One Direction - is this a legit new threat wrt to a new boy band invasion? y/n

I disbelieve that erin pic.

I can't believe you're doubting the veracity of trusted source TotallyLooksLike.com, but in the interests of science here's another one (I can't believe I'm googling pics of Erin Moran at work):

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/942/HD83.jpg

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha omg

What I mean is: I remember the intro pics of "Happy Days" as being a bit like that pic, but not that pic.

She does look 'a bit' like him, but I suspect some shopping, a bit like that Dawkins/Watson thing.

if anything, I think the Harry pic has been shopped as I find it amazing to think that a human being actually is capable of making that face

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/ultimateclassicrock.com/files/2012/12/Jimi-Hendrix-People-Hell-Angels.jpghttp://media.social.s-msn.com/images/blogs/001d0071-0000-0000-0000-000000000000_5c75745a-32be-4e03-8e21-7367c8b575c9_20120220031909_harrystyles.jpg

Just... no.

If you crossed Harry with Mick Hucknall you'd get the guy from Toploader.

*ponders googling "Harry Styles Muick Hucknall slashfic", declines*

ugh...
Hucknall clearly has a huge boner for them...
One Direction May Be The Next Beatles: Mick Hucknall Says.
“I rather like One Direction, I think they’re good. People can be snobby and say they don’t write their own songs, but it’s the pop industry.”
He added: “When the Beatles first started they were a boyband and then, through their writing, they merged into something else. So who knows what’s going to happen for One Direction.”

Mick sighed with relief as he put down the phone. He was beginning to think the journalist would never stop asking him questions.

Suddenly he felt the touch of soft fingers on the back of his neck, running slowly upwards to bury themselves in his flaming red locks.

"So, you 'rather like' One Direction, eh?" laughed Harry, his eyes shining with playful intent in the soft candlelight which lit the silk-draped room. "Oh, if only they knew. If only they knew..."

Then they fucked etc.

No.

If ILX turns into alt.sex.simplyred.stories I will be ducking out before the donation drive.

How about alt.sex.onedirection.stories?

Now you're talking.

Maybe we could entirely avoid the need for a donation drive if we all chip in some 1D slash and hope for a 50 Shades-style publishing phenomenon.

For a title I suggest '50 Shades of Zayn'.

Depending on the levels of BDSM content in the stories, '50 Shades of Payne' could also work.

Then they fucked etc.

amazing

holding back the tears

hold him by the ears more like

http://www.rathergood.com/holding

Internet nostalgia...
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar

Fuck this thread and all who slashed in it.

http://p.twimg.com/Av6ElWICIAEy0jx.jpg:large

Why would you even want to have this thread w/o slash?

good point.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/loudwire.com/files/2012/04/slash.jpg

awwowoowoh sweet harry of mine

I'm calling it now that Slash will perform at an awards show with 1D within the next 365.

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/one-direction-fans-gq-outrage-is-valid/

Can we have some guidelines on when bomb threats are bad and when they're an "absolutely valid response"?

The double standards in that piece, especially paragraph four, are nauseating. Imagine applying the "naturally hyperbolic" "absolutely valid" response to any other kind of online abuse.

uh it was GQ magazine who started the abuse. the reactions are pure self-defence

gtfo. The abuse started when the cover appeared online with the Get Lucky reference, before the feature was even available to read. And please tell me any other circumstances where you'd consider a bomb threat - however daft and obviously not to be taken seriously - would be a valid response to a magazine article.

natural hyperbole? i've certainly ranted about how things should be bombed or otherwise destroyed before.

And if you tweeted one of those rants directly to somebody then what? Why should yours be treated differently to one coming from a troll?

eh, when the abuse started 1D fans were already circulating the image of the bit where harry styles is badgered about the number of people he's slept with - it wasn't the cover on its own that was the problem.

i.e. someone'd been in a situation where they could photograph that part of the printed interview, and it spread. (you can see this actually from Aja Romano's stuff on the daily dot: she wrote a previous piece that was more about the fan desire to defend harry styles from being made uncomfortable about his sexuality)

if the GQ writer tweeted his descriptions of 1D fans directly to them, i dare say he'd be seen as a particularly creepy and misogynistic troll

xp to self
bcz among teenage girls who love harry styles there is a tendency to kind of... associate him with themselves? the early reactions are v much of the type 'you called my bff a slut, someone hold my earrings'

xp OK, that info wasn't in the original news report I read. That does make the reaction more explicable, though not defensible imo.

