Talk:Slash fiction

message: This word, canon, and it's derivatives are used way too much. Let's use a thesaurus shall we?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.212.232 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "canon" and it's bethren

message: I've substantially rewritten the opening as a lot of it appears to be needlessly repetitive and opaque, and to clear up some of the "subgenere" confusion about femslash (because not all fen, by any means, accept that women in relationships are a "subgenre" of men in relationships, which is seen by some fen (myself included) as offensive.) I think/hope there's more clarity and accuracy now, and that I've retained the original meaning of the passage. Lindleyle 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro and femslash

message: When I entered "squick" into the Wikipedia search, it redirected to this page.  That seems very wrong to me.  Slash obviously doesn't squick everyone out, and if it redirects anywhere, somewhere more about sex or kink in general would seem much more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.222.219 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I'm more familiar with squick as defined in alt.tasteless in the early '90s; while this is more than enough reason to redirect to a Slash page rather than describing the act originally described as 'squicking', I feel like the term's illustrious AT history is getting short shrift here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.160.100 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does 'squick' redirect here of all places?

message: As far as I'm aware even though it is usually used to denote homosexual pairings, it isn't exclusively for them- it can be used for all fan-pairings...?
:Nowadays, "Slash" refers to same-sex pairings.
::That's not entirely correct and not entirely decided. The verb "to slash" and its gerund, "slashing", are almost definitable usable in any pairing context, including heterosexual relationships. This article should reflect it. John Holly 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Only gay?

message: Why are Chip and Gadget, as a pairing, mentioned in this article?  Chip is male and Gadget is female, I don't see how that's at all relevant to slash fiction.  I would just edit it but I wanted to see if someone knew something I didn't first.
LOBSTRA 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted and removed. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Slash is enjoyed by girls of all ages. Crush and love happens to everyone. The authors of most of the Harry/Draco fictions are straight girls of the same age as Harry and Draco. There is nothing controversial about same aged people liking characters the same age as them and fantasizing about them. It happens to all and sundry.Astronauttothemoon (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chip and Gadget

message: Less and less anathema to whom? I think the current phrasing seems more than fair. - Puffy jacket 11:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Anathema

message: There's a sentence in the History section that reads: "From there, increasing tolerance of homosexuality and frustration at portrayal of homosexual relationships in mainstream media fed a growing desire for authors to explore the subjects on their own terms with established media characters." However, I think it's debatable how much slash, written and enjoyed predominantly by heterosexual women, was about exploring homosexuality as an issue. In Warrior Lovers: Erotic Fiction, Evolution and Female Sexuality (ISBN: 0300093543), Catherine Salmon & Donald Symons argue that slash is much closer to the romance genre than anything else.
:Agreed, though I wrote the sentence as more of "explore the subject" as a source of pleasure, not, "explore the subject" as a social issue. The first part of the sentence merely attempts to show that homosexuality became less taboo as a source of pleasure and as such, people no longer felt so restricted in its exercise. Perhaps we should change it to "...desire for authors to explore the eroticism of the subjects on their own terms..." ? I could go either way. Sdauson 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: The boy-band pic is beautiful (I see the heart, yes, yes) but I'm very concerned that the images on this page are not used with permission and the copyright holders are going to be coming after us. Not good. 
Why, for example, is the artist not identified, even on the page for the image. Something smells.
:The slash artwork image is a tricky one. Personally I don't have any connections to that fandom, so it's gonna be really hard for me to find an image that suits our needs here. PLEASE SOMEONE find an image, or create one of their own, that is an appropriate replacement. The current picture is one I've seen simply floating out there on the net with no attributable source, so while I doubt we'll have any copyright holders coming after us in the next few weeks, it is unacceptable as a long-term solution. Please, someone find a suitable replacement. Pictures are what make Wiki articles come alive, and slash artwork is a perfect section in which to place an image. All other images on the page though are fair game and appropriately sourced and tagged: the slash was created by me, the book cover *is* promotional material, and website screenshots are considered fair use.Sdauson 14:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: What homosexual relationship in "Killing Time"? Bullshit, there is none. It has K/S, which was hastily removed in the second edition, but it is only implied. Furthermore, the inclusion of the K/S was illicit, against the policy of the editors. Again, in the second printing and all following, it is gone. (The author was a K/S fan who wrote an NC-17 Kirk/Spock story in the notorious 1981 fanzine The Price and The Prize.)
There are bisexual characters in numerous other TOS books, so it's simply inaccurate to use "Killing Time" as an example. "Dwellers in the Crucible" has bisexual Deltans (who die, like all gays in fiction), while the Star Trek II and III novelizations have a gay couple (who died on Regula I in Khan's attack). 
There are also gay characters in Voyager novels; in Jeri Taylor's hardback about the Voyager crew, it is revealed that Harry Kim's roommate at the Academy was gay. (Taylor, one of the producers on Voyager, wanted to introduce gay characters into the series but was overruled from above.)
Even if you want the first K/S hint in a Star Trek novel, you'd have to go back to the Bantam books, not Pocket. In "Planet of Judgment" by Joe Haldeman, Spock sacrifices his life out of love for Kirk. (Of course, he doesn't really die.) And in one of the "New Voyages" books, Spock begins dreaming after coming into contact with a race of telepathic butterflies and begs Kirk to come away with him, saying, "We don't need all those others." Kirk hastily shuts him up. There is also a K/S-themed poem in one of the "New Voyages" books. (These books were compilations of fan fiction, rather than stories by professional authors. They were officially published under the Star Trek name, however.)
:The reference to "Killing Time" is a vestige of earlier incarnations of this article. I have not read Killing Time and am/was unaware of the actual romantic contents of the story. I have, however, read "Section 31: Rogue" and feel that this is a very appropriate title for this paragraph, as it contains an explicit homosexual romance. The other novels you mention sound like they do not, instead featuring only gay characters. I believe this paragraph should reference Trek novels that contain slash elements-- that is, a story in which a homosexual romantic relationship at the focus. If "Killing Time" does not satisfy this, I suggest we remove the reference, and perhaps find another Trek novel (is there another?) that is more appropriate. Sdauson 14:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Killing Time

