Mpreg

[wildestranger]

So. Mpreg. Do you love it? Hate it? Can't be bothered to think about it?

I find myself curious about the phenomenon of mpreg in fandom. Some people seem to hate it with an unholy passion. Some perceive it as OMG the cutest thing eva. A plot device, a source of crackfic, an embodiment of patriarchal control system, an embodiment of feminist subversion, mostly an embodiment of bad writing?

I want to know what you think about mpreg, and most importantly, why. If you dislike it, what do you dislike about it? If you enjoy it, what do you think is good/interesting/sexy about it?

Is it the association with bad writing, silly teenagers who cannot imagine romance without babies and marriage? I used to be wary of such things until I read eutychides's Things That Change (which is not only a devastatingly well written mpreg, but a fic so moving and memorable that after finishing reading it at three in the morning, I had to go back the next day and reread the whole thing).

Also, if I were to write an mpreg fic, would you read it? That said, I am writing one so you shall be put to the test in a few weeks. ;)

Comments

Wandering around LJ

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

With nothing to add about mpreg (I asked a similar question at my own LJ a while back)) and with apologies for the brief OT interjection, your post made me wonder.

the more 'masculine' the behaviour of a man becomes, the more he is transported into the feminine, the dimension of parade or, to use an old-fashioned term, seeming. The more a man today tries to behave like a real man, the more false and affected his actions appear.

So this author alleges that women's behavior is false and affected? That must be an interesting "look" into the female psyche.

(Here via Daily Snitch, btw)

Re: Wandering around LJ

[auctasinistra.livejournal.com]

And since in many societies, social recognition of female sexuality hinges on behavioural affectations, I think Leader was right. Hyper-masculine affectation does veer into the feminine.


Hm. I'm no expert, and I wouldn't put words in the author's mouth (or in yours!), as I realize this is out of context and all, but still ... social recognition of female and male sexuality hinges on visible behavior, doesn't it? The passage makes it sound to me as if women are about affectation where men are about substance.
Ack ... I shouldn't even be discussing this. I expect it's doing a disservice to the author (and to you as a reader), since I'm only seeing little excerpts and I shouldn't draw conclusions from them. My apologies for bringing it up in a forum that's not really suitable for an in-depth discussion. :)