My concern is that we can discuss the difference in power between teenage girls threatening adult men and teenage boys threatening adult women, and therefore find one more dangerous and repellent than the other, but the recent debate about the culture of extreme abuse has been about stigmatising and deterring abuse among the people who do it. If people are seen to defend one kind while being outraged by the other then it sends terrible mixed messages. Your angry teenage male tweeter isn't going to go, OK, fair enough, men do have power in society and rape is infinitely more common than castration, so it's not the same. He's going to think that threats can be excused. It's a really bad precedent.

yeah i mean, surely the root of most of this problem is that people think abusive language doesn't actually mean anything cos y'know it's just the internet. like whatever the hell people think of gq, prob read it last at a barber about a decade ago, i assume it's casually sexist given its brief.

He's going to think that threats can be excused

he already thinks this!

i mean i get why GQ is allowed to act so super surprised by this because it has historically been ok to describe teenage girls as a pulsating mass that produces sobs and screams and vaginal discharge -- so okay that it is usually let slide, and even teenage fangirls themselves let it slide. So the idea that that's what the 1D fans are reacting to, that they're defending themselves against this description, is very surprising, because teenage girls who love a boyband don't tend to defend themselves for liking it, they tend to 1. defend the boyband 2. deflect the conversation somewhere else 3. ignore you.

What it seems these twitter users are responding to is the GQ interviewer trying to interpellate Harry Styles in their blokey laddish world by getting him to talk about how he gets laid a lot, which 1D fans are repelled by and I think not on a 'harry styles cannot have sex look at him he is a cherubic angel' level because no-one would ever believe that, 'going to get so much pussy', etc; it's instead that this no doubt 30-something man is trying to co-opt Styles, reduce him to his sexuality (an experience that a teenage girl is p damn familiar with) but also take him away into the value system of laddishness when he belongs in the value system of the 1D fan.

It's not the piece I would have written but why do you think Harry Styles "belongs in the value system of the 1D fan"? The history of fandom is full of fans realising that actually their idols are complicated autonomous individuals who have their own value systems. Styles does behave in certain laddish ways and if you agree to be interviewed by a men's magazine then that's going to come up. Of course the fans are angry because it doesn't suit their version but theirs is not the only version. That said, I've read a lot about fan cultures and attitudes to teenage girl fans over the years and the article's POV feels archaic to me so I'm not surprised they're angry, I just won't defend the more extreme manifestations of that anger.

slightly because when you take someone into the value system of laddishness (whey lad, getting laid) from the imaginative world of the 1D fan (idk, presumably a world in which Styles is having a lot of sex but it's all very sincere and he's probably not having as much sex as people think because it's very tiring touring) you have to go through the value system of the actual world in which, for a teenage girl, having a lot of sex = people think of you as a slut. And because the characterisation of Styles belongs to teenage girls, the values of the world that are applied to teenage girls apply to him, and so talking about him having a lot of sex = implying that he is a slut. (rather than, e.g. a stud)

tl;dr and that is why some of those tweets involve teenage girls calling GQ 'sluts'.

Of course the fans are angry because it doesn't suit their version but theirs is not the only version

but they... want it to be...

like, they are 14 year olds?

ALTHOUGH ACTUALLY one thing that's super interesting is that in a way teenage girls are culturally more powerful than they have ever been, because with the fracturing of various monocultures and 20-odd-years' creation of several separate cultural/commercial spaces that are very very specific to the teen and tween markets, there are places in which the teen consumer and the teen culture-consumer are now dominant.

Which is to say places in which the moral universe of the teenage fan girl can now be treated as the normative moral universe.