Warm Gallifreyan Nights/MediaWest
Lori Grenci
F.Y.I to those of you going to the
MediaWest convention the end of May:
"Warm Gallifreyan Nights" will be
available at Mysti Frank's ("Agent With Style"),
zine table. The price will be the same
as mailorder.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Lori Grenci
Mariane Desautels
>
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 11:15:42 GMT, Lori Grenci <lorig...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >F.Y.I to those of you going to the
> >MediaWest convention the end of May:
> >"Warm Gallifreyan Nights" will be
> >available at Mysti Frank's ("Agent With Style"),
> >zine table. The price will be the same
> >as mailorder.
>
> his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
Note to Lori: plastic-wrap all of the issues before selling them...
M
--
And may I remind you that taking over the universe is against the Motel
regulations and local West Midlands by-laws.
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>
>
>F.Y.I to those of you going to the
>MediaWest convention the end of May:
>"Warm Gallifreyan Nights" will be
>available at Mysti Frank's ("Agent With Style"),
>zine table. The price will be the same
>as mailorder.
Excellent. Will you actually be showing the pictures of McGann with
his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
--
Shaven Stunners! online:
http://website.lineone.net/~edstradling/
Alden Bates
moral decline of our society by typing:
>Excellent. Will you actually be showing the pictures of McGann with
>his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
The artwork generally doesn't leave much to the imagination, no....
Alden.
Ed Stradling
wrote:
Jesus, I was joking too. I should have known better.
Jonathan Blum
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 15 May 1999 02:13:16 GMT, alden...@hotmail.com (Alden Bates)
>wrote:
>>edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) contributed to the
>>moral decline of our society by typing:
>>>Excellent. Will you actually be showing the pictures of McGann with
>>>his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
>>The artwork generally doesn't leave much to the imagination, no....
>Jesus, I was joking too. I should have known better.
Yeah, you should, especially considering your zine's called "Shaven
Stunners"...
--jon
Lori Grenci
edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 1999 02:13:16 GMT, alden...@hotmail.com (Alden Bates)
> wrote:
>
> >edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) contributed to the
> >moral decline of our society by typing:
> >
> >>Excellent. Will you actually be showing the pictures of McGann with
> >>his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
> >
> >The artwork generally doesn't leave much to the imagination, no....
>
> Jesus, I was joking too. I should have known better.
OK, Ed. Save your money for next year's issue:
"Warm Gallifreyan Nights Artwork Bloopers" --
Like nothing you've ever seen before.
-Lori-
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>In article <373d354...@news.lineone.net>,
>Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 May 1999 02:13:16 GMT, alden...@hotmail.com (Alden Bates)
>>wrote:
>>>edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) contributed to the
>>>moral decline of our society by typing:
>>>>Excellent. Will you actually be showing the pictures of McGann with
>>>>his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
>
>>>The artwork generally doesn't leave much to the imagination, no....
>
>>Jesus, I was joking too. I should have known better.
>
>Yeah, you should, especially considering your zine's called "Shaven
>Stunners"...
Exactly. Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
value.
Ed Stradling
<hawl...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <373d354...@news.lineone.net>,
> edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 May 1999 02:13:16 GMT, alden...@hotmail.com (Alden Bates)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) contributed to the
>> >moral decline of our society by typing:
>> >
>> >>Excellent. Will you actually be showing the pictures of McGann with
>> >>his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
>> >
>> >The artwork generally doesn't leave much to the imagination, no....
>>
>> Jesus, I was joking too. I should have known better.
>
>OK, Ed. Save your money for next year's issue:
>"Warm Gallifreyan Nights Artwork Bloopers" --
>Like nothing you've ever seen before.
He has two nobs in the bloopers, presumably :)
Alden Bates
moral decline of our society by typing:
> Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
>What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
>value.
You haven't read the stories yet. ;-)
Alden.
Lori Grenci
edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) wrote:
> On 15 May 1999 09:59:22 GMT, jb...@zipper.zip.com.au (Jonathan Blum)
> >>On Sat, 15 May 1999 02:13:16 GMT, alden...@hotmail.com (Alden
Bates)
> >>wrote:
the
> >>>moral decline of our society by typing:
with
> >>>>his nob out, or will that still be left to the imagination?
> >
> >>>The artwork generally doesn't leave much to the imagination, no....
> >
> >>Jesus, I was joking too. I should have known better.
> >
> >Stunners"...
>
> What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
> value.
>
I have to say that I am very proud of this zine. It took
two years to put together and many people spent alot of
time and effort on it -- including the artists. It's not
for children or the immature -- I won't deny that -- but I
think you should read it before you critique it. And if it
"scares" you - who cares?
-Lori Grenci-
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>> >Yeah, you should, especially considering your zine's called "Shaven
>> >Stunners"...
>>
>> Exactly. Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
>> What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
>> value.
>>
>I don't like to engage in this type of back-and-forth, but
>I have to say that I am very proud of this zine. It took
>two years to put together and many people spent alot of
>time and effort on it -- including the artists. It's not
>for children or the immature -- I won't deny that -- but I
>think you should read it before you critique it. And if it
>"scares" you - who cares?
I have read part of one of the stories. I saw it on the web guid.
After noticing that Stunners got an XXX rating, I had a look for
another site which did, and found yours. I read bits of it up to where
McGann got his nob out, pissing myself laughing and waiting for a
punchline. Until I discovered that there wasn't one.
Needless to say I don't have a problem with porn. I also don't have a
problem with Dr Who fan fiction. However, when you can't even think
about love/sex without bringing Dr bloody Who into it, I think that is
quite worrying (although amusing).
If the item I saw is atypical of your zine then I apologise. It seems
unlikely though.
Kate Orman
There's nothing really explicit in this posting, but we are discussing
erotica and pornography, so you might like to skip this message if you're
not comfy with those subjects. Ta!
In article <373d5d8c...@news.lineone.net>,
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
[...]
>Exactly. Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
>What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
>value.
Is this because
(a) Sex is ridiculous
(b) Lustful women are ridiculous
(c) "Doctor Who" is ridiculous
(d) Nobs are ridiculous? :-)
When Ed says "this woman", it suggests that he doesn't realise how
many women contributed to WGN - or how common erotic fan fiction is.
Naughty fan fiction has been around for years. It spans everything from
tongue-in-cheek stories of hanky-panky in the TARDIS to tales of ferocious
passion, smutty cartoons to sweet adolescent fantasies, hard-and-fast porn
to psychological dramas. (It's got far more variety than most commercial
porn!) WGN includes examples of most of these, from the light-hearted to
the deadly serious.
I might be reading too much in here, but it's interesting that Ed says WGN
"scares" him. I recently had occasion to flip through an old issue of
Penthouse Letters. The hundreds of ads for sex phone lines were almost
identical - the ridiculous poses, the silly numbers (1-800-cum-with-me,
1-800-big-tits, that sort of thing).It was hard not to get the impression
that the men reading the magazine - or at least the ones making the ads -
were scared to death of sex and women, and were trying to regain control
by making the whole thing a joke. Look at her contorting herself, exposing
herself; she's a laugh, she's no big deal, you can do whatever you want to
her.
(And of course, the male genitals never, never appear. They're not to be
put on display for purchase, or made fun of.)
Sexuality is a powerful and frightening force. If we're attracted to
someone, they have a kind of power over us. We can cope with that power in
a number of ways. We can laugh and sneer at it - which I think is what the
Penthouse ads were trying to do. We can work through our feelings in
stories and poetry. We can celebrate and enjoy our sexuality, perhaps by
writing a naughty fantasy and sharing it with others.
So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
--
Kate Blum Orman <kor...@zip.com.au> http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner
--
: So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
: Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
: include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
BRAVO!
Despite your liberating post, 'Warm Galliphreyian Nights' will still
continue to scare me. But it's not because women wrote it. It's because
of it's content.
I have always viewed 'Doctor Who' as safe. And I've always viewed Doctor
Who himself as the ultimate safe guy - he never makes a pass at anyone
onscreen (despite how we tease and make fun), to all intents and
purposes he seems not to have a sexual drive at all. Which is one reason
I love 'him' so... because I know that he will always be upright and
honest with his companions, no matter how much Sam tries to get him in
bed and how much Adric really wants him to 'spend more time with me'.
The PMESB hasn't bothered me much, because it's not about lust for
Doctor Who, it's lust over Paul McGann. Quite a different thing.
(Although if I see a PTESB, I'm going to die laughing. Sorry! :)) But
Warm Galliphreyian nights has brought hard, adult sexual reality to what
has always remained, for me, a child's dream. The Bad Guy always looses,
the Doctor always wins, and it's Safe to be Scared.
The idea of a sexual Doctor, which I encountered in 'Infinity Doctor',
made me very uncomfortable in ways I hadn't even expected. I wanted back
the childish naivete I had always had with the Doctor. Sam's lust in
'War of the Daleks' also made me uncomfortable... I didn't want to view
the Doctor that way. I wanted him always to be safe.
I read/watch Doctor Who to escape from the real world. Just for an hour
or two. To forget global warming and midterms and lousy ex-boyfriends
and enter a world where things are always clear-cut, the greys are less
grey and the Doctor always wins. I think most of us do. If we wanted to
read about an average person, who goes to work from 9:5, comes home and
sits on the sofa watching television, then heads off to bed, we wouldn't
be heading for the sci-fi section in the bookstore. No, we want to learn
something new. Something different. Maybe it's in the future. Maybe it's
our future. Maybe it'll give us something to look forward to. But it's a
dream, and it's a happy dream... The future is always portrayed with
hope and promise. And that's something to hold onto when you're trying
to scrape up another dime to pay your car insurance, and your car needs
to be towed to the mechanic's for the third time this month.
Sex and Doctor Who... I guess sexual realities make Doctor Who just too
real. The fairy-tale world starts to crumble under the strain. All of
the companions won't marry off or go off to some noble cause anymore.
They can't sleep in communal bedrooms anymore. It's a dangerous
inconsistancy.
But I handle it by simply not ordering the 'zine. :) How about you?
Shadows
--
When the Darkness is Unending, even Heroes are Afraid.
"Jamie, I'm being *stared* at. Is there something wrong with me?"
- The Doctor, 'Evil of the Daleks'
Kate Orman
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
[...]
>Needless to say I don't have a problem with porn. I also don't have a
>problem with Dr Who fan fiction. However, when you can't even think
>about love/sex without bringing Dr bloody Who into it, I think that is
>quite worrying (although amusing).
Ed, your site features imaginary "Doctor Who" book covers with naked women
Photoshopped onto them, and an article about the supposed sexual
reputation of stars at "Doctor Who" conventions.
Can't you think about sex without bringing Doctor bloody Who into it? :-)
Alden Bates
of our society by typing:
>There's nothing really explicit in this posting, but we are discussing
>erotica and pornography, so you might like to skip this message if you're
>not comfy with those subjects. Ta!
>When Ed says "this woman", it suggests that he doesn't realise how
>many women contributed to WGN
*Ahem* or men for that matter. ;-)
> - or how common erotic fan fiction is.
Not only in Who but in other fandoms...
Alden.
Kate Orman
Alden Bates <alden...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman) contributed to the moral decline
>of our society by typing:
>>When Ed says "this woman", it suggests that he doesn't realise how
>>many women contributed to WGN
>
>*Ahem* or men for that matter. ;-)
*tips hat* Good point, sir! Though women dominate the contributors to WGN,
erotic fan fiction is by no means exclusively a female field.