message: On the UK ST scene, one of the pivotal moments was fan-publication of a work entitled "Spock In Manacles" which openly portrayed (slightly parodically) the K/S relationship with no euphemisms.  This was (probably) around 1975 or 1976, and the fanzine itself found its way onto a wider stage with the '76 and '76 WorldCons
Spock in Manacles was later, early eighties.  It was written by UK fan Kate Solomon and the stage version (with music by Ian Sorenson) was done at Beccon 3 in Basildon in 1985.  I was there.  (There is a video of this performance in existence.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.25.205 (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: For many slash writers - myself included - not all slash is "gay" slash, and the author does a disservice not to mention this distinction.
For many of us, although the characters may display gay behaviors in the story, they do not necessarily have gay sensibilities as well. Most often in slash, the characters have not had previous same-sex relationships, do not 'cruies for' or notice others of the same gender, and would not seek out another same-sex relationship after the one in the story. For many writers, the encounter is often a first time 'experimentation' and may or may not lead to future intimacy (in the same story or future stories) with the same character.
It's this lack of gay sensibilities that some gay readers say makes them find slash incomplete and unsatisfying, and the same reason that so many women are comfortable reading slash but yet don't read much gay fiction or gay erotica, if at all. 
--Kate
 20:25, 9 January 2006
Funny that you should bring this up Kate...particularly following the comment about no mention of Joanna Russ' essay about slash.   Russ points out that it was predominantly by women, for women and that the sex, while ostensively between two men, was NOT gay sex...  She theorized (very plausibly to my mind) that one of the male's was actually standing in for a female and was "coded" female thus making slash actually heterosexual when you really looked at it.  Spock, the ultimate other, stands in for the women reading/writing K/S so that it fulfills their fantasy of heterosex between equals (in a way that writing about a man and a woman couldn't work for them...)  Do you see why I think there should be a paragraph about her essay?  I'll have to find it...  Emyth 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slash isn't necessarily "gay" 

message: Paragraph 1, last sentence, reads: The confusion of the "/" and "X" marks is highly discouraged, however, as it may be a cause for confusion.  Should be reworded by someone with more vested interest in the topic than I.
--Gedrean 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Wording 

