I have The Late Mr. Shakespeare and loved it. Must. Get. This.

Do, Cashmere-- who's The Late Mr. Shakespeare by, BTW? I haven't read that.

the very short and oversimplified version: traditionally, in Western cultures, sex between men happened most frequently in strongly hierarchical contexts, whether the hierarchy was of age, of status, of power or of class. (Of course this was also true, by definition, of sex between men and women.)

So (thinks, picks random examples) Romeo/Mercutio (equals) is less likely than Olivia/Viola (unequal power)?

Theo: Googles Yes, British, so it says here.

This provides a biblography, a quick glance at which reveals that I'm an idiot, as he wrote The Late Mr. Shakespeare as well as Mrs Shakespeare: The Complete Works.

No, I'm just talking about men. Women didn't officially have a sexuality so they could get away with more! (Or something.)

So, slash and femslash are completely different issues here?

Right.

That makes a lot of sense, actually, but it makes coming up with examples harder. Plus the fact that the Shakespeare plays I've studied in enough detail to feel I know them as slashable canon are few. Romeo/Mercutio (equal) vs. Romeo/Paris (unequal, and possibly based on a false assumption regarding the actual text)? Julius/Brutus (nearly-equals) vs. Cassius/Pindarus (very unequal-- Pindarus is a servant if not a slave)?

edit: or should I just shut up already?

but the whole damned point for me is that Sam's relationship with Frodo is not selfish

Mmmm. Not having been in it, I could be talking rubbish here, but what about being in Love with someone makes it intrinsically more selfish than being friends?

Am-Chau: no, don't shut up!

Yeah, I mean as I said it's a simplification, but my understanding is that asking a friend to have sex with you would be a bit like asking them to shine your shoes. Also, sex was something one person did to another person, it wasn't seen as a mutual act at all.

But of course I'm talking about sexual acts, not sexual desire; there's nothing to say that Romeo wasn't gazing longingly all day at Mercutio, then slipping one of the Montague servants a fiver for a quick one in the stables at night.

Also, your bringing up the classical plays is a useful reminder that these things were much more codified in the ancient world than they were in Shakespeare's: sex between men was completely accepted, but only in certain, strictly hierarchical, situations, and with strict rules about who was allowed to do what to whom. The hierarchy stuff was still there later on, but in a less codified way because of course the acts themselves became illegal so everything went underground.

I mean as I said it's a simplification, but my understanding is that asking a friend to have sex with you would be a bit like asking them to shine your shoes. Also, sex was something one person did to another person, it wasn't seen as a mutual act at all.

That has to extend to affect our interreptation of the canon romances in the plays: the people of the time would have seen sex as something Romeo did to Juliet, not something they did together. Is that backed up by the text? Juliet's desire for Romeo is made clear, and the Nurse has a fair go at making it seem like Juliet did as much choosing as Romeo did. I'd have to do a lot more research into attitudes to sex at the time before I argued that one seriously.

of course I'm talking about sexual acts, not sexual desire; there's nothing to say that Romeo wasn't gazing longingly all day at Mercutio, then slipping one of the Montague servants a fiver for a quick one in the stables at night.

'Rosalind' always seemed like a pathetic cover-- here's the answer! 'She', the unattainable object of desire, was a man.

tries to beat plot bunny to death

your bringing up the classical plays is a useful reminder that these things were much more codified in the ancient world than they were in Shakespeare's: sex between men was completely accepted, but only in certain, strictly hierarchical, situations, and with strict rules about who was allowed to do what to whom.

So that there's a difference between slashing Julius as RPS, and slashing Julius as Shakespeare fanfic. Make it complicated, why don't you.

And I'd love to hear some examples of the situations in which such releationships were accepted in the ancient world.

...In any case, although I find this stuff interesting, slash is all about making texts your own isn't it, so I'm not interested in forcing slash writers to submit to some charter of historical accuracy or anything...I mean as far as I'm concerned people who treat Romeo and Juliet as a great big heterosexual love story are doing a greater violence to the text than any slasher ever could, so have at it.

I'm not interested in forcing slash writers to submit to some charter of historical accuracy or anything

I didn't think you were. I just like make life difficult for myself. And I feel that I'm more successfully making the text my own if I do it within the 'correct' context.

Plus, the history side of it is fascinating. Maybe even more so than the slash.

Romeo/Mercutio slash. Also see Tanith Lee's Sung in Shadow.