>> - or how common erotic fan fiction is.
>
>Not only in Who but in other fandoms...
I was reading naughty DS9 fiction long before I actually saw any DS9. ;-)
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>In article <373e7e95...@news.lineone.net>,
>Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Needless to say I don't have a problem with porn. I also don't have a
>>problem with Dr Who fan fiction. However, when you can't even think
>>about love/sex without bringing Dr bloody Who into it, I think that is
>>quite worrying (although amusing).
>
>Ed, your site features imaginary "Doctor Who" book covers with naked women
>Photoshopped onto them, and an article about the supposed sexual
>reputation of stars at "Doctor Who" conventions.
>
>Can't you think about sex without bringing Doctor bloody Who into it? :-)
Yes, but the whole point of that (as I presume you understand from
your smiley) is (a) for the comedy value and (b) to further our
amusing notion that Dr Who fans actually get off sexually from
watching the series. However, like I said, wll those things are for
comedy "lad" value. I never dreamed that fans really *DO* get off on
Dr Who porn :)
Ed Stradling
in mind before reading on:
On 16 May 1999 23:32:15 GMT, kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman)
wrote:
>>Exactly. Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
>>What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
>>value.
>
>Is this because
>
>(a) Sex is ridiculous
>(b) Lustful women are ridiculous
>(c) "Doctor Who" is ridiculous
>(d) Nobs are ridiculous? :-)
>
>When Ed says "this woman", it suggests that he doesn't realise how
>many women contributed to WGN - or how common erotic fan fiction is.
No. You are right I had no idea that this was even remotely widespread
and now that I know, the whole concept that we (and "Auton") have had
about sad fans wanking over dr who episodes suddenly seems less funny.
And more funny at the same time.
>Naughty fan fiction has been around for years. It spans everything from
>tongue-in-cheek stories of hanky-panky in the TARDIS to tales of ferocious
>passion, smutty cartoons to sweet adolescent fantasies, hard-and-fast porn
>to psychological dramas. (It's got far more variety than most commercial
>porn!) WGN includes examples of most of these, from the light-hearted to
>the deadly serious.
Do you not think there is a disparity between someone using sex as a
comedy subject and someone using it as an erotic subject. If you don't
find sexual humour funny then fine. The fact is that most people do,
certainly in this country. I happen not to read erotic stories, but I
certainly do not disapprove of them. In fact if I happened across one
on a website I probably would have a look, it's just that I haven't :)
What I think is really worrying is that fans feel the need to
associate their sexual fantasies with Dr Who. Jesus, if ever two
aspects of my life lived in opposite corners of my brain it is my
sex-drive and my dr who fandom! If you think my sense of humour
(Shaven STunners etc.) bears any relation to my genuine views and
feelings about sex then you are quite, quite mistaken.
It's a joke. There's a difference. I find (or found) the idea of a fan
being so obsessed with Dr Who that he even thinks about it when
aroused, very amusing! See the various "Diary of a Sad Fucker"
editions on the website. Like I said just now in another post, I never
dared believe it was actually true.
>I might be reading too much in here, but it's interesting that Ed says WGN
>"scares" him.
Yes, you are really.
>I recently had occasion to flip through an old issue of
>Penthouse Letters. The hundreds of ads for sex phone lines were almost
>identical - the ridiculous poses, the silly numbers (1-800-cum-with-me,
>1-800-big-tits, that sort of thing).It was hard not to get the impression
>that the men reading the magazine - or at least the ones making the ads -
>were scared to death of sex and women, and were trying to regain control
>by making the whole thing a joke. Look at her contorting herself, exposing
>herself; she's a laugh, she's no big deal, you can do whatever you want to
>her.
Well, yes and no. I do find that sort of ad quite funny, but not for
the reasons you suggest. I would find an equivalent gay or lesbian ad
equally funny. Probably more so.
>(And of course, the male genitals never, never appear. They're not to be
>put on display for purchase, or made fun of.)
Or presumably they aren't particularly in demand in a men's porn mag?
>
>Sexuality is a powerful and frightening force. If we're attracted to
>someone, they have a kind of power over us. We can cope with that power in
>a number of ways. We can laugh and sneer at it - which I think is what the
>Penthouse ads were trying to do.
I think youre wrong about those ads - the people who do them are
probably laughing at the guys who read the mags and ring the numbers.
>We can work through our feelings in
>stories and poetry. We can celebrate and enjoy our sexuality, perhaps by
>writing a naughty fantasy and sharing it with others.
>
>So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
>Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
>include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
Nothing whatsoever.
But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
an unhealthy one.
Ed Stradling
>Kate Orman (kor...@zipper.zip.com.au) wrote:
>: So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
>: Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
>: include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
>
>BRAVO!
>
>Despite your liberating post, 'Warm Galliphreyian Nights' will still
>continue to scare me. But it's not because women wrote it.
I didn't even know that women wrote it! Well, I knew the editor was a
woman obviously.
Mariane Desautels
> >continue to scare me. But it's not because women wrote it.
>
> I didn't even know that women wrote it! Well, I knew the editor was a
> woman obviously.
If not women, then whom? Chipmunks?
Mariane Desautels
> Like Kate's post, this is a bit near the knuckle so please bear this
> in mind before reading on:
> On 16 May 1999 23:32:15 GMT, kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman)
> wrote:
> >When Ed says "this woman", it suggests that he doesn't realise how
> >many women contributed to WGN - or how common erotic fan fiction is.
>
> No. You are right I had no idea that this was even remotely widespread
> and now that I know, the whole concept that we (and "Auton") have had
> about sad fans wanking over dr who episodes suddenly seems less funny.
> And more funny at the same time.
What makes you think they're sad? There are people involved in healthy
relationships with other people who still read and/or write erotic
fanfic. One does not exclude the other.
People don't read porn solely for the stereotypical reason that "they
can't get it for real". That's a misconception.
> >Naughty fan fiction has been around for years. It spans everything from
> >tongue-in-cheek stories of hanky-panky in the TARDIS to tales of ferocious
> >passion, smutty cartoons to sweet adolescent fantasies, hard-and-fast porn
> >to psychological dramas. (It's got far more variety than most commercial
> >porn!) WGN includes examples of most of these, from the light-hearted to
> >the deadly serious.
>
> Do you not think there is a disparity between someone using sex as a
> comedy subject and someone using it as an erotic subject.
There's a difference. There's only an incompatibility, when you're a bit
of a puritan, or when you can only see sex as a deadly serious subject.
> If you don't
> find sexual humour funny then fine.
What about finding humorous sexuality erotic? What about laughter as an
aphrodisiac? (I don't mean mockery, I mean good humour.)
> The fact is that most people do,
> certainly in this country.
Which country? (Did you do a national survey?)
> I happen not to read erotic stories, but I
> certainly do not disapprove of them. In fact if I happened across one
> on a website I probably would have a look, it's just that I haven't :)
>
> What I think is really worrying is that fans feel the need to
> associate their sexual fantasies with Dr Who.
Associating Doctor Who with one's sexual fantasies DOES NOT stop someone
from enjoying a sexual life outside of Dr Who, nor does it stop someone
from enjoying Dr Who in a non-sexual way.
> Jesus, if ever two
> aspects of my life lived in opposite corners of my brain it is my
> sex-drive and my dr who fandom!
That's you. Mileage varies.
> If you think my sense of humour
> (Shaven STunners etc.) bears any relation to my genuine views and
> feelings about sex then you are quite, quite mistaken.
Why do the zine, then? What's the point if you don't mean it, even a
little?
> It's a joke. There's a difference. I find (or found) the idea of a fan
> being so obsessed
One doesn't need to be obsessed, for crying out loud!
> with Dr Who that he
He? (Do I detect an iota of <M opens Pandora's aquarium, prepares
flameshield> homophobic anxiety?)
> even thinks about it when
> aroused, very amusing!
_Why_ is it amusing to you?
> See the various "Diary of a Sad Fucker"
> editions on the website.
Could you have written the same thing about a female fan?
> Like I said just now in another post, I never
> dared believe it was actually true.
So much for the "for the dads" eye candy marketing technique.
> >I recently had occasion to flip through an old issue of
> >Penthouse Letters. The hundreds of ads for sex phone lines were almost
> >identical - the ridiculous poses, the silly numbers (1-800-cum-with-me,
> >1-800-big-tits, that sort of thing).It was hard not to get the impression
> >that the men reading the magazine - or at least the ones making the ads -
> >were scared to death of sex and women, and were trying to regain control
> >by making the whole thing a joke. Look at her contorting herself, exposing
> >herself; she's a laugh, she's no big deal, you can do whatever you want to
> >her.
>
> Well, yes and no. I do find that sort of ad quite funny, but not for
> the reasons you suggest.
<cut & paste>
> I think youre wrong about those ads - the people who do them are
> probably laughing at the guys who read the mags and ring the numbers.
*Why* are they laughing? What reason would they have to laugh?
> I would find an equivalent gay or lesbian ad
> equally funny. Probably more so.
Why more so?
> >(And of course, the male genitals never, never appear. They're not to be
> >put on display for purchase, or made fun of.)
>
> Or presumably they aren't particularly in demand in a men's porn mag?
You were saying, about G&L porn ads?
> >So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
> >Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
> >include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
>
> Nothing whatsoever.
>
> But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
> an unhealthy one.
Why can't you see a fantasy about Dr Who as being healthy? Most
fantasies are dreams of things one can't have in every day life. What's
the problem if the object of the fantasy is fictional? Fantasies _are_
people's private little fictions. And, unless you seek them out, there's
nothing to stop you from enjoying Doctor Who without thinking about how
other fans enjoy it in the privacy of their own minds and zines.
Lori Grenci
edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) wrote:
< large amount snipped >
> But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
> an unhealthy one.
>
Ed, I don't want to appear self-serving by contributing to this thread,
but you went a bit too far in calling fantasy "unhealthy". I think you
need to wake up, look around, and get a good dose of reality. WGN, and
erotic fanfic in general, is not silly sick nonsense written by
hormonally-overloaded women (or men) who drool in front of the TV. It
is literature; it is art; it can be entertaining. It's also healthy,
normal, and it takes some talent to be good at it. Erotica is as old
as mankind - from the oral traditions, straight through the bible, all
the way to the modern classics. Adding sex to a story only increases
that story's scope of experience. Sex happens!! And, btw, the Doctor
Who TV series featured quite a few characters who were obviously there
for their "sex-appeal". Take a look back at the first Romana episode.
And Tom Baker flaunted his "macho" stuff all the time. (Just two
examples out of many) "Warm Gallifreyan Nights" is, in my humble and
biased opinion, an example of fanfic at its best - for adults only, of
course.
Alden Bates
moral decline of our society by typing:
>Like Kate's post, this is a bit near the knuckle so please bear this
>in mind before reading on:
>What I think is really worrying is that fans feel the need to
>associate their sexual fantasies with Dr Who. Jesus, if ever two
>aspects of my life lived in opposite corners of my brain it is my
>sex-drive and my dr who fandom!
You never fancied any of the female companions then? :-)
Alden.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: >So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
: >Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
: >include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
: Nothing whatsoever.
: But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
: an unhealthy one.
In your first sentence you agree with the opinion put forward in the
paragraph you quote. In your second sentence you reverse your position and
neglect to explain it, which explanation is what the paragraph was asking
you for.
--
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman
"Well, you did pray rather loudly, my lady."