message: Given that there are now lesbian and gay characters in some SFF series, I'm surprised no-one's discussed the issue of slash that depicts those characters in exclusively heterosexual relationships- for example, Willow Rosenberg after she broke up with Oz and made her relationship with Tara official in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, although as Doctor Who's Jack Harkness is either bisexual or omnisexual, it probably wouldn't apply in his case. Has that attracted any controversy?
User:Calibanu 15.17, 30 July 2006
:  I believe calling something "hetslash" would be something of a self-neutralizing term.  I've never heard the term before, where is it published?   And no, I don't think that kind of situation attracts as much controversy as slash itself Sunhawk 03:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hetslash is used on Harry Potter slash communities.  I do agree it is "self-neutralizing" but then again so is pop-punk. Kiki 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think you could link to that?  Because I have only ever seen "slash" used in opposition to "het" on HP communities (and everywhere else, except for older discussions).  --Principessa 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In fandoms I've been in (mostly smaller), hetslash refers to one character experiencing sexual/romantic interest in a character s/he believes to be of the same sex, but who is really cross-dressing (for example, Orsino and Viola/"Cesario" in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night).  I think "hetslash" is too ambiguous a term to use. - Mel, 29 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.135.131.194 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hetslash?

message: I'm starting to think this article has outgrown the Slash Timeline section-- it's never going to be (never can be) a complete, authoritative, or balanced history of events, and instead serves now to only "pimp out" editors' pet fandoms with a mention and a link. I think the article would lose nothing without it. Sdauson 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would like to keep some of the influential dates (first zine, people involved in the original source reacting to slash, etc.) but if they can't be separated from the pointless pimping, I think the whole section can be taken out. --Kittymalicious 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of it seems pretty trivial. I'd recommend removing the whole think. But I definitely removedthe ridiculous tag ancouraging people to add more, which just invites more vanity posting and spam. DreamGuy 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slash Timeline 

message: It seems confusing to me that the main definition given of slash is "explicit" when the rest of the page uses "same-sex relationship".  I also think that that the "explicit" definition is obselete, or, at least, in much, much less use than "same-sex relationship".  --Principessa 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The wingfic page redirects to here, but there is no mention of wingfic in the article...
--Careless hx 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wingfic 

message: Hey, so I have some issue with this entire squick section. It's a touchy subject because what is squick for one person is not for another (I mean, slash as a whole has been referred to as a squick) and I'm not sure using phrases like "usually make the reader physically nauseated enough to throw up" is appropriate. Also, is squick genuinely considered a *genre* of slash fiction or just an element of it? I've seen "squick" listed on warnings alongside things like BDSM, rape, incest, a certain pairing, etc. or used as an adjective or a verb to describe/react to certain aforementioned things but I haven't really seen someone take the time to write "squickfic" as it is defined in this wiki for the pure purpose of disgusting their readers.
Also, I'm questioning a particular line in the Original Fic section: "Such writing is not easily defined as homoerotic as erotic content is variable and plot and emotional development tends to take precedence over sexual scenes." Is this sentence implying that orig!fic is not slash because it is not homoerotic? In any case, it is a sweeping generalization since there are plenty of ultra-sexual original fic and, in opposition, slash fic that concentrates on plot over sexuality--does anyone protest its removal?
Lastly, I'm unsure about the following in the "Slash in Academia" section: "They focus only minimally on textual analysis. Though they take an ethnographic approach, which comes from anthropology, they are with the exception of Jenkins, somewhat uninformed on current trends and debates within ethnography." I'm unsure what the trends and debates of conducting ethnographic research has to do with the listing of some academic works on slash. Additionally, the materials listed have ample textual analysis--Cicioni is basically pure slash text analysis and Jenkins has an almost complete focus on the texts generated by the Terra Nostra Underground, etc. These sentences also seem out of place in terms of neutrality--both deeming those listed "somewhat uninformed" and Jenkins as the exception. I suggest we keep the first sentence of that paragraph under the list and delete the rest. --Kittymalicious 12:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality, Original!Fic, and Ethnography 

message: I think this whole plugging specific writers or sites thing is going too far. Regarding the www.craiggilmore.co.uk site, I'm removing the reference because it adds no notable knowledge to the article. There's really no need to put up the web sites of specific people, but I feel a little unfair cleaning up all the new ones while still allowing the old ones (like those under "Original Slash") to remain. I'm open to being convinced however--anyone who has a problem with this, speak now because I plan on removing those random author plugs the next time I edit this article. Kittymalicious 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plugging Specific Writers 

message: Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. The article used o look like someone ws just going through and adding their own names to various places and directly linking to their own websites. See WP:EL for why that is not appropriate.
On top of that, naming a long list of individuals for fan fiction just to prove there were different genres seemed pointless. It was just vanity cruft, and encouraged people to show up and add their own names for no encyclopedic reason. See WP:NOT and WP:ENC. DreamGuy 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed whole slew of external links and names

