where the matter of exploitation becomes apparent. There's also a massive amount of social baggage implicit in how homosexual men are "supposed" to interact, and some of it is reinforced by the notions perpetuated within Boys' Love, whether fans of the genre choose to recognize the impact it has or not. It would seem based on your argument that BL authors feel entitled to utilize gay male culture and personae to evade confrontations and challenges to mainstream sexual stereotypes surrounding heterosexual romances, but this can be seen as both disenfranchising to those who are fighting gender inequality head on and simultaneously demeaning to gay men who find the fictionalized depictions present in BL to be inaccurate and misguided.

lebrel wrote:

The love interests in women's romance novels / manga aren't necessarily a reflection of real-life men either, and I doubt most Western straight men would enjoy being expected to behave like the leads in shoujo romances (or josei romances for that matter). The real difference is that straight men, on the one hand, have lots of media made for them and don't have to rummage around in women's media for depictions of themselves, and, on the other hand, mostly avoid "icky girl stuff" like the plague, and are therefore insulated from women's fantasies about men.

This is at the heart of what I was saying. Heterosexual men are empowered; the straight male identity is strongly self-asserted in virtually every aspect of mainstream media, whether it be masculine, feminine or otherwise (although of course gender inequality has an adverse affect on everyone in various manners). Homosexual men, on the other hand, do not have this liberty-- on the contrary, there's a clear void in comprehension when the female depiction of gay men is allotted precedence over gay mens' identifications of themselves in media; it can be said to create yet another barrier, another set of stereotypes, no matter how well-intentioned, which gay men are forced to combat in their effort to implement effective self-determination.

lebrel wrote:

As a black woman, I would absolutely not agree that white authors should not or cannot write black characters, or that male authors should not or cannot write female characters.

That doesn't effectively debate my statement, which was that it would be an exercise in futility regardless of the personal feelings anyone (author or reader) has on the matter-- much like BL, although I'll grant that there are more factors involved in the production of BL than that one argument counters.

lebrel wrote:

I think that one of the major motivating factors in women's desire to create and read BL is dissatisfaction with real-life men and real male behavior as shaped by current gender expectations.

What kind of real-life men? Gender expectations as they apply to whom? Heterosexual men? Homosexual men? Masculine men? Clearly not effeminate men! (And here I thought you just argued BL is supposed to celebrate maleness?) It's this kind of blanket categorization of the male identity that people such as myself find objectionable-- yet it's the kind of perspective you're indicating BL proposes to its readers. The trying element here is that this dissatisfaction with "real men" is manifesting in the appropriation of the gay male identity, which is then subverted into something entirely inauthentic.

lebrel wrote:

In other words, I think BL is appealing and satisfying to its fans specifically because it does not depict "realistic" men; it depicts idealized men who look and act in ways that are defined solely by female desires for men, not by men's desires for themselves or men's self-image.

Again, the fantasy is not such a concern; it's the potential effects it carries for an already socially overburdened class of people that is cause for concern. I understand clearly the psychological therapeutic coverage it offers for women who run into conflict with real life relationships for whatever reason, and I've mentioned before that I find BL aesthetically and otherwise enjoyable, but I continue to view it also as a promulgator of certain stereotypes and an unhealthily simplified view of males in general, and gay males particularly, so that I can't help but wonder in the long run if it's more helpful or deceiving. My point is, viewing BL only from the perspective of what it does for women, and not what it does to men, is to ascertain only one side of the matter.

lebrel wrote:

I think the readers expect a "genuine story" in the sense of an engaging or moving narrative that fulfills the specific expectations that the BL genre carries with it (one of which is that there will be a romance with a happily-ever-after ending). I don't think that readers are looking for realistic depictions of gay men or gay male culture, and I don't think that the writers are trying to achieve that. BL is, by definition and by design, a female fantasy, and as such it is completely internally consistent that it is produced by women (not all of whom are straight, I must note).

Yet they're trying to achieve some appreciation of the homosexual male identity, surely. The characters are gay (or "gay" or "straight but willing") for a reason. One of the specific expectations you mention is that the romance will be homosexual and between men- that is not an accident, it is a trend, and it is there for a reason. I've already discussed in length, as have you, possibilities for that reason, but to dismiss the notion that BL authors and readers are purposefully utilizing homosexuality, and as such inevitably some form of gay culture no matter how fictionalized, as a device within their work and that this has no reflection on the gay community as a whole is irrational. Fictional or not, clearly the authors of BL are aiming to adopt a gay male persona for their characters and that is being interpreted by their readers; bottom line, these characters are gay. I would disagree that BL readers don't expect this matter to come across as just as genuine as any other element in the plot-- far too much emphasis is placed on it. They want to see what they believe to be and have propagated as the homosexual drama (and it's worth noting that it isn't specific to BL nor does it originate from the genre), impaired as it is with stereotypes and inaccuracies, played out. Good for them. Not necessarily so good for gay men.