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: >(And of course, the male genitals never, never appear. They're not to be
: >put on display for purchase, or made fun of.)
: Or presumably they aren't particularly in demand in a men's porn mag?
This is or can be more a legal choice than an artistic one. I know there
are rules for magazines (just as in movie ratings) about how graphically
male organs can be represented and how the magazine is consequently
clasified and, therefore, distributed. I don't know what the rules are
though.
Dangermouse
Kate Orman <kor...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote
> >Exactly. Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
> >What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
> >value.
>
> Is this because
>
> (a) Sex is ridiculous
> (b) Lustful women are ridiculous
> (c) "Doctor Who" is ridiculous
> (d) Nobs are ridiculous? :-)
c and d.
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/4845/
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/7312/
-------
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>Ed Stradling (edstradling...@lineone.net) wrote:
>: >So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
>: >Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
>: >include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
>
>: Nothing whatsoever.
>
>: But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
>: an unhealthy one.
>
>In your first sentence you agree with the opinion put forward in the
>paragraph you quote.
I was answering the last question of the three in that paragraph. Not
the first two.
Ed Stradling
<desautelsm...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Ed Stradling wrote:
>> Like Kate's post, this is a bit near the knuckle so please bear this
>> in mind before reading on:
>> On 16 May 1999 23:32:15 GMT, kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman)
>> wrote:
>> >When Ed says "this woman", it suggests that he doesn't realise how
>> >many women contributed to WGN - or how common erotic fan fiction is.
>>
>> No. You are right I had no idea that this was even remotely widespread
>> and now that I know, the whole concept that we (and "Auton") have had
>> about sad fans wanking over dr who episodes suddenly seems less funny.
>> And more funny at the same time.
>
>What makes you think they're sad?
You miss the point by a thousand miles. Read Diary of a Sad Fucker
(any one of the three instalments). You will then see what I am
getting at. Sorry if they offend you.
>There are people involved in healthy
>relationships with other people who still read and/or write erotic
>fanfic. One does not exclude the other.
It does in my case, but I accept what you say there.
>People don't read porn solely for the stereotypical reason that "they
>can't get it for real". That's a misconception.
See above.
>
>> >Naughty fan fiction has been around for years. It spans everything from
>> >tongue-in-cheek stories of hanky-panky in the TARDIS to tales of ferocious
>> >passion, smutty cartoons to sweet adolescent fantasies, hard-and-fast porn
>> >to psychological dramas. (It's got far more variety than most commercial
>> >porn!) WGN includes examples of most of these, from the light-hearted to
>> >the deadly serious.
>>
>> Do you not think there is a disparity between someone using sex as a
>> comedy subject and someone using it as an erotic subject.
>
>There's a difference. There's only an incompatibility, when you're a bit
>of a puritan, or when you can only see sex as a deadly serious subject.
>
>> If you don't
>> find sexual humour funny then fine.
>
>What about finding humorous sexuality erotic? What about laughter as an
>aphrodisiac? (I don't mean mockery, I mean good humour.)
Er. No. Sorry. Terribly conventional, aren't I?
>> The fact is that most people do,
>> certainly in this country.
>
>Which country? (Did you do a national survey?)
What I mean is, I know very few people who don't find jokes about sex
funny.
>> I happen not to read erotic stories, but I
>> certainly do not disapprove of them. In fact if I happened across one
>> on a website I probably would have a look, it's just that I haven't :)
>>
>> What I think is really worrying is that fans feel the need to
>> associate their sexual fantasies with Dr Who.
>
>Associating Doctor Who with one's sexual fantasies DOES NOT stop someone
>from enjoying a sexual life outside of Dr Who, nor does it stop someone
>from enjoying Dr Who in a non-sexual way.
Don't recall saying that it does.
>> If you think my sense of humour
>> (Shaven STunners etc.) bears any relation to my genuine views and
>> feelings about sex then you are quite, quite mistaken.
>
>Why do the zine, then? What's the point if you don't mean it, even a
>little?
Er......? What do you think? BECAUSE IT MAKES ME LAUGH perhaps?
>> It's a joke. There's a difference. I find (or found) the idea of a fan
>> being so obsessed
>
>One doesn't need to be obsessed, for crying out loud!
Again, see Diary of a Sad Fucker. You simply don't understand the nub
of my amusement on this issue.
>
>> with Dr Who that he
>
>He? (Do I detect an iota of <M opens Pandora's aquarium, prepares
>flameshield> homophobic anxiety?)
Yeah, yeah. Whatever you say, honey.
>> even thinks about it when
>> aroused, very amusing!
>
>_Why_ is it amusing to you?
Why does anyone find anthing amusing?
>> See the various "Diary of a Sad Fucker"
>> editions on the website.
>
>Could you have written the same thing about a female fan?
Potentially, but I wouldn't find it so funny, because females in
fandom are a minority. Sad males are a majority. Otherwise, there
would be no mileage in taking the piss out of them.
>> >I recently had occasion to flip through an old issue of
>> >Penthouse Letters. The hundreds of ads for sex phone lines were almost
>> >identical - the ridiculous poses, the silly numbers (1-800-cum-with-me,
>> >1-800-big-tits, that sort of thing).It was hard not to get the impression
>> >that the men reading the magazine - or at least the ones making the ads -
>> >were scared to death of sex and women, and were trying to regain control
>> >by making the whole thing a joke. Look at her contorting herself, exposing
>> >herself; she's a laugh, she's no big deal, you can do whatever you want to
>> >her.
>>
>> Well, yes and no. I do find that sort of ad quite funny, but not for
>> the reasons you suggest.
><cut & paste>
>> I think youre wrong about those ads - the people who do them are
>> probably laughing at the guys who read the mags and ring the numbers.
>
>*Why* are they laughing? What reason would they have to laugh?
Example:
"What d'you reckon Bill, what shall we put on this ad?
'0898-4-hot-pussy'? I bet the sad bastards are foaming at the mouths
by the time they pick up the phones" etc.
Just a suggestion :)
>> I would find an equivalent gay or lesbian ad
>> equally funny. Probably more so.
>
>Why more so?
Well let's put it this way. I once was in a phone box In the West End
(of London) and one of the many sex phone-line calling cards read
"Love Missiles straight up my arse". I didn't stop laughing for an
hour.
>> > What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
>>
>> Nothing whatsoever.
>>
>> But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
>> an unhealthy one.
>
>Why can't you see a fantasy about Dr Who as being healthy? Most
>fantasies are dreams of things one can't have in every day life. What's
>the problem if the object of the fantasy is fictional? Fantasies _are_
>people's private little fictions. And, unless you seek them out, there's
>nothing to stop you from enjoying Doctor Who without thinking about how
>other fans enjoy it in the privacy of their own minds and zines.
Okay. I have an idea. We get an identifiable sad nerdy fan (how about
Azaxyr?) to go on the Jerry Springer show (or whatever) and say that
he endulges in erotic fantasies about Dr Who shagging his female
assistants in the TARDIS. Then record the audience's laughter.
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>In article <373fcd1...@news.lineone.net>,
> edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) wrote:
>
> < large amount snipped >
>
>> But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
>> an unhealthy one.
>>
>
>Ed, I don't want to appear self-serving by contributing to this thread,
>but you went a bit too far in calling fantasy "unhealthy". I think you
>need to wake up, look around, and get a good dose of reality.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Yeah, Lori, you see average men and women in the street fantasising
about Dr WHo's sex life all the time!
Chris Ashby
Ed Stradling wrote in message <37401766...@news.lineone.net>...
Funny thread this.
You strike me as the type of guy who always denies getting any sort of turn
on from watching porn saying "I only watch it for a laugh, haha." "cos it's
funny", but in private you would furiously pound the beef like any other
bloke.
I don't know you of course, so i don't really know this. ;)
no offence like
Chris
--
: You never fancied any of the female companions then? :-)
You see, that's the 'not fair' bit. I mean, come on, you guys get Jo
Grant, Liz Shaw in minis and thigh-high boots, while we get... er...
get.... Harry Sullivan in a complete suit. Ian Chesterton in a sweater.
Jamie in a turtleneck. And don't get me started on Turlough.
Where's the sex appeal in Doctor Who for the women, eh? Not one of the
companions - or the doctors, barring McGann, has been a looker.
--
: Potentially, but I wouldn't find it so funny, because females in
: fandom are a minority. Sad males are a majority. Otherwise, there
: would be no mileage in taking the piss out of them.
Say what? I think it's about 50/50 female/male on this NG for the
regulars. And not all males are 'sad' (re: our discussion on nerds).
Most are happily married, if this NG is anything to go by.
: Okay. I have an idea. We get an identifiable sad nerdy fan (how about
: Azaxyr?) to go on the Jerry Springer show (or whatever) and say that
: he endulges in erotic fantasies about Dr Who shagging his female
: assistants in the TARDIS. Then record the audience's laughter.
Most of them wouldn't know what Doctor Who is. You'd probably get blank
confusion.
Sides, nerds aren't interesting for Springer. There's no story in 'I'm a
sad geek and I haven't had a single date ever in my entire life and I
live with my parents.' It's only interesting to Springer if the guy is a
midget and runs a pimp ring on the side.
David Brunt
>It's only interesting to Springer if the guy is a
>midget and runs a pimp ring on the side.
Who knows what people get up to when they're not posting here. Anyone want
to own up.....?
David
Dabbler KB
>Where's the sex appeal in Doctor Who for the women, eh? Not one of the
>companions - or the doctors, barring McGann, has been a looker.
Whoops!
Definite disagreement here. I personally thought that Turlough was quite a
"looker", and Jamie wasn't too hard to take either. :-)
If you're talking "beefcake" type as providing sex appeal, I prefer what we
got. Over-muscled is not necessarily that attractive to me (ok, a nice,
well-taken care of, obviously works out some body is quite acceptable :-). I
like personality to go with it. Silly me.
Oh. And I like Ian and Harry too. Funnily enough, McGann does absolutely
nothing for me.
Karen (not a dig at you, all IMHO, of course!)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/7476 - "The Death of Time"
Helen Fayle
-- wrote:
> Alden Bates (alden...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : You never fancied any of the female companions then? :-)
>
> You see, that's the 'not fair' bit. I mean, come on, you guys get Jo
> Grant, Liz Shaw in minis and thigh-high boots, while we get... er...
> get.... Harry Sullivan in a complete suit. Ian Chesterton in a sweater.
> Jamie in a turtleneck. And don't get me started on Turlough.
Oh I dunno, dressing as a schoolboy works for Angus Young... ;-)
>
>
> Where's the sex appeal in Doctor Who for the women, eh? Not one of the
> companions - or the doctors, barring McGann, has been a looker.
>
Oh, how true... although Peter was a cutie in his younger days, if you like
blondes. But the thought of Tom doing the deed... <shudder> <flashbacks to
"Lives and Loves of a She-Devil> <MUMMYYYYYYY>
Ed Stradling
<chr...@datastreamicv.nospammo.co.uk> wrote:
>>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>>
>>Yeah, Lori, you see average men and women in the street fantasising
>>about Dr WHo's sex life all the time!
>
>
>Funny thread this.
>
>You strike me as the type of guy who always denies getting any sort of turn
>on from watching porn saying "I only watch it for a laugh, haha." "cos it's
>funny", but in private you would furiously pound the beef like any other
>bloke.
