I have doubts that [a femslash meme] would be very long-lived

[frogfriend]

img source // post quote source

INAUGURAL MOB POST

feedback welcome in the meta thread!

now taking mod applications

spoiler cut html:

<div tabindex="-1"><b>spoiler title</b><div>Spoilers live here.</div></div>



rules | kinkmeme | friending meme

post image discussion | meta thread | post img/quote suggestions | wank containment area | top level comments | latest flatview page

Comments

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

Assuming everyone who's enthusiastic about an OT3 you don't share is doing it for generic polyvangelist reasons and not because it strokes their id to see these particular characters all involved with each other is also kind of want in a vegetables kind of way, though.

Not all love triangles are best resolved with threesomes, but some are. Others are best resolved with all three parties staying a billion miles away from each other, or with the two potential love interests banging and blowing off the hinge character, or even with the hinge character making a fucking choice rather than dithering for six books. Buy yes sometimes a threesome does indeed solve my problems with a stupid love triangle. (And the one I'm thinking of right now is one that adds some same-sex lovin' to a previously het V, when the two dudes decide they're into each other too. When it's a dude and two women I'm usually more likely to think the women should run off together and leave boring hero to his own devices, admittedly.)

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know where you're getting that I think threesome evangelists are into it for the vegetables? The issue is more that it strokes their id so hard they can't imagine someone else not being as into it as they are.

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

DA Exactly.

Someone likes their OT3? Great. Someone wants to tell me why they like it? Sure, OK, I have time. Someone feels the need to inform me that I need to stop shipping A/B and A/C, because they have seen the light and A/B/C is clearly the Best Possible Resolution, so I should get on that and write only A/B/C? Yeah. That's the point at which I no longer have time for it.

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

DDA

Yes, or when I'm being told that I have a moral or SJ obligation to ship A/C, B/C and A/B/C in order to be a Good Shipper of A/B.

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

I totally get people not liking OT3s-- it's a completely different dynamic that they might not like in their shipping! But not everyone who likes OT3s or proposes them for canon love triangles is a polyvangelist. Hell, a lot of people who like OT3s in fic aren't poly IRL (I'm certainly not).

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

NA

I'm a huge polyshipper who hates love triangles and loves resolving them by either removing the het entirely or OT3ing based on what's compatible/appealing. But I think the thing is that saying how any love triangle is "best resolved" in a way that seems to universalize it for everyone consuming the canon, is kind of wanky. Like my really wonderful poly ot3 may be someone else's not3, and it is a matter of preference, not a matter of one of us being better or worse at shipping than the other.

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT Huge polyshipper with similar tendencies here (take out the het or make them all date, usually!) and I totally agree. One size doesn't fit all. I do think that the "Never love triangles, always OT3s" statement is more of a broad-strokes general statement of being sick of overdone stupid love triangles than a literal belief that every single love triangle is best solved by polyamory. Of nothing else, surely my fellow polyshippers must sometimes dislike one of the characters involved and not want to inflict them on their faves? Surely? But I can see why it would get up the noses of people who have run into a different kind of annoyance than I have.

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Yeah, exactly.

I think this is true 80% of the time:
I do think that the "Never love triangles, always OT3s" statement is more of a broad-strokes general statement of being sick of overdone stupid love triangles than a literal belief that every single love triangle is best solved by polyamory.

But I also understand why it can hit people who have been evangelized to as an obnoxious one-size-fits-all statement. I have certainly been in fandoms where there is an expectation that OT3s solve everything, in alllll the meta and fanworks, and usually I enjoy the OT3 but there's no room for genuinely not liking one of the ships or characters in the love triangle and wanting to do something with two of the characters on their own. So even without someone anonymously insisting they're doing fandom wrong, I understand people getting annoyed with the implied/unconscious prescriptivism that comes across.

Re: wank containment area

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Yes, exactly. I've felt judged by people who are really super against poly ships before, but I've also seen OT3s where I'm like "what, no! why would you?" or "eh well I guess? but I don't really care about one of them." So I can see how a bias in one's fandom circles for or against an OTP or OT3 could really get annoying, especially if there was bullshit about how not doing it the juggernaut way was -ist for whatever reason. Also, smugness is annoying (though I do find "being smug" to be one of those irregular verbs, where I have a happy-place headcanon, you are convinced your way of shipping is the best, and they are smug fuckers who need to be knocked down from their juggernaut high horse).

But agreed on prescriptivism. There's almost always an exception when it comes to the trends in how I ship. I mean, right now I've got a ship situation where I ship A/B, B/C, and A/C (also A/D, A/E, and C/E), including some of them concurrently, and I still have a hard time wrapping my head around A/B/C as a triad. Even though I tend to multiship and enjoy threesomes and various other poly configurations.