turps

What strikes me a littl funny is, that obviously the rule is inserted to draw a line at that what could be considered homosexual if a reader wants to see it this way, and the authors of such gen-intense-bonding-scenes claim that's not (in capital letters) meant to be homosexual and that it shouldn't be seen this way.

It's kind of contradicting, it's obviously "too slashy" for the archivists (or more some gen-readers who may have complained about this kind of scenes) and "not slashy enough" for the slashers.

I acknowledge the hard job of the archivists but where does this leave this authors?

In the grey area between snow-white gen and night-black slash? *g*

Maybe it's time to create a "heave smarm/intense bonding"-archive? *g*

Pat

:-)