>
>I don't know you of course, so i don't really know this. ;)
Well as you say, to a degree, you don't need to know me to know that,
because as you imply all blokes "pound their pound of flesh" from time
ti time and any bloke who says different is lying. I would say though,
that not all blokes need porn as a stimulant I tend to rely on memory
mosty of the time :) I recall once my mate once broke up with a
girlfriend he said to me "ah well, the memory will last another three
months or so and then it's back to the porn" :)
And you are also dead wrong about porn not having a comedy value. The
only porn film I have ever owned had football commentary dubbed onto
it and was so funny it has been seen by half of Penarth (my home
town).
Anyway, what we are talking about here is not the merits of porn, but
the merits of wanking oneself into a coma whether man or woman
(because, let's face it, that is what we are talking about here, as
you have rightly pointed out) while thinking about Dr Who!
Rebecca K. Dowgiert
Weeee-heeee! Another go around for the 'What we think of EF' thread...;D
Well, if nothing else, Ed, you've certainly gotten an earful from those
who beg to differ with your own opinion of EF fan-fic..:)
I've read regular fan-fic and stuff with adult themes in it, preferring
stories where any sex occuring is woven skillfully into the story, as only
one element, rather than being the exclusive focus...
--BexMod
--
**********************************************
home: http://www.luoda.com/home.html
design: http://www.luoda.com
**********************************************
Rebecca J. Bohner
>Where's the sex appeal in Doctor Who for the women, eh? Not one of the
>companions - or the doctors, barring McGann, has been a looker.
Not so! Davison *still* gets my award for most attractive Doctor. I had a
giant crush on Davison between the ages of thirteen and twenty (after which
it dwindled to a little crush), which is more than I can say for McGann (who
ranges from easy-on-the-eyes to positively beguiling, and on the whole is
probably better looking than Davison in the traditional sense, but on whom I
do not have a crush of any kind).
And what gets me with Davison are not obvious things like him taking off his
shirt (not that he ever did, or that I would really have been that thrilled
if he had, but I'm trying to find a comparison for something like Leela's
usual outfit or Nyssa's infamous scene in "Terminus"). It's little things
like the really decent haircut he's (finally) got in "The Awakening", the
half-moon glasses in "Frontios" and the shirt-and-suspenders look (with
sleeves rolled up) in "Planet of Fire". 'Scuse me half a mo.
*swoon*
Okay, I'm back.
All this is not to say that I want to write or read erotic fiction about the
Fifth Doctor (though romantic fiction is always a draw, providing it's
subtle and plausibly done -- man, I loved COLD FUSION), but simply to state
that McGann wasn't the only attractive Doctor.
Oh, and although this may seem to totally undermine any reputation I might
have for aesthetic discernment, I must confess one more thing. Having seen
"Blackadder" and "Mr. Bean" I never, ever thought Rowan Atkinson was or
could be attractive, but when I saw him playing the Ninth Doctor in CoFD, I
realized that... that... he's actually quite tall and... that nicely
tailored outfit... the lazily sardonic voice... that glossy dark hair...
those eyes...
*swoon* *thunk*
[We are experiencing technical difficulties. Please be patient.]
*groggily, a few minutes later*
Er, I don't suppose anybody's started up the RAEB...?
--
"I am _not_ going to be made jealous of myself.
It's absurd."
- The Doctor, "Penance"
--
Rebecca J. Bohner
rebe...@pobox.com
http://home.golden.net/~rebeccaj
Dangermouse
-- <sha...@wam.umd.edu> wrote
> Sex and Doctor Who... I guess sexual realities make Doctor Who just too
> real. The fairy-tale world starts to crumble under the strain. All of
> the companions won't marry off or go off to some noble
I wouldn't go any further if I were you
I'm going to get lynched, aren't I?
Mariane Desautels
> [We are experiencing technical difficulties. Please be patient.]
>
> *groggily, a few minutes later*
>
> Er, I don't suppose anybody's started up the RAEB...?
Well, I started the Chris Barry Estrogen and Testosterone Brigade from
scratch. Now we're up to a whopping 13 members. 11 females, 2 males. And
looking to expand. (We Want You!) We're even listed in the International
Movie Database, something that the PME(S)B has yet to accomplish. :-)
You can do the same for the RAEB. It's as easy as pi.
Trina L. Short
>Where's the sex appeal in Doctor Who for the women, eh? Not one of the
>companions - or the doctors, barring McGann, has been a looker.
In your opinion. :)
Proud member of the SMCSB, PMEB, and MSEB. :)
--trinalin
©1999 ACME Page Fillers, Inc.
http://www.pagefillers.com
--
: Definite disagreement here. I personally thought that Turlough was quite a
: "looker", and Jamie wasn't too hard to take either. :-)
Hmm. I always thought Turlough looked like a weasel. Shifty eyes,
thin nose, almost no lips, etc.
Jamie... Jamie simply tries too hard. Half of the time he's caught with
a silly expression on his face...
: If you're talking "beefcake" type as providing sex appeal, I prefer what we
: got. Over-muscled is not necessarily that attractive to me (ok, a nice,
Agreed. I prefer the tall, thin, curly haired types. I go for brains
over brawn... but what I like most of all is originality.
: Oh. And I like Ian and Harry too. Funnily enough, McGann does absolutely
: nothing for me.
Ian and Harry are just too old, and too yuppie, IMHO. Sweaters and
suits and manners... Ian's better than Harry, but not by much. Give me
eccentric any day.
David S. Rubin
> Well, I started the Chris Barry Estrogen and Testosterone Brigade from
> scratch. Now we're up to a whopping 13 members. 11 females, 2 males. And
> looking to expand. (We Want You!) We're even listed in the International
> Movie Database, something that the PME(S)B has yet to accomplish. :-)
*postures* FORSOOTH! A challenge has been thrown upon the doorstep of
the sainted floors of adwc! The PMEB (aided by the EGS) cannot and
SHALL not tolerate an insult such as this! Watch, for verily shall
they pick up thine gauntlet and slap you with it (or give it to Paul
as a gift)
[note: all opinions listed here are mine and are not necessarily
representative of the PMEB or PMEB-EGS]
Cheers,
David S. Rubin <dav...@touro.edu> - Certified Novell Administrator!
[Rahvin (Guardian of the Knowledge, Mystical -<SHAMAN>-) on Mystic Adventures]
{Rahvin on OurPlace}
--
"Anyone you can beat, I can beat better.
I can beat anyone better than you."
"With your fists?" "With my feet."
"With your feet?!" "With an ax."
"No you can't." "Yes I can, yes I can, yes I can."
-- ???
Dangermouse
Lori Grenci <lorig...@aol.com> wrote ,
> Erotica is as old
> as mankind - from the oral traditions,
I just thought that bore repeating as the Freudian slip of the month...
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: On Mon, 17 May 1999 04:46:39 -0400, Mariane Desautels
: <desautelsm...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca> wrote:
: >Associating Doctor Who with one's sexual fantasies DOES NOT stop someone
: >from enjoying a sexual life outside of Dr Who, nor does it stop someone
: >from enjoying Dr Who in a non-sexual way.
: Don't recall saying that it does.
Then you must have phrased yourself poorly, because that was the
impression I also was left with of what you said.
: >Why can't you see a fantasy about Dr Who as being healthy? Most
: >fantasies are dreams of things one can't have in every day life. What's
: >the problem if the object of the fantasy is fictional? Fantasies _are_
: >people's private little fictions. And, unless you seek them out, there's
: >nothing to stop you from enjoying Doctor Who without thinking about how
: >other fans enjoy it in the privacy of their own minds and zines.
: Okay. I have an idea. We get an identifiable sad nerdy fan (how about
: Azaxyr?) to go on the Jerry Springer show (or whatever) and say that
: he endulges in erotic fantasies about Dr Who shagging his female
: assistants in the TARDIS. Then record the audience's laughter.
I'd still like to see you answer the question, Why can't you see a fantasy
about Doctor Who as being healthy?
--
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman - DOCTOR WHO, STAR
Paul Gadzikowski TREK, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and M*A*S*H - Bedivere's
Round Table - Cartoons - Archy the Cockroach
scar...@iglou.com NEW 5/14/99: ANGELS AND ACES 2/3 (WHO/BUFFY)
FEATURED: TRANSFORMATIONS 2/4 Saavik regenerates
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: On Mon, 17 May 1999 13:00:18 GMT, Lori Grenci <lorig...@aol.com>
: wrote:
: >Ed, I don't want to appear self-serving by contributing to this thread,
: >but you went a bit too far in calling fantasy "unhealthy". I think you
: >need to wake up, look around, and get a good dose of reality.
: Yeah, Lori, you see average men and women in the street fantasising
: about Dr WHo's sex life all the time!
See, now. This is trolling, to me, even though I'm reasonably certain that
it's sloppiness rather than maliciousness. Your comment here to Lori
DOESN'T ADDRESS THE POINT SHE WAS MAKING. She was not speaking of DOCTOR
WHO-specific sexual fantasy in her comment but sexual fantasy in general.
She did not state nor imply that average men and women in the street
fantasize about Dr. Who's sex life all the time or at all. She doesn't
reference the specifics of anyone's sexual fantasies. She took you to task
for presuming to judge someone else's sexual fantasy "unhealthy". How do
you respond to that?
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Anyway, what we are talking about here is not the merits of porn, but
: the merits of wanking oneself into a coma whether man or woman
: (because, let's face it, that is what we are talking about here, as
: you have rightly pointed out) while thinking about Dr Who!
"Into a coma"? Who's said they do that? Who, besides you, has said anyone
else does that?
A. C. Chapin
> Anyway, what we are talking about here is not the merits of porn, but
> the merits of wanking oneself into a coma whether man or woman
> (because, let's face it, that is what we are talking about here, as
> you have rightly pointed out) while thinking about Dr Who!
Wanking while thinking about Doctor Who . . . ?
Um, I'm kinda doubting that WGN features soft-focus photos of official BBC
release video tapes in revealing poses, half out of their covers. Or
erotic text descriptions of either the opening or closing credits.
What I expect it does feature are stories whose characters were originally
from the show, and whose plots involve sexual relations between said
characters.
Whether the readers will be 'wanking themselves into a coma' while
reading these stories depends rather more, I think, on the quality of the
writing than on the origins of the characters.
The only way the Doctor Who origin of the characters contributes,
as far as I can see, is in that the reader already has a familiarity with
the personalities of the characters, and a clear idea of what they're
supposed to look like.
I promise you that the last time I read an erotic fanfic, at no
time did I think to myself, "And they're from Doctor Who! That just makes
it so much hotter! I think I'll follow this up with some of those naughty
production codes!"
ps: A coma? Really? I gotta work on my technique.
AC Chapin acch...@virginia.edu www.cs.virginia.edu/~acc2a
Eating an orange/while making love/makes for bizarre enj/oyment thereof.
- Tom Lehrer
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
: >But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
: >an unhealthy one.
: Why? And how far does this sickness extend - is it unhealthy to fantasise
: about Riker? About James Bond? About Heathcliff?
Heathcliff from Bronte or from the comics?
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: Eating an orange/while making love/makes for bizarre enj/oyment thereof.
Of the lovemaking or of the orange?
Mariane Desautels
>
> Trina L. Short (trin...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Proud member of the SMCSB, PMEB, and MSEB. :)
>
> SMC is Syl McCoy...
SMCSB = _S_ylvester _M_cCoy _C_hocolate _S_auce _B_rigade
> but MS?
