![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hurrah! and something of a question/observation
Firstly, hurray hurray hurray, we'll have Season 5 of SGA!
You will, of course, notice my clever rhyme scheme.
Secondly, this is something I've always kind of wondered about, at least in terms of my reaction to it.
I've always had kind of a weird response to reading a story/fic in which someone (whether male or female) thinks about the person with whom they're having sex (whether male or female) as his/her lover, especially just before/during/after sex.
There are some people I know who object to the term, especially in slashfic, because it could be taken to imply that the relationship is purely sexual, and possibly illicit. (They understand "lover" as implying, I guess, an illegitimacy in the relationship, similar to the sense of, say, a lover in adultery.) I don't have any moral/semantic objections to it as such, but I've always found its use tremendously disconcerting to read.
I mean, say you're reading something set very decidedly in a particular character's perspective (say, John). And you get to the sexy time and are reading along, porn porn porn, and then you get something like:
Admittedly, it's hard to get the gist from such scant context, but "lover" just throws me right out of the moment. I mean, it's supposed to do the exact opposite--reaffirm a relationship the reader is, to some extent, already invested in--but I just find it incredibly jarring. Like, you're writing the characters into a deeply, deeply intimate moment, and to have one of them think of the other in terms of something that approaches abstraction... it's kind of jarring.
For me, at least with John and Rodney, it approaches John calling Rodney "his scientist" (*tries to imagine John calling Rodney that in bed*). Why bother with labels at all? It seems like in that kind of situation the name, the intimate and singular label, is more appropriate.
So does anyone else find it kind of weird/disconcerting/not-quite-right, or am I a bit nuts? I'm not sure why this is bothering me now, or why I'm thinking about it, but there you go.
Oh, wait, yes I am.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
weepingcock, which I started looking at because ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
geeklite linked to it and I am one of those people who watches shows about surgery and medicine on the Discovery Channel because I enjoy being grossed out a bit too much.*
* so long as I can change the channel or click the back button. While I'm at it, I should tell you a lot of this stuff is not for the faint of heart or stomach, as you should expect from a comm named "weepingcock."
In other news: asdlkjf reading today, hiss.
You will, of course, notice my clever rhyme scheme.
Secondly, this is something I've always kind of wondered about, at least in terms of my reaction to it.
I've always had kind of a weird response to reading a story/fic in which someone (whether male or female) thinks about the person with whom they're having sex (whether male or female) as his/her lover, especially just before/during/after sex.
There are some people I know who object to the term, especially in slashfic, because it could be taken to imply that the relationship is purely sexual, and possibly illicit. (They understand "lover" as implying, I guess, an illegitimacy in the relationship, similar to the sense of, say, a lover in adultery.) I don't have any moral/semantic objections to it as such, but I've always found its use tremendously disconcerting to read.
I mean, say you're reading something set very decidedly in a particular character's perspective (say, John). And you get to the sexy time and are reading along, porn porn porn, and then you get something like:
John collapsed at Rodney's side, breathing hard, mind blank and reeling and amazed. He looked over at his lover, who was staring at the ceiling, looking as shattered and stunned as John felt.
Admittedly, it's hard to get the gist from such scant context, but "lover" just throws me right out of the moment. I mean, it's supposed to do the exact opposite--reaffirm a relationship the reader is, to some extent, already invested in--but I just find it incredibly jarring. Like, you're writing the characters into a deeply, deeply intimate moment, and to have one of them think of the other in terms of something that approaches abstraction... it's kind of jarring.
For me, at least with John and Rodney, it approaches John calling Rodney "his scientist" (*tries to imagine John calling Rodney that in bed*). Why bother with labels at all? It seems like in that kind of situation the name, the intimate and singular label, is more appropriate.
So does anyone else find it kind of weird/disconcerting/not-quite-right, or am I a bit nuts? I'm not sure why this is bothering me now, or why I'm thinking about it, but there you go.
Oh, wait, yes I am.
weepingcock, which I started looking at because geeklite linked to it and I am one of those people who watches shows about surgery and medicine on the Discovery Channel because I enjoy being grossed out a bit too much.** so long as I can change the channel or click the back button. While I'm at it, I should tell you a lot of this stuff is not for the faint of heart or stomach, as you should expect from a comm named "weepingcock."
In other news: asdlkjf reading today, hiss.