*sigh* Here we go again. I think we're going to have to start a seperate thread if we keep this up, since I think we've gotten way off topic here. So you still think BL/yaoi is detrimental to gay men and offensive. Fine, don't read it. But I don't see how it's really having that much of an impact on real gay men seeing as only a teensy percentage of Americans read, much less know what it is. Course, the percentage is probably a bit higher in Japan, but not by much. Yes, a lot of BL is unrealistic and stereotypical but there are many stories that defy those conventions. If all BL/yaoi was basically the same cliches over and over, I doubt I'd be a fan. I like originality and good storytellilng; I've managed to find that in the BL genre. But just like other genres, there's also a lot of crap. I read this stuff for entertainment, not for educational purposes. Me and lebrel are mature readers, but I'm sure we're not the only ones.

It's too bad most BL/yaoi fans are defined by the squeeing mobs of young girls who are too immature to understand what they're reading is a fantasy. Yes, I imagine they are quite annoying but if were a gay man, I'd be more concerned with the attitudes of the hateful religous fundamentalists. The Judeo-Christian idea that homosexuality is sinful and the Japanese idea that it's abnormal, to me, is what's most detrimental to gay men.

rinmackie wrote:

It's too bad most BL/yaoi fans are defined by the squeeing mobs of young girls who are too immature to understand what they're reading is a fantasy. Yes, I imagine they are quite annoying but if were a gay man, I'd be more concerned with the attitudes of the hateful religous fundamentalists. The Judeo-Christian idea that homosexuality is sinful and the Japanese idea that it's abnormal, to me, is what's most detrimental to gay men.

My argument is that those concepts are not entirely absent from BL-- rather, I feel they have a direct influence over how gay men are portrayed in BL works. Some might pass it off as harmless female fantasy, yet for gay men I think the relevant cultural tropes and stereotypes are obvious; it's simply that the context is not so easily discernible as one of deliberate prejudice or discrimination. BL is hypocritical because it functions as female fantasy, yet it uses gay men; it depicts superficially strong male partnerships, yet it isn't written by men with men in mind. As a result, it tends to fall back on diminutive gay male archetypes in an effort to seem relevant to its readers-- sometimes these are key plot devices, sometimes they're engaged as subtext. They are, I feel, present, however.

rinmackie wrote:

...if were a gay man, I'd be more concerned with the attitudes of the hateful religous fundamentalists.

You want a can of worms? This statement is it. "If I were a gay man..." You can't possibly say how you would feel as a gay man-- you aren't one. Implying that they should simply focus on other issues because you don't personally feel this is a significant matter (or perhaps because it directly threatens something you have an affinity for?) is presumption of the worst kind-- you appropriated an identity that isn't your own and then attempted to subvert the opinion and viewpoints of people to whom it does apply by virtue your own fabrications as to how it must feel to be that way (see: BL). Although, I suppose if you're used to the notion of entitlement BL employs it's not so hard to dismiss the idea that gay men just might be intelligent enough to pick their battles for themselves, or that perhaps they actually have a reason for disputing the practices BL applies. I know you didn't do this with the intent to offend or undermine anyone, yet you can see how naturally it occurred nonetheless-- this is why BL faces opposition; this is its active component; usurping an identity and substituting into it baseless idealizations, then calling it a fantasy in its defense.

I suppose one could argue that a revitalization of the minstrel show would be harmless so long as people recognize that the black man dancing on stage is not a representation of real black people, too-- it's just a harmless white fantasy that provides a space in which they can view black people as non-threatening and comedic. I mean, if I were a black person, I don't think I would be so concerned about that as I would the slave trade or the Klu Klux Klan.

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

BL is hypocritical because it functions as female fantasy, yet it uses gay men; it depicts superficially strong male partnerships, yet it isn't written by men with men in mind. As a result, it tends to fall back on diminutive gay male archetypes in an effort to seem relevant to its readers-- sometimes these are key plot devices, sometimes they're engaged as subtext. They are, I feel, present, however.

I was writing up a massive TL;DR response to your previous post, but between this post and your previous one I think I am seeing a significant gap in comprehension; you do not seem to believe that female readers actually find feminine men appealing as such, but instead enjoy them as a means to keep gay men in a subordinate, marginal social position.

I don't know what I can say to convince you that magaka and fan-artists draw pretty femme-y boys because they like pretty femme-y boys, that readers enjoy these "diminutive" men because they are cute, hot, cuddly, sexy, erotically and emotionally appealing, not because they make gay men "non-threatening and comedic". I'd suggest that you start by comparing the depiction of men in shoujo, josei and "ladies' comics" (womens' het porn manga); they're not full of macho muscly hairy dudes either. Otomen (which is completely heterosexual) isn't a regular on both the NYT and Oricon manga bestseller lists for its depiction of butch manly men.

