lettered: (Default)
It's Lion Turtles all the way down ([personal profile] lettered) wrote2007-02-28 04:12 pm
Entry tags:
my_daroga: Mucha's "Dance" (Default)

[personal profile] my_daroga 2007-03-01 02:56 am (UTC)(link)
God, I love you SO HARD. Seriously.

But when are you coming over to see how big my ASS really is and realize I'm not so weensy?

Anyway, some clarification, though I may be incoherent from laughter.

I don't really feel like I OTP a lot. I mean, I'll read anything good, though all things being equal I'll lean towards Buffy/Spike (but did you notice I answered "Spike is hot and JM's not"?). But I don't think it's indicative of anything. Because in POTO, I'll read anything good. And mostly anything good requires people NOT getting along, because it only makes sense. So in the questions about "my OTP" I answered for Erik/Persian.

What I'm saying is that lots of the options didn't seem to apply. When I can't see him, I'll even read DB.
ext_7189: (Default)

[identity profile] tkp.livejournal.com 2007-03-01 03:05 am (UTC)(link)
hee! The love is shared, woman.

There is no way your ass can be big. You forget that I am Amazon lady of extreme proportions. Okay, not extreme, pretty normal side considering my height and bone structure, but your butt could totally fit in one of my ass cheeks. Just sayin'.

The thing is, I OTP like a madwoman, but I rarely OTP really *hard* unless it's in a fandom I *like*. And once I've gone through and completely gorged myself on the 'ship, I step back, and enjoy reading things about the other characters, even seek out things about the other characters. Though to amend that OTP statement, in a few fandoms I've really had OTCs--POTO is one; at first I *only* wanted to read stories with Erik. Now I'll read just about any phics if they're well done.

I think for a lot of people, most options didn't apply, either because like you, they don't OTP that much, or because their 'ship preferences aren't mirrored by the physical attributes of the characters (which was really what I was interested in finding out).
my_daroga: Mucha's "Dance" (Default)

[personal profile] my_daroga 2007-03-01 03:10 am (UTC)(link)
Still, an interesting poll. But even if I listed my crushes, they wouldn't necessarily have a pattern--other than lots of them happen to look like me. (?)

Oh, and I'm kind of curious about this person two people ship me with, who I don't even know!
ext_7189: (Default)

[identity profile] tkp.livejournal.com 2007-03-01 03:16 am (UTC)(link)
My crushes/'ships all have similarities, but they tend to be psychological and not physical (as [livejournal.com profile] stultiloquentia points out above).

I didn't mean you/romanyg, just do your ships incude either: you OR romanyg.

[livejournal.com profile] romanyg, however, is a doll. She's cute and she's sweet and she's generous and a damn fine writer. Mostly of S/A (in Jossverse; these days she's doing SV Clark/Lex) though so I think your romance is doomed.
my_daroga: Mucha's "Dance" (Default)

[personal profile] my_daroga 2007-03-01 04:44 am (UTC)(link)
I think that one of the things *behind* fandom--and OTPs--is that it's more psychological than physical. What I mean is, I suspect that the kind of people who get involved in stuff like this are the kind of people for whom personality trumps appearance. At least, in a "fantasy" setting. Not all of it, of course--but it strikes me that if you're writing fanfic you're involved a lot more in words and deeds than appearances.

Damn--another romance dogged by the specters of 'ships.
ext_7189: (Default)

[identity profile] tkp.livejournal.com 2007-03-01 04:49 am (UTC)(link)
I agree, and have often thought the same thing. Lots of people say stuff like they're "in it for the pretty", but I have difficulty with that when what they primarily do to sustain this "interest" is to read *stories*. Otherwise we'd be *watching* porn, not writing it.

As much as I dislike gender generalizations (as I so often fall into the male generalizations, which makes me uncomfortable, probably unjustly so), this seems more common among women (the fantasy aspect) and less common among men.
my_daroga: Mucha's "Dance" (Default)

[personal profile] my_daroga 2007-03-02 12:10 am (UTC)(link)
I feel the same way about physical ideals as opposed to what's actually attractive in real life. The people I find most attractive in life aren't necessarily the kind of people I'd chose to watch on screen.

I guess it's a pretty common finding--whether it's true or not--that women prefer words to images.
ext_7262: (Default)

[identity profile] femmenerd.livejournal.com 2007-03-01 04:21 am (UTC)(link)
I don't remember her ass being big.
ext_7189: (Default)

[identity profile] tkp.livejournal.com 2007-03-01 04:43 am (UTC)(link)
I knew it! ;o)
my_daroga: Mucha's "Dance" (Default)

[personal profile] my_daroga 2007-03-01 04:45 am (UTC)(link)
Oh.. Well, it's big compared to my upper body.

Damn, I guess you weren't checking me out hard enough. Fix that next time, will you? I'm lacking gay in my life right now.
ext_7262: (Default)

[identity profile] femmenerd.livejournal.com 2007-03-01 04:59 am (UTC)(link)
I promise to stare at your ass the next time I see you. *nods seriously*
my_daroga: Mucha's "Dance" (Default)

[personal profile] my_daroga 2007-03-02 12:11 am (UTC)(link)
I demand your scopophilic gaze!
ext_7262: (Default)

[identity profile] femmenerd.livejournal.com 2007-03-02 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Haha. *objectifies your nerdy ass*
ext_7189: (Default)

[identity profile] tkp.livejournal.com 2007-03-01 05:01 am (UTC)(link)
That's what you get when you're married. Married legally, I should specify. Which is something truly infuriating in this day and age. Not that you're married, I mean.
my_daroga: Mucha's "Dance" (Default)

[personal profile] my_daroga 2007-03-02 12:11 am (UTC)(link)
Were you up late or something? I am not understanding your "married legally" thing.

Though yeah, the lack of gay is a downside.
ext_7189: (Default)

[identity profile] tkp.livejournal.com 2007-03-02 07:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I worried that that didn't make sense.

I was working on the premise of monogamous marriage, which not all marriages are and not all should be. But, that given, marriage itself should not necessarily exclude gay, i.e. if you are gay and married to someone who is also gay. However, because so many people are ignorant and blind and need firm whacks on the head, it is not legally possible for someone who is gay to marry someone who is gay, and therefor it is impossible to be legally married, monogamous, and have gay in your life. This was also functioning on the premise that "gay in your life" was gay sex, thus making monogamy an impossibly, though I am aware you didn't mean that in that way. Rather, I was trying to make a horrified-old-19th. c-lady kind of statement (in the vein of "K! Don't look at Femme's ankles! You're married!") and then relate it to 21 c. issues. I failed. I failed at all of it.

Yeah, up late.