I think that notion is part of the romantic ideal -- giving your virginity to someone is giving this essential part of yourself, blah blah.

I ... have different ideas about it, but every way I can think to explain them seems way too TMI. For the board, anyway.

because it's a boundary that's being crossed, not something inherent in the act.

I think that's been true culturally for a while now, but I'd venture to say it hasn't always been the truth.

Dean not being a top is patently stupid. I mean, not that I can't see him as a bottom, because I can, but maybe it's just that I hate to think male gay relationships don't have a sort of "your turn today, my turn tomorrow" parity. Maybe that's part of *my* ideal, that men together aren't pigeonholed into giver or taker roles so strictly.

Honestly, as far as I've been informed, some people just like doing some stuff, and that dictates what happens in bed. It doesn't have to be a big sexual politics mapping of their personality.

Just because Dean has well-honed maternal instincts doesn't mean he can't either top or Dom, for crying out loud. What is that?

I mean, maybe you only like taking. But that doesn't have to be saying something deep about your personality, or something that's readily apparent to people who are never going to see you naked. It's just what you like in the sack. Between you and your partners.

It's just what you like in the sack. Between you and your partners.

Exactly.

I think more than the maternal thing, I can see Dean wanting a dom to take some of that weight off his shoulders, to be able to let go and be taken care of, but for the most part I don't really see either Sam or Dean as really invested in a strict BDSM relationship.

And come on. Dean likes to fuck. We know this.

Now I'm paranoid that there are guys out there who think they've owned me.

Then again, I know there are guys out there who really wanted me to own them...

I'm not sure why this is upsetting me so much today. Just one of those things that throws me out of otherwise good smut. And then makes me wonder at my lack of comprehension of the world at large--like the assertion that women like slash because het romance is inherently power-slanted. Have I just been missing that?

check out architeuthis' own personal opinions on the subject: [link]

like the assertion that women like slash because het romance is inherently power-slanted. Have I just been missing that?

See, I do think that is *one* reason some women like slash. Not the only one, though.

But a lot of het romance, and I mean actual published genre romance, is very much about finding the hero. Now it's all supposed to be about "saving each other" but there's so much that still's shockingly traditional -- the Harlequin stuff where the secretary meets the billionaire, etc.

Of course, the women reading that probably *aren't* the ones reading slash, but still.

women like slash because het romance is inherently power-slanted

and then the wimmins go write and read power-slanted slash...

then the wimmins go write and read power-slanted slash...

Exactly! I feel like a freak because the little het romance I read is very balanced, and then I'm railing at the appalling carryover of what I consider 50s morality into slash relationships.

It really saddens me at the sexism I see some women carry over into a male space, like they work at perpetuating exactly what should be easiest to leave behind (and that's without the trope of demonising the girlfriend to get to the slashy relationship).

But for all I know, the gay guys I know don't represent shit, and neither do I.

Will read arch later.

Not weighing in on the current discussion.

I just want to throw in my 2 cents for my favorite crossroads demon, the sultry second who gave Dean only a year in exchange for his brother's life.

archie's got another good rant and insights here [link]