>
> let's see... WH, PT, JP, TB, PD, CB, SMC, PM... Ok, I give, who's MS?
Mark Strickson? (Where do I sign up??)
norv...@sirius.com
>In article <373fcd1...@news.lineone.net>,
>> But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
>> an unhealthy one.
Why is it any more unhealthy than men fantasizing about naked women? I've
been told that's normal. :-)
> Ed, I don't want to appear self-serving by contributing to this thread,
> but you went a bit too far in calling fantasy "unhealthy". I think you
> need to wake up, look around, and get a good dose of reality. WGN, and
> erotic fanfic in general, is not silly sick nonsense written by
> hormonally-overloaded women (or men) who drool in front of the TV. It
> is literature; it is art; it can be entertaining. It's also healthy,
> normal, and it takes some talent to be good at it.
This is so true. It can just be drooling slime, or it could actually have
some talent behind it -- unfortunately, this creates the biggest argument
about erotica vs. porn, and considering how dreadful I feel right now
(sinuses full of slime, head spinning), I'm just not up to taking it on.
Is Sued...@aol.com out there? She writes the most gorgeous essays...
> Erotica is as old as mankind - from the oral traditions, straight through the
> bible, all the way to the modern classics. Adding sex to a story only
increases
> that story's scope of experience. Sex happens!! And, btw, the Doctor
> Who TV series featured quite a few characters who were obviously there
> for their "sex-appeal".
All those tight miniskirts and high heels... women there mostly to be
decorative. But if women decide to enjoy the Doctor in the same terms,
it's so wrong? Mind you, I've seen some of the worst attempts at
"erotica", because sexiness is very personal, but everything I've heard
about WGN suggests quality.
> Take a look back at the first Romana episode. And Tom Baker flaunted his
> "macho" stuff all the time. (Just two examples out of many)
Tom Baker's Doctor was hardly "classically handsome", and yet, he was
intensely attractive (to some of us). The hight, the curly hair, the
voice... I guess that was "macho", or more, just attractively male, and it
was rather nice, I must say. :-)
> "Warm Gallifreyan Nights" is, in my humble and biased opinion, an example of
> fanfic at its best - for adults only, of course.
And only those adults who can handle reading it, I'd add. That is, those
adults who won't complain about it in public...
norv...@sirius.com
(Trina L. Short) wrote:
> On 17 May 1999 14:10:50 GMT, sha...@wam.umd.edu (--) wrote:
>>Where's the sex appeal in Doctor Who for the women, eh? Not one of the
>>companions - or the doctors, barring McGann, has been a looker.
>
> In your opinion. :)
In my own odd opinion, I find that I prefer people who look interesting to
those who are flat-out gorgeous. For example, I much prefer a lived-in,
full-of-experience face like Pertwee, Tom Baker, McCoy to pretty young
actors like Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc. It's all a personal taste
issue here. (Hell, I had a thing for Lorne Greene when I was merely a
teenager. That's odd. :-) )
Now, McGann is both really beautiful *and* full of experience of life.
<grin> That's a plus...
> Proud member of the SMCSB, PMEB, and MSEB. :)
I'm only officially a PMEBer, but have lusted for Pertwee, TBaker,
McCoy... Peter Davison was lovely, of course, but a bit obvious. :-)
norv...@sirius.com
(--) wrote:
> Dabbler KB (dabb...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Definite disagreement here. I personally thought that Turlough was quite a
>: "looker", and Jamie wasn't too hard to take either. :-)
Ooh, Jamie. :-9
> Hmm. I always thought Turlough looked like a weasel. Shifty eyes,
> thin nose, almost no lips, etc.
Kind of edgy, yes, but good legs. ;-)
> Jamie... Jamie simply tries too hard. Half of the time he's caught with
> a silly expression on his face...
But he's Scottish. Some of us keep that odd quote in mind, "If it's not
Scottish, it's crap." It's not even logical, but there you go. Scotsmen,
yum...
>: If you're talking "beefcake" type as providing sex appeal, I prefer what we
>: got. Over-muscled is not necessarily that attractive to me (ok, a nice,
>
> Agreed. I prefer the tall, thin, curly haired types. I go for brains
> over brawn... but what I like most of all is originality.
Which is exactly why I liked Tom Baker so much -- Sylvester McCoy
definitely looks "original", himself. :-)
>: Oh. And I like Ian and Harry too. Funnily enough, McGann does absolutely
>: nothing for me.
>
> Ian and Harry are just too old, and too yuppie, IMHO. Sweaters and
> suits and manners... Ian's better than Harry, but not by much. Give me
> eccentric any day.
What does age have to do with it? I honestly don't see why it has to be
considered, but that's my own quirk. :-) I was a teenager who *really*
liked what she saw when she saw Pertwee. :-)
Ian was cute, but played a little too "Duh" -- and Harry was played far
duller than a doctor should be, so he did nothing for me.
norv...@sirius.com
<Pine.A41.4.05.990517...@node14.unix.Virginia.EDU>, "A.
C. Chapin" <ac...@node14.unix.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 May 1999, Ed Stradling wrote:
>> Anyway, what we are talking about here is not the merits of porn, but
>> the merits of wanking oneself into a coma whether man or woman
>> (because, let's face it, that is what we are talking about here, as
>> you have rightly pointed out) while thinking about Dr Who!
>
> Wanking while thinking about Doctor Who . . . ?
Hardly. :-) The reaction I tend to have to well-written adult fanfic is
"Ooh, nice." To one extreme, there was one that made me have to open my
window to get some fresh air (or I needed a cold shower)... to another
extreme, there was an adult "Babylon 5" story on a mailing list I'm on
that was so purposefully funny, I was almost ROTFL. :-) (Think Kosh the
Vorlon trying out alien sex on Sheridan...)
> Whether the readers will be 'wanking themselves into a coma' while
> reading these stories depends rather more, I think, on the quality of the
> writing than on the origins of the characters.
Definitely. The writing skills are more important to me. I have an
adult-fanfic-writing friend who concentrates on "Buckaroo Banzai"; I've
sometimes thought "It might be nice if she'd try some DW, just to see how
she'd do..." I tend to enjoy her writing whatever the universe.
> The only way the Doctor Who origin of the characters contributes,
> as far as I can see, is in that the reader already has a familiarity with
> the personalities of the characters, and a clear idea of what they're
> supposed to look like.
I prefer reading fanfic about characters I already know. I tend not to
read about what I don't know, as far as fanfic goes. (As far as real life
goes, I tend to be way too eclectic, and my reading list could be wrapped
around the Earth several times over.)
> I promise you that the last time I read an erotic fanfic, at no time did I
> think to myself, "And they're from Doctor Who! That just makes it so
> much hotter! I think I'll follow this up with some of those naughty
> production codes!"
Agreed. It's nice if the author enjoys the character and thus writes,
shall we say, lovingly... but it doesn't have to be about the Doctor to be
good fanfic, or good erotica.
> ps: A coma? Really? I gotta work on my technique.
heh heh. Same here...
Now, I'm in rotten shape, with about one hour of sleep and my brain
replaced by nasal congestion; I'm not thinking too clearly... (With that
in mind, I freely apologize for certain catty comments posted earlier.
Something about this group does that to me, bad memories. I far prefer
rastb5.mod, uk.media.tv.sf.b5, and mailing lists... but this is an
interesting topic, so here I am. :-) )
> Eating an orange/while making love/makes for bizarre enj/oyment thereof.
> - Tom Lehrer
Oh dear, makes me think of Sheridan ("Captain Orange Boy", obsessed with
being able to find fresh oranges) on B5... :-)
Chris Rednour
[snip]
> Okay. I have an idea. We get an identifiable sad nerdy fan (how about
> Azaxyr?) to go on the Jerry Springer show (or whatever) and say that
> he endulges in erotic fantasies about Dr Who shagging his female
> assistants in the TARDIS. Then record the audience's laughter.
You could record laughter if you sent any of us out in public to admit:
How many Doctor Who tapes/Books we have
How much money we've invested in Doctor Who
How much time we've invested in Doctor Who
The "public" as it were, are going to laugh regardless. I can't tell you
how many times I've turned on the TV in the last two weeks to see the news
mocking Star Wars fans, or interviewing people mocking "sad" Star Wars
fans.
I suspect that the "average public" suspects that most "die-hard fans" of
TV shows are closetly wanking over the program anyhow...
That someone wants to tell adult stories with Doctor Who doesn't faze
me... as a writer, even a non-pro you're going to be drawn to the
possibility of writing within the confines of the most emotionally charged
subjects, of which sex is a part.
-Chris Rednour
_________________________________________________________________
Voting for the Adrics are now closed!
norv...@sirius.com
> The demographics Ed is talking about are true... for the UK. In the UK,
> it appears as though fandom there is overwhelmingly male.
So I've noted over the years. However...
> Almost the reverse is true in North America. At least as many women are
> in fandom as men. In many areas of North American fandom, women
> predominate. Kevin Parker and I are comparative rarities: male fan
> fiction magazine editors. Most of the other editors I know of are
> women.
Indeed. In North America, at least in media fandom, there are many, many
women. Many mature women with lives, even, whose quirk consists of loving
something enough to be a fan and wanting to write for it and/or do zines
for it.
In my American experience, I saw many more women in fandom than men, at
least as far as zines went. At cons, there were plenty of guys. But it has
to be said, again, that there are loads of female zine writers/editors in
the US. At least in the fandoms I was concentrating on. And when I went
online, I found a lot more male fans than I'd seen before.
Now that I've been in B5 fandom, I can say I see loads of guys online and
some women, and quite a few female fans on the mailing lists.
It's probably dangerous to rely on statistics, and assume that one's
statistics are the same everywhere...
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: In my American experience, I saw many more women in fandom than men, at
: least as far as zines went. At cons, there were plenty of guys. But it has
: to be said, again, that there are loads of female zine writers/editors in
: the US. At least in the fandoms I was concentrating on. And when I went
: online, I found a lot more male fans than I'd seen before.
Speaking as a "media" fanfiction reader and writer since 1973? 1972?, I
will validate the observation that American fanfiction writers have been
predominately female all along - at least, as you observe, until the
online age.
--
Paul Gadzikowski, scar...@iglou.com
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman
"I am the terror that flaps in the night!
I am the Prozac to the manic-depression of evil!
I am Darkwing Duck!"
Rebecca K. Dowgiert
Ed Stradling (edstradling...@lineone.net) writes:
> Simple. I believe that many Dr Who fans have an unhealthy obsession
> with the show. When I start reading that fans cannot even engage their
> sex-drive without the bloody series coming into their heads, I rather
> think my point is proved.
Pardon, but who during this discussion said, either directly
or implicitly, that some fans were unable to get sexual without imagining
characters from Doctor Who in a sexual context...? (Besides you, that is...)
You seem to be implying, Ed, (correct me if I'm wrong), that enjoyment of
Doctor Who stories that include the Doctor and/or his companions being
sexual is tantamount to a Fetish...
In any case, a fetish, by definition, is an activity that *must* be engaged
in by a person in order for them to be sexually active... I very much doubt
that is the case for those of us who have read and enjoyed stories with EF
content...
Have your opinion regarding EF as ye wish; but don't Confuse Your
Definitions...
> If you want to read porn/eroticism, fine. I have no problem with that
> and if you see a good one, send me a copy! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BRING DR
> WHO INTO IT? This is what I am asking here.
Why not? Is Doctor Who any less worthy to be used as a springboard to
think/discuss stuff related to love, both 'sacred' and 'profane'...?