message: That's ridiculous.  A jpeg of a "/" elucidates nothing.  It looks like a joke - I'm taking it down.Snackmagic 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Slash" pic

message: :Image:Mustbepop.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mustbepop.JPG

message: :Image:RogueSection31.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RogueSection31.jpg

message: Camille Bacon-Smith's book Enterprising Women discusses in depth the fact that most slash writers are women writing about men in relationships with other men.  This is a fascinating phenomenon and worthy of discussion.  yet there is no mention of the gender of slash writers here.  Maybe men took over half of slash while I wasn't paying attention, but it seems somewhat unlikely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.73.217 (talk • contribs) 03:54, June 12, 2007 (UTC)
:This is primarily because there haven't been any actual studies of the gender composition of slash writers. Within communities and existing academic work, it is understood by participants/observers that slash is predominantly female because our interaction with each other very clearly elucidates our gender. However, most of the actual studies are focusing on "why" slash, not "who" slashes, which means that--as far as I know--there has been no formal quantitative study or estimate of how many slash community participants are women. To some extent, if you can't cite it then it doesn't count. Kittymalicious (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender of authors

message: Have any studies been done estimating how many people read slash or participate in slash communities?  I know that slash is a fairly widespread cultural phenomenon, but exactly how widespread?  Have any of the academic studies about slash addressed this question?  What about coverage in mainstream media?  The size of the audience seems like an obvious question to ask, but I can't find any information on it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of slash audience? 

message: Many thanks to whomever added extra facts - family names, names of the series - to the list of favorite couples. Good job. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for additional data

message: There's another sexual reference in the Star Trek series when the carrier of Dax, a simbiote, feels a connection to a lover in a past "life" (when he was a man) and has implied sexual relations. I would edit the article, but I would probably write it badly.
80.91.81.87 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing reference in DS9

message: The massive list of pairings needs to be taken out.  It is completely unnecessary, the article it pretty self-explanatory as it stands, and there are already some references to pairings in the body.  The list detracts from the article and should not be in a serious encyclopædic article, as the Wikipedia strives to be.  In addition, it is, by necessity, grossly unrepresentative of slash fandom as a whole.
If no one objects, I'm going to take it out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by World's Vortex (talk • contribs) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm queasy about removing the list. Very unfamiliar with the subject and perusing the article for the first time, this list stood out as an interesting item, at least to me. __meco (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe if the article was edited, then, to include more examples within the text, or at least significantly paring down and organising the list?  As it stands, it's just way too long and doesn't appear to be organised in any manner.--World's Vortex (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Pairings 

message: Re: Original Slash
This paragraph seemed odd to me and remains so even after Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling clean-ups that I did...  It's the logic of the opening statement that I find questionable:
Properly termed "homoerotic fiction" but very often called "original slash", perhaps in an effort to better relate to the vast slash fan-fiction audience thriving on the Internet, or perhaps because several of the authors participating in the genre previously participated in slash fan-fiction.
This is a false equation of "homoerotic fiction" and "original slash":  While all "original slash" may be "homoerotic fiction", it is most certainly NOT the case that all "homoerotic fiction" is slash, much less "original slash"...  This is a fuddled misuse of catagories and needs to be worked on and cleared up.  
Just what is the point of this paragraph?  It should be made clearer and more accurately stated.  There is factual and conceptual content to the "/" in all slash fiction that is NOT inherently  present in "homoerotic fiction". And then the "original" must have some semantic content as well that adds to the compound term.  Thus, conceptually, "original slash" is at least twice-removed  from "homoerotic fiction"...  Therefore this section of the article needs to be fixed.
I won't be able to do it, but I need it done for I need to have a good article on "Slash"  to which I can point neophytes when I'm trying to discuss the use of homosex in literature. I would appreciate anyone's good faith attempts to clear this up.  
Thanks...  Emyth (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Slash Paragraph 

message: Do we really need a 'popular pairings' section? The body of the article already names and links to about a dozen different examples, all of which by their inclusion as examples are safely assumed to be 'popular', as opposed to 'obscure'. How do we decide what counts as 'popular'? Is this list really for anything other then providing a way for people to try to insert their new favorite pairing? I'm going to take it out, but if anyone wants to talk about it, let's talk. - matt lohkamp 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pairings section 