Alexis.Anagram wrote:

this is why BL faces opposition; this is its active component; usurping an identity and substituting into it baseless idealizations, then calling it a fantasy in its defense

BL isn't usurping your identity. BL isn't telling you how to act, it isn't telling other people how you (as a real gay man) act, it isn't presenting itself as the Real Gay Truth. It is a vehicle for women's idealized vision of maleness and male behavior in relationships (which is not baseless, but very firmly grounded in a deep dissatisfaction with gender expectations), and it is presented as such.

You seem not to believe that people can understand and project themselves into the situations of others. I completely understand that gay men as a class do not like or identify with the type of masculinity reflected in BL. I'm pretty sure that all BL fans know this; it's impressed upon us regularly by commentators, critics and trolls. I still don't see why my aesthetic and romantic preferences need to be dictated by someone else's gender prejudice.

And I like the femme boys, even in real life. I even married one, but he's not gay though.

lebrel wrote:

I was writing up a massive TL;DR response to your previous post, but between this post and your previous one I think I am seeing a significant gap in comprehension; you do not seem to believe that female readers actually find feminine men appealing as such, but instead enjoy them as a means to keep gay men in a subordinate, marginal social position.

You would be wrong. I'm fairly sure you simply misinterpreted my entire argument. I myself find feminine men appealing. That's not the point. You're arguing on a basis of what women find sexually attractive, and I have repeatedly stated that isn't the issue. The issue is that BL exploits gay male stereotypes in order to fulfill that pornographic expectation.

lebrel wrote:

I don't know what I can say to convince you that magaka and fan-artists draw pretty femme-y boys because they like pretty femme-y boys, that readers enjoy these "diminutive" men because they are cute, hot, cuddly, sexy, erotically and emotionally appealing, not because they make gay men "non-threatening and comedic".

You don't have to convince me of anything. I know many women like femme boys. The matter of their appearance isn't what's demeaning towards gay men. See above post.

lebrel wrote:

BL isn't usurping your identity. BL isn't telling you how to act, it isn't telling other people how you (as a real gay man) act, it isn't presenting itself as the Real Gay Truth.

Perhaps not from your perspective, but what it is establishing immediately and how it functions in subtext is quite different. Also, just to clarify, I don't identify as a gay man (although some people would say I am regardless and I've lived as such and been treated as such).

lebrel wrote:

It is a vehicle for women's idealized vision of maleness and male behavior in relationships (which is not baseless, but very firmly grounded in a deep dissatisfaction with gender expectations), and it is presented as such.

All while hypocritically formulating a stylistic gender expectation which arguably leads it to perpetuate false notions surrounding gay men, what it is to be gay, how gay men should act and what gay men should look like. This isn't as simple as women depicting their ideal relationship; they're exploiting an entirely separate class of people and idealizing THEIR relationships. Understand this: it stops being just about women when it starts being about gay men.

lebrel wrote:

You seem not to believe that people can understand and project themselves into the situations of others.

I don't believe that straight women can understand what it is like to be a gay man. I don't even believe gay women can understand what it is like to be a gay man. I don't believe it's necessarily ethical for one to infer what is ideal under those circumstances when they have no concept as to how it actually feels to live that way. You are right about this.

lebrel wrote:

I completely understand that gay men as a class do not like or identify with the type of masculinity reflected in BL.

You just don't care?

lebrel wrote:

I'm pretty sure that all BL fans know this; it's impressed upon us regularly by commentators, critics and trolls.

Why do you think that is? Clearly this is more than a simple matter of female fantasy. BL is a product that extends into the real world and has an impact; the concern is not what takes place in the imaginations of straight women, but how that interjects and involves itself into actual mentalities and perspectives.

lebrel wrote:

I still don't see why my aesthetic and romantic preferences need to be dictated by someone else's gender prejudice.

I'm not arguing your romantic preferences, and I'm not making this personal. This is about BL as a genre, whether it's acceptable or not, and why. Furthermore, the only "gender prejudice" taking place is arguably present in BL-- unless you'd like to expand on that matter.

I'll be honest here. Both yaoi and yuri manga are stuff I tend to stay far,far,far away from. To put this delicately,this sort of manga ain't my cup of tea. I tend to go more towards traditional romances,you know. Boy-girl romances. Both BL and GL aren't for me and I wouldn't read them no matter how much someone paid me to read them.

^Why revive an old thread to state just that? It's not relevant, it adds nothing new to the conversation, and it could even be construed as flame bait.