William December Starr
edstradling...@lineone.net (Ed Stradling) said:
> If you want to read porn/eroticism, fine. I have no problem with
> that and if you see a good one, send me a copy! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO
> BRING DR WHO INTO IT? This is what I am asking here.
Who's said that they *have* *to* bring Doctor Who into it, Ed?
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Jonathan Blum
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
[snip]
I think the thing that's being obscured in all these discussions is, these
erotic zines are _playful_. Some of the play is of the joking-around
kind, other bits of it are the one-handed variety. But either of these
approaches can be for fun.
The one thing I don't like is the sound of people ridiculing other people
because the way they play is too weird. That's the kind of stuff I got
faced with on the school playground any time I wanted to play something
related to Doctor Who.
Some of Ed's comments sound like he thinks that erotic fanfic writers
_have_ to get their kicks this way, that it's some kind of dark twisted
compulsion or a sign of an inability to have a real-world sex life (or
emotional life). Well, I don't want to send anyone's Information-O-Meter
into the "Too Much" zone, but a couple of my most satisfying relationships
have been with women known to have penned the occasional piece of erotic
fanfic. The occasional bit of fantasy can be an ingredient like any other
in a healthy love life -- a taste of something different, like whipped
cream or maraschino cherries or blindfolds or handcuffs. :-)
And given the choice between a 5,000-word erotic story involving Doctor
Who, and a "sensible" 5,000-word dissertation trying to nail down Doctor
Who canon, I know which one seems more twisted, obsessional, and scary to
me...
Regards,
Jon Blum
Kate Orman
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 May 1999 19:44:48 -0700, norv...@sirius.com wrote:
>
>>> "Warm Gallifreyan Nights" is, in my humble and biased opinion, an example of
>>> fanfic at its best - for adults only, of course.
>>
>>And only those adults who can handle reading it, I'd add. That is, those
>>adults who won't complain about it in public...
>
Or laugh about it in public. And sneer at those who create and enjoy it
because they're so sad and unhealthy and obsessed.
It should be pretty obvious by now, Ed, that you've insulted an awful lot
of people. :-) Maybe sexual "Doctor Who" fantasies aren't all that unusual
or abnormal after all... they're just another way that fans respond
creatively to the show, instead of just sitting there, passively consuming
it. Maybe it's all just good, not-so-clean fun. :-)
And I do think the stories and illustrations in WGN took just a bit more
creativity than it took for you to paste some naked ladies onto "Doctor
Who" book covers. :-)
--
Kate Blum Orman <kor...@zip.com.au> http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~korman/
"I have no idea what that meant." - Dot Warner
Trina L. Short
<desautelsm...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Mark Strickson? (Where do I sign up??)
Heh - good question. I just tend to gush about him on IRC. And write
copious amounts of Turlough fanfic. (I'll let people ponder for
themselves what sort of fanfic.)
Trina L. Short
<ac...@node14.unix.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>What I expect it does feature are stories whose characters were originally
>from the show, and whose plots involve sexual relations between said
>characters.
[snip rest of fine reply]
Ah, AC, you said just what I was thinking. Thank you. :)
Trina L. Short
>Trina L. Short (trin...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: Proud member of the SMCSB, PMEB, and MSEB. :)
>
>SMC is Syl McCoy...
SM is Sylvester McCoy. CS is Chocolate Sauce.
>PM is Paul McGann...
>but MS?
>
>let's see... WH, PT, JP, TB, PD, CB, SMC, PM... Ok, I give, who's MS?
Mark Strickson. The Turlough you didn't want to talk about. :)
Dangermouse
Ed Stradling (in work) <edstradlingSH...@lineone.net> wrote in
article <01bea147$cc8571c0$303263c3@default>...
> Dangermouse <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote
>
> > I wonder if what Si thinks is the point you're making, is actually the
> one
> > you think you're making. Somehow I'm inclined to doubt it. Somehow I'm
> > inclined to doubt you've *got* a point to make...
>
>
> Somehow I'm inclined to think you are as clueless as the next one.
Not according to Si's reply.
Susannah Tiller
>
> There's nothing really explicit in this posting, but we are discussing
> erotica and pornography, so you might like to skip this message if you're
> not comfy with those subjects. Ta!
Wot she said...
> In article <373d5d8c...@news.lineone.net>,
> Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Exactly. Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
> >What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
> >value.
>
> Is this because
>
> (a) Sex is ridiculous
> (b) Lustful women are ridiculous
> (c) "Doctor Who" is ridiculous
> (d) Nobs are ridiculous? :-)
For me, it's the combination of c) and d). I'm not disputing anyone
elses right to read and enjoy WGN, but after a bit of a trawl through
the archive's adult section, I've found that for the most park, erotic
Who fiction isn't for me...
> I might be reading too much in here, but it's interesting that Ed says WGN
> "scares" him. I recently had occasion to flip through an old issue of
> Penthouse Letters. The hundreds of ads for sex phone lines were almost
> identical - the ridiculous poses, the silly numbers (1-800-cum-with-me,
> 1-800-big-tits, that sort of thing).It was hard not to get the impression
> that the men reading the magazine - or at least the ones making the ads -
> were scared to death of sex and women, and were trying to regain control
> by making the whole thing a joke. Look at her contorting herself, exposing
> herself; she's a laugh, she's no big deal, you can do whatever you want to
> her.
I don't quite see how the depiction of pornography is necessarily linked
to fear/control of women... Especially since female dominant stuff seems
to be a reasonably common theme in some porn.
> (And of course, the male genitals never, never appear. They're not to be
> put on display for purchase, or made fun of.)
Well, no, not in Playboy or Penthouse. But read Cosmo or Cleo - I
remember reading an article in one a few years ago, where it challenged
readers to match eight patrially clad men to close-up photographs of
their genitals. If that's not making fun of them, or putting them on
display, or objectifying them, I don't know what is...
> Sexuality is a powerful and frightening force. If we're attracted to
> someone, they have a kind of power over us. We can cope with that power in
> a number of ways. We can laugh and sneer at it - which I think is what the
> Penthouse ads were trying to do. We can work through our feelings in
> stories and poetry. We can celebrate and enjoy our sexuality, perhaps by
> writing a naughty fantasy and sharing it with others.
What's the difference between penthouse's expression of sexuality, and
someone else? Maybe to them, porn is a celebration or a way to work
through their feelings. I think in erotica/porn/other naughty stuff it's
a very subjective decision as to what it's trying to say about sex and
sexuality.
> So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
> Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
> include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
<devils advocate>
Because they're sexualising a sexless character. Much an all as we've
debated about sex in Who, when it comes down to the bottom line, the
Doctor is essentially a sexless being. We haven't seen him express
romantic feelings in the same way as humans have (leaving aside for a
moment the TVM) and we haven't seen him show a romantic/sexual itnerest
in anyone (leaving aside Grace for a moment).
For me, one of the key features of the Doctor (something that crops up
again and again in my fanfic) is that he can't love. However I feel I've
debated that one to death, here, in RADWW and on Allen rd.
Being really devilishly advocatinng here, what's so different from
sexualising the Doctor, to sexualising something like... Humphrey B.
Bear, who's also sexless. (And for all your arguements about a sexual
subtext to Doctor Who, there's probably similar arguements to be said
aboutHumphrey B, Bear.)
</devils advocate>
Regards,
Susannah
YKINMK, but it's OK...
--
Susannah Tiller - susanna...@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5460/index.html
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right
to be taken seriously" - H. H. Humphrey
Kate Orman
In article <373fcd1...@news.lineone.net>,
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
>On 16 May 1999 23:32:15 GMT, kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman)
>wrote:
Ed:
>>>Exactly. Jokes about McGann with his nob out are perfectly acceptable.
>>>What scares me is that this woman is genuinely doing it for the porn
>>>value.
[...]
>>When Ed says "this woman", it suggests that he doesn't realise how
>>many women contributed to WGN - or how common erotic fan fiction is.
>
>No. You are right I had no idea that this was even remotely widespread
>and now that I know, the whole concept that we (and "Auton") have had
>about sad fans wanking over dr who episodes suddenly seems less funny.
>And more funny at the same time.
Well, at least now you know that you're making fun of people who really
exist! Don't be surprised if they have a few things to say about it. :-)
>>Naughty fan fiction has been around for years. It spans everything from
>>tongue-in-cheek stories of hanky-panky in the TARDIS to tales of ferocious
>>passion, smutty cartoons to sweet adolescent fantasies, hard-and-fast porn
>>to psychological dramas. (It's got far more variety than most commercial
>>porn!) WGN includes examples of most of these, from the light-hearted to
>>the deadly serious.
>
>Do you not think there is a disparity between someone using sex as a
>comedy subject and someone using it as an erotic subject. If you don't
>find sexual humour funny then fine. The fact is that most people do,
>certainly in this country. I happen not to read erotic stories, but I
>certainly do not disapprove of them. In fact if I happened across one
>on a website I probably would have a look, it's just that I haven't :)
Er... Ed, I just said that dirty fan fiction includes everything from
comedy to torrid drama. If you'd seen the feelthy cartoons we used in
"Stuck to the Floor" and "Bog Off!", you wouldn't be trying to suggest
that I don't enjoy sexual humour. :-)
Most people enjoy a witty, naughty joke. Many of us also enjoy a more
serious tale of romance or lusty goings-on. WGN has plenty of both. Why
are the former acceptable, but not the latter?
>What I think is really worrying is that fans feel the need to
>associate their sexual fantasies with Dr Who.
Why? What's wrong with finding the Eighth Doctor attractive? Or the Fifth
Doctor? Or the Fourth? Or Tegan? Or Romana?
[...]
>>So what's so "unacceptable" about writing an erotic "Doctor Who" story?
>>Why should it "scare" anyone that fangirls might take sex seriously, and
>>include it in their fiction? What's wrong with a healthy fantasy?
>Nothing whatsoever.
>
>But in my opinion, fantastsing about Dr WHo with his trousers down is
>an unhealthy one.
Why? And how far does this sickness extend - is it unhealthy to fantasise
about Riker? About James Bond? About Heathcliff?
--
Kate Orman
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 May 1999 04:46:39 -0400, Mariane Desautels
><desautelsm...@POLLUTIONvideotron.ca> wrote:
[...]
>>Why can't you see a fantasy about Dr Who as being healthy? Most
>>fantasies are dreams of things one can't have in every day life. What's
>>the problem if the object of the fantasy is fictional? Fantasies _are_
>>people's private little fictions. And, unless you seek them out, there's
>>nothing to stop you from enjoying Doctor Who without thinking about how
>>other fans enjoy it in the privacy of their own minds and zines.
>Okay. I have an idea. We get an identifiable sad nerdy fan (how about
>Azaxyr?) to go on the Jerry Springer show (or whatever) and say that
>he endulges in erotic fantasies about Dr Who shagging his female
>assistants in the TARDIS. Then record the audience's laughter.
There are, of course, fans who take "Doctor Who" far too seriously. The
sad obsessives who sent Steve Moffat hate email are obvious examples.
But to many people you're a sad, sick nerd if you take it seriously *at
all*. DW should *only* be made fun of. One newspaper article slagged off
fans for knowing the names of the actors who played the Doctor!
From what they write, it's obvious that many of the journos who put fans
down are *themselves* fans. They try to make themselves feel better by
sneering at fans who are more nerdy than they are! "I may know the titles
of all the Star Trek episodes, but at least I don't dress up in a
Starfleet uniform!"