message: Am i right in thinking that slash fiction involves fan fiction based on any genre of work? 
It was suggested that making a feaured topic out of Gay science fiction would possibly require the slash fiction being GA. Am i right to disagree as slash is not inherently science fictional, it is just that many of the most popular franchises happen to be science fiction or fantasy, or is there a closer link?YobMod 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping in mind that I'm primarily coming at this from a yaoi perspective and have not read much on slash specifically...  Slash fiction can be based on any genre, but historically speculative fiction works (sci fi, fantasy, "history") have been very popular, due to their being "Boys Own" - female characters in these series when slash began are either background or one-off bimbos who are discarded by the end of the episode so that the heroes can continue on to more adventures. The "freeing" aspect of not being in the here and now that speculative fiction provides also makes it possible to imagine that by the 24th Century, homosexual relationships will be accepted, and as such, will be much more common. (Or that the greater taboo in a Legolas/Gimli relationship is the elf/dwarf divide.) --Malkinann (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Science fiction

message: This is for potential web-based sources that are freely available, with a view to evaluating them and including them in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential web-based sources 

message: This might be the most poorly written entry I've ever read.  Try and decipher this:
"Slash fiction involving male-characters is more common male (or less commonly, female) characters, who While the term was originally restricted to stories in which one or more male media characters were involved in an explicit adult relationship as a primary plot element, it is now more generally used to refer to any fan story containing a pairing between male characters."
The entire article is clumsy, riddled with poor sentence structure.--Poh Tay Toez (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. :)  At the moment, I believe the focus is on reading up about slash fiction, and copyediting will come later in the piece. --Malkinann (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix the Wording

message: Would it be possible to find an image where the two characters are of the same age, as opposed to that Harry/Sirius pic? --Silvestris (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've readded the Harry/Snape image down in the chanslash section. --Malkinann (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image 

message: Because this article continues to grow beyond its original scope, it should clearly be moved to Slash fandom or Slash fanwork, with the fiction (vs. art, etc.) material being a section.  If the fiction material is deemed or become too long, it could be a separate article, with a summary in the general article and  linking them, per normal WP:SUMMARY style.  Needn't happen in this order; e.g., the non-fiction-writing aspects of this article could move to Slash fandom along with a summary of slash fiction. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move/split 

message: I'd like to point out that "slash" fiction has evolved from fag hag circles, or simply heterosexual women who get off on the idea of two (or more) men having sex with each other (kinda like the female version of Howard Stern). Unfortunately, this genre has evolved to encompass ALL gay literature, which is unfair and unrealistic. Gay men do not write slash. Only women write it. Fiction that happens to have gay themes or gay characters in it does not make it slash, unless it's a female Howard Stern sexualizing gay  men for their own sexual pleasure. Slash is neither art nor literature. Slash comes from the term "trash." This article is misleading. Based on the wording, you'd have to include E.M. Forester and a great number of classic literature as "slash" simply because there are gay themes.--MarioSmario (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Slash fiction arose from science fiction fandom, Mario. There have always been gay men among writers and readers of slash. (And the etymology of the term is already quite clearly known, as the article makes clear.) Get your facts straight, and quit the hating. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fag hag tyranny 

message: Interesting topic, but looks like original research and is wrong in any case. Jane Austen fan fiction has been around since before it was in the public domain, so I don't see how the first slash could have been written only two years ago.--Duesouthfan (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain slash 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:Slash (musician) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Slash}}"

message: I see three main things wrong with your argument. 1) Slash is read by men. Yes not as much as by women but gay men do read slash. 2) Slash is sometimes written by men. I have known several gay friends who write slash. 3) If slash isn't gay it is something far worse. Appropriation and exploitation. It could be seen as heterosexual women exploiting and stereotyping the lives of gay men. It would be similar to blackface.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Slash vs. Gay at Fanlore for article references and discussion of this issue from several different perspectives. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  To those who think Slash is not "gay" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians:
I'm Athletiger, nicknamed Ath by the other wiki community. I'm currently working on a research project for my English class, and one of the assignments is to edit/add useful information to a Wikipedia page. Therefore, for my assignment, I would like to propose expanding to the section of "Critical and queer attention" in regards to how and why people read/write slash fics - this will touch a little bit on gender and identity, the removal of gender stereotypes, and the emotional development of a m/m relationships, as well as input some statistics for the demographics of those who write slash. Depending on where I take my information, I might include information into the subcategory "femslash" as well.
Furthermore, I would also like to research and begin to expand on the subcategories that needs citations (chanslash, reverse slash, and original slash.) Please let me know if I can help improve on this page, as well as input these information more effectively.
Athletiger Talk~The road less travelled is more fun. 23:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction and Edit Proposal