Shipper tendencies

[gategrrl]

Can someone explain to me why there's such a compelling need to sexualize and Romantic-ize characters? I've been there myself, but I seem to have gone past that as a "serious" endeavor. I'll *play* with characters and their sexuality -- but the *need* to pair them up romantically just isn't a priority, and it seems so unnecessary, and somewhat Mary Sueish, especially if it's certain types of het and slash writing.

It's not so much the sexualizing -- that I get, it's fun to imagine your favorite characters whupping it up with the whipped cream and cherries, and get down and dirty and sweaty. But at the same time, what I'm puzzled more about is the need to Harlequinnize decent characters who already have complex, nonsexual relationships with each other, that get totally boring when they DO get together.

Anyone?

Comments

[gategrrl.livejournal.com]

Sure, the characters have chemistry together...but you can have chemistry without it being romantic.

Exactly. That's what I've been wondering about. If the chemistry is *there* (or even if it isn't, but anyway) what's the need to augment it with sex? And Romance? Aren't they interesting *enough* without it? Why would Daniel have sex with her, unless he's portrayed as being a loose, relaxed, WTF kind of guy. Even Jack wasn't portrayed that way.

This "couple" specifically, I don't see as romantic. She's as soon screw him and run with the gold, than stay and be a sex-partner for good. And, from what we've seen of Daniel in the past, he's pretty devoted when he *does* do it.

[superbadgirl]

"Exactly. That's what I've been wondering about. If the chemistry is *there* (or even if it isn't, but anyway) what's the need to augment it with sex? And Romance? Aren't they interesting *enough* without it? Why would Daniel have sex with her, unless he's portrayed as being a loose, relaxed, WTF kind of guy. Even Jack wasn't portrayed that way."

I don't think I'm qualified to answer that, because I do write slash. ;)

For me, I write it because I see it (vs seeing it because I write/read it) - it's the great what if. I think there's a pretty big difference between seeing chemistry and asking what if and wholeheartedly pursuing romance of any kind with any two (or more) people. When people claim to see that chemistry and I don't, it baffles me. I just can't see it, no matter how many scenes they site this supposed UST exists in.

Like Daniel/Vala. Like Sam/Jack. Like Grissom/Sara. Like Jack/Paul Davis. ;)

I think the answer to that question is going to vary so much by each individual. Even my what if is more specific than that. Prior to certain seasons and events and if I was wearing the right pair of glasses, I could see Jack/Daniel. I had no interest in actually writing any of it myself, but I could read and enjoy it. Then Jack and Daniel's *friend*ship changed onscreen, so much so that I wanted to fix it, if you will. It got fucked up and someone had to put it right - to make myself feel better and to cope with the sudden distance and departure on screen.

But I blather on and on so.

"This "couple" specifically, I don't see as romantic. She's as soon screw him and run with the gold, than stay and be a sex-partner for good. And, from what we've seen of Daniel in the past, he's pretty devoted when he *does* do it."

Oh, exactly. Not a healthy 'relationship' at all. Not one I'd encourage between two people I know, so why would I want to encourage that for fictional characters?

People can see and do what they want. What happens in fandom should stay in fandom, though. One of the biggest revulsion points for me about S/J was that I think certain people in the cast and crew were led to believe that EVERYONE wanted to see this. I'm guessing - but RDA was pretty much anti-romance until a certain point, and then during one of the late season lowdowns suddenly started commenting about how "everyone wants" Jack and Carter to get together.

Ship until your own little heart's content, but do it in your own space. :)