![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dragonlady7via http://ift.tt/2bUFFHM:
marrecarandgi:
kylostahp:
verybadhedgehog:
and-then-bam-cassiopeia:
seankayos:
forcealchemist:
An excerpt I just read in Aftermath: Life Debt that might be of interest to Jynnic fans. (Or Kylux.)
The Empire cared little about any sexual or romantic entanglements, provided they didn’t have to see it. No matter what your peccadilloes, the manual of decorum made it clear that you kept all of that behind closed doors. (Especially if it violated any of the Empire’s family initiatives – they wanted breeders above all else.) … affection was a weakness. Relationships were a rope to tie around your throat – a rope all too easy to tug and choke. First thing he did when investigating one of his own for disloyalty was find out whom they were bedding. It was always a vital weak spot… Knowing who loved whom was a path to exploitation and control.
Who, in the name of all the fucking gods and stars, uses the fucking word “peccadilloes”!? We have the word proclivity, or orientation, or literally any other way of saying “Look, its Don’t Ask Don’t Tell but in Space this time” that doesn’t imply its somehow a fucking crime to love in the Empire
BUT IT IS OFC IT’S A CRIME THEY’RE BAD INSIDE HOW COULD THEY LOVE that’s a Good Guys thing, that’s such a clever way to show who’s bad and who’s good SO FUCKING SUBTLE, so enlightened, so progressive.
I think the problem, such that it exists, is not that it’s about “wuuurgh look at the cartoon villain empire where it is literally a crime to love". Because it isn’t – it’s about a controlling organisation using people’s attachments as a means of control, and the people within that organisation evolving a means of defence around that.
If I were in a position of authority, and I wished to exercise coercive control over the people under me, and I had no scruples, damn right I would want to know if they were in a relationship. I would want to know if I could threaten harm to their significant other (whatever the sex and gender configuration of the relationship) as a means of controlling them. I would want to know if this was a relationship I could seek to manipulate – push you closer together or pull you apart. This happens in real life - the secret police in totalitarian states always want to know who’s doing who because it’s another factor they can use to control people.
Keeping things hush hush is a reasonable defence around that – and this takes us to where I find a slight internal inconsistency with the quoted text, and a potential way of working it through and making a more consistent framework through which to view it. The quoted text starts with “the Empire cared little about any sexual or romantic entanglements” and then goes on to explain that attachments could be used as a means of control. Which would indicate that the Imperial Security Bureau did care about sexual and romantic entanglements, if only as potential tools for control.
I can see the de facto habit becoming “keep things on the down low because you don’t want to give the spooks any ammunition to use against us” and that turning into “nice Imperials keep things behind closed doors” and maybe maybe that turning into “if you successfully keep your relationship hidden and certainly downplay the romantic attachment as much as possible, you are a good clever Imperial who knows what’s what” and I suppose at the end of the day it’s a case of being able to do anything so long as the wrong people don’t find out. Which it always is, everywhere, under all systems.
Some relationships have to be sanctioned if the organisation needs future generations. A nice wife or husband (who hopefully doesn’t have any black marks on their security record) and a clutch of children is OK and the bureaucracy can deal with that (but they still like to know who your husband hangs out with in case any of those might be undesirables or potential trouble sources or possible sources of blackmail)
I think, then, it’s fair to say that once you have that condition you do end up slightly tying yourself in knots if you want to also maintain that the organisation is not particularly homophobic (as it seems the text does), as it does end up de facto institutionally homophobic unless you make explicit proviso for IVF, surrogates, etc for same sex couples who wish to raise children for the Empire. Otherwise, merely saying that many opposite sex love affairs also fall foul of the narrow “cold domesticity and much breeding” model seems like weak sauce. It isn’t about orientation, but once you throw state-encouraged breeding into the mix, it kind of does end up that way.
And it’s also okay to COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORE this bullshit, as I will be, because there is literally no place for homophobia in Star Wars and the idea of a family initiative privileging couples able to reproduce in what we consider a “traditional” and low-tech manner is ridiculous in a setting where medical technology is on the level of fucking MAGIC and you once produced an entire army of human beings via genetic manipulation and GROWTH ACCELERATION like it was no big thing.
I am of the opinion that we need to stop tolerating real-world bigotry as a lazy shorthand for “hey look these folks are the bad guys” in fantasy settings where there’s no cultural basis for it. Quit exploiting real people’s pain because you’re lazy writers, asshats.
