I've yet to encounter any femslashers who just claim to just care how pretty the women are, but there's a lot less femslash meta about so I may have just missed it :)
That's interesting to think about. I've heard it used as a reason to write individual pairings, but not in terms of writing femslash in general--except maybe for a couple of straight women writers who aren't really femslashers (i.e. wouldn't consider themselves femslashers, I don't think) but have a femslash OTP because those particular female characters (Faith, I'm looking at you) just might be the exception to their heterosexuality.
I wonder if there's less of a need? M/M slashers have that whole historical repression of female sexuality thing, but lesbian femslashers will probably have those issues worked out to a greater degree in coming to terms with their own sexuality, and het male writers like myself wouldn't be affected by it.
Even when m/m slashers don't think of their characters as Real Gay Men I'd say they're still mostly interested in them as characters
There might even be a sense where they're more interested them as canon, if writing the characters as Real Gay Men might be seen as taking the characters farther from their canon representation or characterization. And, you know, I'm not sure how much femslashed characters are Real Gay Women (using that to mean something different than "Plausibly-Written Women Who Are Atrracted to Another Woman"), either, despite often being written by Real Gay Women--again, in part because canon characterization may be treated as paramount.
I'm not sure I agree with deuteragonist there's a "complete lack of objectification" in f/f; porn (and even fiction in general!) by its nature is always going to be inherently objectifying, although I'm not sure that's always a bad thing.OF course even at its most objectifying (http://alixtii.livejournal.com/155748.html#comments), a story told through text is probably going to care about character more than visual porn needs to--unless it's solely a catalogue of positions and anatomical description (and that's certainly something I haven't seen!).
no subject
That's interesting to think about. I've heard it used as a reason to write individual pairings, but not in terms of writing femslash in general--except maybe for a couple of straight women writers who aren't really femslashers (i.e. wouldn't consider themselves femslashers, I don't think) but have a femslash OTP because those particular female characters (Faith, I'm looking at you) just might be the exception to their heterosexuality.
I wonder if there's less of a need? M/M slashers have that whole historical repression of female sexuality thing, but lesbian femslashers will probably have those issues worked out to a greater degree in coming to terms with their own sexuality, and het male writers like myself wouldn't be affected by it.
Even when m/m slashers don't think of their characters as Real Gay Men I'd say they're still mostly interested in them as characters
There might even be a sense where they're more interested them as canon, if writing the characters as Real Gay Men might be seen as taking the characters farther from their canon representation or characterization. And, you know, I'm not sure how much femslashed characters are Real Gay Women (using that to mean something different than "Plausibly-Written Women Who Are Atrracted to Another Woman"), either, despite often being written by Real Gay Women--again, in part because canon characterization may be treated as paramount.
I'm not sure I agree with