What saddens me is that many fans do the same thing. They slag off the
show, and other fans, to show that *they* don't take it too seriously,
*they're* not a tragic loser.
That makes creative fans into targets for scorn. If a well-presented,
professional, married woman went on a chat show and talked about her
naughty fan fiction, she'd be laughed and jeered at just as hard as a
supernerd. If she talked about her non-sexual stories, she'd be laughed
at. If she talked about her oil paintings, she'd be laughed at. If she
talked about her costuming, she'd be laughed at. And some of the laughter
would be coming from fans.
It's possible to take "Doctor Who" seriously *and* have a sense of humour
and proportion. In fact, *almost all fans do this*. We can have a serious
debate about continuity or TV production, and turn around and have a good
laugh at a crap special effect. Writers of naughty fan fiction are no
different - that's just one particular creative outlet for our interest in
the show.
So the question here is: are you a sad nerd because you have erotic
"Doctor Who" fantasies? Or do you have erotic "Doctor Who" fantasies
because you're a sad nerd?
--
: Proud member of the SMCSB, PMEB, and MSEB. :)
SMC is Syl McCoy...
PM is Paul McGann...
but MS?
let's see... WH, PT, JP, TB, PD, CB, SMC, PM... Ok, I give, who's MS?
Shadows
--
When the Darkness is Unending, even Heroes are Afraid.
"Jamie, I'm being *stared* at. Is there something wrong with me?"
- The Doctor, 'Evil of the Daleks'
Kate Orman
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote:
[...]
>Yeah, Lori, you see average men and women in the street fantasising
>about Dr WHo's sex life all the time!
Yeah, I'm sure no dads ever entertained a fantasy about Leela, and no mums
ever fancied Tom Baker or Peter Davison. Normal people don't have
unhealthy thoughts like that. :-)
Alden Bates
decline of our society by typing:
>Lori Grenci wrote:
>
>> WGN[...] is literature; it is art;
>
>Nah, it's pornography.
Pornography can't be art?
My Oxford English Dictionary lists the definition of pornography as
"The explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity in
literature, films, etc., intended to stimulate erotic rather than
aesthetic or emotional feelings." (lust isn't an emotion? Since when?
;-)
So technically WGN is literature and art which contains pornography.
Just thought I'd make that clear.
Alden. (Who would love to be able to draw as beautifully as the WGN
artists.)
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>Ed Stradling (edstradling...@lineone.net) wrote:
>: On Mon, 17 May 1999 13:00:18 GMT, Lori Grenci <lorig...@aol.com>
>: wrote:
>: >Ed, I don't want to appear self-serving by contributing to this thread,
>: >but you went a bit too far in calling fantasy "unhealthy". I think you
>: >need to wake up, look around, and get a good dose of reality.
>
>: Yeah, Lori, you see average men and women in the street fantasising
>: about Dr WHo's sex life all the time!
>
>See, now. This is trolling, to me, even though I'm reasonably certain that
>it's sloppiness rather than maliciousness. Your comment here to Lori
>DOESN'T ADDRESS THE POINT SHE WAS MAKING.
Okay, you want me to troll?
1) Nobody on this thread apart from Si Jerram has the vaguest notion
of the point I am making, probably because Dr Who takes up so much of
their lives that they've forgotten what happens when you leave the
house.
2) Lori says "you need to get a good dose of reality" to someone who
has merely voiced his veiw that getting the horn while reading Dr Who
porn stories is, to say the least, odd. Who needs a dose of reality
here? If I went through, say, my office, this morning and asked 70
normal human beings what they thought of Dr Who fans who get off on
porn adventures in which Dr WHo gets his nob out and shags his
assistant I can assure you that (a) they wouldn't believe me and (b)
if they did, the comments would relate to straight jackets being
required for the people in question. So I thinik it's quite amusing
being lectured about the real world by someone who doesn't live in it.
>She was not speaking of DOCTOR
>WHO-specific sexual fantasy in her comment but sexual fantasy in general.
>She did not state nor imply that average men and women in the street
>fantasize about Dr. Who's sex life all the time or at all. She doesn't
>reference the specifics of anyone's sexual fantasies. She took you to task
>for presuming to judge someone else's sexual fantasy "unhealthy". How do
>you respond to that?
Simple. I believe that many Dr Who fans have an unhealthy obsession
with the show. When I start reading that fans cannot even engage their
sex-drive without the bloody series coming into their heads, I rather
think my point is proved.
You really do not understand how funny I find all this. When Darren &
myself do all that stuff about sad fans wanking over their Time & the
Rani video, we do it becaue it is an amusing fantasy extension (or so
we thought) of the existing nerd-fan behaviour i.e. being so obsessed
that the only way he (okay, or she) can induce sexual arousal is by
watching a Dr Who episode. I never, in a million years, dreamt that
anything like this actually happened. It's made my week!
If you want to read porn/eroticism, fine. I have no problem with that
and if you see a good one, send me a copy! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BRING DR
WHO INTO IT? This is what I am asking here.
--
Shaven Stunners! online:
http://website.lineone.net/~edstradling/
Ed Stradling
>> "Warm Gallifreyan Nights" is, in my humble and biased opinion, an example of
>> fanfic at its best - for adults only, of course.
>
>And only those adults who can handle reading it, I'd add. That is, those
>adults who won't complain about it in public...
Or laugh about it in private :)
Alden Bates
moral decline of our society by typing:
>If you want to read porn/eroticism, fine. I have no problem with that
>and if you see a good one, send me a copy! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BRING DR
>WHO INTO IT? This is what I am asking here.
Why not? :-) I mean, those Daleks have other arm attachments other
than the sucker arms, don't they? ;-)
FWIW, no one is saying they _have_ to bring Doctor Who into it, just
that it's fun to do so because of the scope of the stories that can be
written.
Alden.
Dangermouse
Ed Stradling <edstradling...@lineone.net> wrote
> 2) Lori says "you need to get a good dose of reality" to someone who
> has merely voiced his veiw that getting the horn while reading Dr Who
> porn stories is, to say the least, odd.
So what sort of porn don't you find odd?
It's all much the same anyway, so does this mean if you do a global WP
find/replace on "Doctor" and "Leela" with "Joe" and "Tammy" that it
suddenly becomes un-odd?
Or that by doing the reverse makes it odd?
What the fuck is the difference?
> 1) Nobody on this thread apart from Si Jerram has the vaguest notion
> of the point I am making,
I wonder if what Si thinks is the point you're making, is actually the one
you think you're making. Somehow I'm inclined to doubt it. Somehow I'm
inclined to doubt you've *got* a point to make...
--
Ed Stradling (in work)
> I wonder if what Si thinks is the point you're making, is actually the
one
> you think you're making. Somehow I'm inclined to doubt it. Somehow I'm
> inclined to doubt you've *got* a point to make...
James Bow
> : fandom are a minority. Sad males are a majority. Otherwise, there
> : would be no mileage in taking the piss out of them.
>
> Say what? I think it's about 50/50 female/male on this NG for the
> regulars. And not all males are 'sad' (re: our discussion on nerds).
> Most are happily married, if this NG is anything to go by.
The demographics Ed is talking about are true... for the UK. In the UK,
it appears as though fandom there is overwhelmingly male.
Almost the reverse is true in North America. At least as many women are
in fandom as men. In many areas of North American fandom, women
predominate. Kevin Parker and I are comparative rarities: male fan
fiction magazine editors. Most of the other editors I know of are
women.
Best,
James
--
========================================================/===============
James Bow at Mortice Kern Systems _________.--/.__ _ _ _
185 Columbia Street West Æ T T T T T T T T' ` ` `
Waterloo, ON CANADA N2L 5Z5 =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
phone: (519)883-3214 mailto:jb...@mks.com L/O=O\_____/O=O\_' ' ' '
======== http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5301/ ========
Mariane Desautels
> -- wrote:
> > Ed Stradling (edstradling...@lineone.net) wrote:
> > : Potentially, but I wouldn't find it so funny, because females in
> > : fandom are a minority. Sad males are a majority. Otherwise, there
> > : would be no mileage in taking the piss out of them.
> >
> > Say what? I think it's about 50/50 female/male on this NG for the
> > regulars. And not all males are 'sad' (re: our discussion on nerds).
> > Most are happily married, if this NG is anything to go by.
>
> The demographics Ed is talking about are true... for the UK. In the UK,
> it appears as though fandom there is overwhelmingly male.
>
> Almost the reverse is true in North America. At least as many women are
> in fandom as men. In many areas of North American fandom, women
> predominate. Kevin Parker and I are comparative rarities: male fan
> fiction magazine editors. Most of the other editors I know of are
> women.
But *this* is an international newsgroup.
M
--
And may I remind you that taking over the universe is against the Motel
regulations and local West Midlands by-laws.
Stuart Smith
>From what they write, it's obvious that many of the journos who put fans
>down are *themselves* fans. They try to make themselves feel better by
>sneering at fans who are more nerdy than they are! "I may know the titles
>of all the Star Trek episodes, but at least I don't dress up in a
>Starfleet uniform!"
It's an attitude prevelant in SFX and occassionally in some recent articles
in DWM. Just who is this type of fan trying to impress? Perhaps they should
take their "Well I'm only a bit of a fan and I only watch for a bit of a
ironic, so-bad-it's-good laugh, not like those sad gits over there" to a
group of 'Loaded' types, and see if they're impressed.
Regards,
Stuart.
"I've got a small boat down in the harbour and
I'm going to make a tour of the rivers of France"
Now playing: Dawn of the Replicants
Dangermouse
Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote
> And given the choice between a 5,000-word erotic story involving Doctor
> Who, and a "sensible" 5,000-word dissertation trying to nail down Doctor
> Who canon, I know which one seems more twisted, obsessional, and scary to
> me...
I'd be throwing them both out the window and reading the 5000 word Seven Of
Nine and Jadzia Dax crossover...
(And I'm sure there's at least one somewhere)
--
"This path has been placed before you; the choice to take it is yours
alone"
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/4845/
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Bistro/7312/
-------
Random Companion
> Jonathan Blum <jb...@zipper.zip.com.au> wrote
> > And given the choice between a 5,000-word erotic story involving Doctor
> > Who, and a "sensible" 5,000-word dissertation trying to nail down Doctor
> > Who canon, I know which one seems more twisted, obsessional, and scary to
> > me...
>
> I'd be throwing them both out the window and reading the 5000 word Seven Of
> Nine and Jadzia Dax crossover...
>
> (And I'm sure there's at least one somewhere)
I suppose I might as well chuck in a plug for the adult section of the
archive here. You'll need to email me for the password, but it's at
www.panatropic.net/archive/adult/adult.html
--
Random_C
www.panatropic.net
www.espace.demon.co.uk - Yak Butter Sandwich revamped.
Mariane Desautels
> I suppose I might as well chuck in a plug for the adult section of the
> archive here. You'll need to email me for the password, but it's at
> www.panatropic.net/archive/adult/adult.html
I plugged it too, but earlier. :-)
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>
>It should be pretty obvious by now, Ed, that you've insulted an awful lot
>of people. :-)
Well, about four, yes.
>Maybe sexual "Doctor Who" fantasies aren't all that unusual
>or abnormal after all...
In the female fan population of the USA, it would appear not, I agree.