If I ever needed a reminder why I follow @kylostahp that was it.
marrecarandgi:
kylostahp:
verybadhedgehog:
and-then-bam-cassiopeia:
seankayos:
forcealchemist:
An excerpt I just read in Aftermath: Life Debt that might be of interest to Jynnic fans. (Or Kylux.)
The Empire cared little about any sexual or romantic entanglements, provided they didn’t have to see it. No matter what your peccadilloes, the manual of decorum made it clear that you kept all of that behind closed doors. (Especially if it violated any of the Empire’s family initiatives – they wanted breeders above all else.) … affection was a weakness. Relationships were a rope to tie around your throat – a rope all too easy to tug and choke. First thing he did when investigating one of his own for disloyalty was find out whom they were bedding. It was always a vital weak spot… Knowing who loved whom was a path to exploitation and control.
Who, in the name of all the fucking gods and stars, uses the fucking word “peccadilloes”!? We have the word proclivity, or orientation, or literally any other way of saying “Look, its Don’t Ask Don’t Tell but in Space this time” that doesn’t imply its somehow a fucking crime to love in the Empire
BUT IT IS OFC IT’S A CRIME THEY’RE BAD INSIDE HOW COULD THEY LOVE that’s a Good Guys thing, that’s such a clever way to show who’s bad and who’s good SO FUCKING SUBTLE, so enlightened, so progressive.
I think the problem, such that it exists, is not that it’s about “wuuurgh look at the cartoon villain empire where it is literally a crime to love". Because it isn’t – it’s about a controlling organisation using people’s attachments as a means of control, and the people within that organisation evolving a means of defence around that.
If I were in a position of authority, and I wished to exercise coercive control over the people under me, and I had no scruples, damn right I would want to know if they were in a relationship. I would want to know if I could threaten harm to their significant other (whatever the sex and gender configuration of the relationship) as a means of controlling them. I would want to know if this was a relationship I could seek to manipulate – push you closer together or pull you apart. This happens in real life - the secret police in totalitarian states always want to know who’s doing who because it’s another factor they can use to control people.
Keeping things hush hush is a reasonable defence around that – and this takes us to where I find a slight internal inconsistency with the quoted text, and a potential way of working it through and making a more consistent framework through which to view it. The quoted text starts with “the Empire cared little about any sexual or romantic entanglements” and then goes on to explain that attachments could be used as a means of control. Which would indicate that the Imperial Security Bureau did care about sexual and romantic entanglements, if only as potential tools for control.
I can see the de facto habit becoming “keep things on the down low because you don’t want to give the spooks any ammunition to use against us” and that turning into “nice Imperials keep things behind closed doors” and maybe maybe that turning into “if you successfully keep your relationship hidden and certainly downplay the romantic attachment as much as possible, you are a good clever Imperial who knows what’s what” and I suppose at the end of the day it’s a case of being able to do anything so long as the wrong people don’t find out. Which it always is, everywhere, under all systems.
Some relationships have to be sanctioned if the organisation needs future generations. A nice wife or husband (who hopefully doesn’t have any black marks on their security record) and a clutch of children is OK and the bureaucracy can deal with that (but they still like to know who your husband hangs out with in case any of those might be undesirables or potential trouble sources or possible sources of blackmail)
I think, then, it’s fair to say that once you have that condition you do end up slightly tying yourself in knots if you want to also maintain that the organisation is not particularly homophobic (as it seems the text does), as it does end up de facto institutionally homophobic unless you make explicit proviso for IVF, surrogates, etc for same sex couples who wish to raise children for the Empire. Otherwise, merely saying that many opposite sex love affairs also fall foul of the narrow “cold domesticity and much breeding” model seems like weak sauce. It isn’t about orientation, but once you throw state-encouraged breeding into the mix, it kind of does end up that way.
And it’s also okay to COMPLETELY FUCKING IGNORE this bullshit, as I will be, because there is literally no place for homophobia in Star Wars and the idea of a family initiative privileging couples able to reproduce in what we consider a “traditional” and low-tech manner is ridiculous in a setting where medical technology is on the level of fucking MAGIC and you once produced an entire army of human beings via genetic manipulation and GROWTH ACCELERATION like it was no big thing.
I am of the opinion that we need to stop tolerating real-world bigotry as a lazy shorthand for “hey look these folks are the bad guys” in fantasy settings where there’s no cultural basis for it. Quit exploiting real people’s pain because you’re lazy writers, asshats.
If I ever needed a reminder why I follow @kylostahp that was it.