>they're just another way that fans respond
>creatively to the show, instead of just sitting there, passively consuming
>it. Maybe it's all just good, not-so-clean fun. :-)
>
>And I do think the stories and illustrations in WGN took just a bit more
>creativity than it took for you to paste some naked ladies onto "Doctor
>Who" book covers. :-)
Well I've not seen them but I'm sure that's true. The Porno Adventures
seem to have gone down pretty well though, I must say :)
But that's because people find them funny, not erotic (he says, with a
confidence which erodes further and further with each post he reads in
this thread).
Helen Fayle
Jonathan Blum wrote: And given the choice between a 5,000-word erotic story
involving Doctor
> Who, and a "sensible" 5,000-word dissertation trying to nail down Doctor
> Who canon, I know which one seems more twisted, obsessional, and scary to
> me...
The man has a serious point here... ;-)
but doesn't everyone think that maybe we're going a *little* overboard in this
thread - it's taken over adwc - at least on my server! Come on chaps, let's
lay it to rest for a bit? I wanna read some *stories*...
Mariane Desautels
Well, we could just trim the follow-ups, since this is a bit more about
fandom than about the stories themselves. Some contributors have already
started doing this.
Ben Woodhams
[snip]
> Well, I don't want to send anyone's Information-O-Meter
> into the "Too Much" zone, but a couple of my most satisfying relationships
> have been with women known to have penned the occasional piece of erotic
> fanfic.
"Whip me with your scarf, Erato-boy!"
"Would you like a jelly baby?"
"Oh, yes! Give it to me!"
"Where d'you want it?"
"Take me K9-style!"
Nope, you were right. Too much information.
>The occasional bit of fantasy can be an ingredient like any other
> in a healthy love life -- a taste of something different, like whipped
> cream or maraschino cherries or blindfolds or handcuffs. :-)
Oh, *absolutely*! But....'Doctor Who'?
ben 'still laughing' w.
--
"I know only that I exist - everything else is just my opinion."
Helen Fayle
~~~
"Are you SURE this is a good idea?" Kim asked as they stood outside This Time
Round. Her companion was looking around with his trademark slight smile, for
once visible as he'd trimmed his beard down to a neat van Dyke style. His
light green eyes were almost sparkiling with anticipation.
"We're allowed in, it says so: appeared in at least one none TTR related
story. Which we HAVE." He ran his fingers through his shoulder length red hair
to neaten it a little.
Kim still looked doubtful. Taliesin sighed heavily and placed an arm around
her shoulders. "We'll be fine. Trust me."
"That's what you told Sarah."
"Yes. Well." He coughed. "Shall we?" Bracing themselves,they walked in.
This Time Round was full to capacity. Kim looked over at the bar, currently 4
deep, and decided that a lemonade could wait. Taliesin spotted a familiar
face, and with a flourish of his long black coat, was cutting through the
crowd, soon in animated conversation with another red haired chap, this one
dressed in a tatty looking afgan coat. Suddenly feeling a bit left out, Kim
stood near the door, looking around a little nervously.
"Kim! You made it!"
Kim turned, and was promptly hugged by Maguire. "Oof. Oxygen!"
"Sorry."
"Why the crowd - you said it wasn't always that busy?"
Maguire pulled a face. "Yeah, well. the writers are *otherwise engaged*" she
replied sourly. "Over a week now, and they're still at it."
"At what?"
Maguire led her over to a table. "God knows. But apart from the odd repeat and
a couple of other bits and pieces, it's pretty dead over there."
"It's all about sex." Adric flopped into a spare chair next to them. He
grinned at Kim. "Hi, you're new!"
Maguire looked at him nervously. "Erm, you're not due to get shot at just yet
are you?"
"Nah. She's done for the evening."
Maguire breathed a sigh of relief and took her hand off her gun. "OK, so what
gives? What ARE the writers up to?"
"Talking about sex."
"So what else is new?"
"They're getting all steamed up about it."
Kim was puzzled. "I thought THAT was the whole point?" Maguire sniggered.
Adric shrugged. "Not THAT kind of talking, silly. They're arguing over porn
stories." He sighed heavily. "I wish they'd just WRITE them. I want that Mrs
McHugh to do one for me and Nyssa. All I ever get are Brad and Doug, and they
just keep getting me killed."
"You're not man enough for a McHugh." Maguire grinned at Kim and winked. A
young red haired man dressed as a British public schoolboy ruffled Adric's
hair as he walked by.
"Isn't that the truth!" He waved a copy of "Warm Gallifreyan Nights" under
Adrics' nose. "Adults only, kid!" He walked off whistling.
Adric muttered something under his breath and stormed off.
"But MY writer isn't in that thread. Nor yours." Kim said.
"Mine's trying to get some kip, poor thing. So I don't mind knocking around in
here for a bit. But some of the others - well..."
Over near the bar, a group of people were arguing vociferously, led by a
petite little girl in a slip, and a skinny redhead with a mass of long curls.
The third Doctor and Jo seemed to be trying to calm things down, and not
succeeding. The vibes Kim was geting from the group made Kim shiver.
"That's Nyssa isn't it? Why's she getting worked up - her writers are on the
ball!"
"*PSYCHO* Nyssa. There's a fight in the offing, of course she'll be in the
middle of it."
"Ah."
Without warning, silence fell over the interior of This Time Round. Adric
sighed and fetched a broom. Everyone else just stood or sat, staring at the
figure who'd just walked in the door - a tall blond man clutching a carrier
bag in one hand and a small pamphlet in the other.
"Oh shit - who let him in here? He's not supposed..." Maguire grabbed Kim and
pulled her under the table.
"Stay down." She whispered.
"He's carrying copies of Shaven Stunners!" Someone called out.
There was a deathly silence. Then all hell broke loose:
"That's him!"
"Get him! It's all his fault!"
"DIE!!!!"
"Jesus, who let Dodo out?" Maguire asked quietly. "That poor bastard." She
winced, hearing Adric's familiar scream begin and cut off suddenly. "Ooh, you
opportunist, Nys," she muttered.
It was quite some time before they dared to come out...
Helen Fayle
norv...@sirius.com wrote:
But he's Scottish. Some of us keep that odd quote in mind, "If it's not Scottish,
it's crap." It's not even logical, but there you go. Scotsmen,
> yum...
I've always had a thing for Welshmen, meself... ;-) Richard Burton, Tim Dalton for
two... <g>
Dangermouse
Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote in article
<374296F4...@innotts.co.uk>...
>
>
> norv...@sirius.com wrote:
>
> But he's Scottish. Some of us keep that odd quote in mind, "If it's not
Scottish,
> it's crap." It's not even logical, but there you go. Scotsmen,
Aye!
Random Companion
> Random Companion wrote:
> > I suppose I might as well chuck in a plug for the adult section of the
> > archive here. You'll need to email me for the password, but it's at
> > www.panatropic.net/archive/adult/adult.html
>
> I plugged it too, but earlier. :-)
>
You did? Oh good.
/me pins a badge on Mariane with "Marketing" written on it.
--
Commando in Apron
Steven Bagley
> Well I've not seen them but I'm sure that's true. The Porno Adventures
> seem to have gone down pretty well though, I must say :)
>
> But that's because people find them funny, not erotic (he says, with a
> confidence which erodes further and further with each post he reads in
> this thread).
I found them amusing, but the Jon Pertwee football thing was funnier :)
See you earlier,
Steven
email: sba...@innotts.co.uk email: srb...@cs.nott.ac.uk
WWW: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~srb97c/ IRC: _SteveB_
Greendale Author - STiK Developer - IRC layabout - Computer Science student
-* Atari 4160STe - 365Mb Hd - MagiC 5.11 - NVDI 4.11 - STiK 2à *-
..."These shoes, they fit perfectly" - The Eigth Doctor.
PAUL GADZIKOWSKI
: On 18 May 1999 23:29:07 GMT, kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman)
: wrote:
: >It should be pretty obvious by now, Ed, that you've insulted an awful lot
: >of people. :-)
: Well, about four, yes.
Well, let's see. Here's a list of the people, Ed, who have responded with
opposition to your opinion or to the manner in which you presented it, or
who have merely supported the notion of erotic DOCTOR WHO fanfiction or
sexual DOCTOR WHO fantasies, just on the posts that have been crossposted
to adwc (where I read the thread):
Lori
Mariane
Jon
Alden
Kate
shadows
Chris A
Becky D
Becky B
Trina
A.C.
norville
James B
Chris R
William December
DangerMouse
and me
...which is to say, every person who's appeared on the thread on adwc at
all besides you except one (Stuart, who was only making a quotefile
nomination).
This is the sort of lack of thought and observation going into your posts
that make you a troll whether you mean to be or not. And I've about
abandoned my initial belief that you don't mean to be.
--
http://members.iglou.com/scarfman - DOCTOR WHO, STAR
Paul Gadzikowski TREK, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and M*A*S*H - Bedivere's
Round Table - Cartoons - Archy the Cockroach
scar...@iglou.com NEW 5/14/99: ANGELS AND ACES 2/3 (WHO/BUFFY)
FEATURED: TRANSFORMATIONS 2/4 Saavik regenerates
norv...@sirius.com
GADZIKOWSKI) wrote:
>Ed Stradling (edstradling...@lineone.net) wrote:
>>On 18 May 1999 23:29:07 GMT, kor...@zipper.zip.com.au (Kate Orman)
>>wrote:
>>>It should be pretty obvious by now, Ed, that you've insulted an awful lot
>>>of people. :-)
>>
>>Well, about four, yes.
Well, the membership of PMEB is more than 4 people, so I'd say you annoyed
more than you think... sorry, old chap, but your math stinks.
>Well, let's see. Here's a list of the people, Ed, [...]
Eh, we're all weird, anyway, so what does a list of names mean.
>This is the sort of lack of thought and observation going into your posts
>that make you a troll whether you mean to be or not. And I've about
>abandoned my initial belief that you don't mean to be.
Oh, he's a troll. He's not attempting to be anything else.
R.J. Smith
Rebecca J. Bohner <rebe...@pobox.com> wrote:
>And what gets me with Davison are not obvious things like him taking off his
>shirt (not that he ever did, or that I would really have been that thrilled
>if he had, but I'm trying to find a comparison for something like Leela's
>usual outfit or Nyssa's infamous scene in "Terminus"). It's little things
>like the really decent haircut he's (finally) got in "The Awakening", the
>half-moon glasses in "Frontios" and the shirt-and-suspenders look (with
>sleeves rolled up) in "Planet of Fire".
[snip]
>All this is not to say that I want to write or read erotic fiction about the
>Fifth Doctor
I think it's a bit late for that, now that you've just put the fifth
Doctor in suspenders! :-)
- Robert Smith?
Mariane Desautels
>
> (Sorry chaps, Couldn't resist...)
Glad you didn't. Fun story.
Ed Stradling
wrote:
>So the question here is: are you a sad nerd because you have erotic
>"Doctor Who" fantasies? Or do you have erotic "Doctor Who" fantasies
>because you're a sad nerd?
Although I disagree with most of what you wrote in that post, the
"chicken or the egg" question is one I often wonder when I think about
fans. I shan't go into it in detail because we are already getting
back into the territory of a long thread we had a month or so about
nerdiness. Suffice to say it is not your love of the programme that
makes you a nerd.
Ed Stradling
wrote:
In my favour, I should point out. Moreover, while many of the above
have disagreed with me, only a few seem to have taken offence.
Primarily the writers of the material. There is a difference. And I
reiterate that it wasn't me who started the flames here.