Kate Rothwell recently posted a letter to the editor by one Jan R. Butler. It’s truly a masterpiece, invoking the usual homophobic canards. Despite knowing it’s the same old moronic bullshit parroted by bigots that basically boils down to “it’s wrong because it makes us really, really uncomfortable,” I still got good and pissed off reading it—because the logic so very specious, if nothing else.
For example:
(…) romance isn’t about just any “two people” celebrating “love in its many forms.” Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating love “two people” (or more) finding love in one of its many forms” . . . while they actively promote pedophilia.
So, NAMBLA provides some sort of ringing and conclusive condemnation of all homogaiety, eh? If that’s true, then it has to apply to the flip side, too: all those pedophiles who identify as heterosexual (and the vast majority of kiddie-fuckers are straight) are a ringing condemnation of heterosexuality. Think about this, folks: next time you pick up a mainstream romance novel, have sex with your significant other or fall in love with somebody of the opposite sex who’s about your own age, you’re ALL condoning pedophilia. QED.
And, please, spare us the arguments about “censorship” and “inclusiveness.” Preference for “one man, one woman” stories represents what RWA has always claimed is romance’s target demographic: college-educated, married, middle-class, monogamous, and moral. . . .Only in recent years has a vocal (translate: shrill) minority tried to drive RWA’s focus off that path, under the guise of “broadening its horizons.” But refusing to define romance according to the parameters it has held for centuries doesn’t “broaden” anything . . . it only starts us down the aforementioned slope, and once we’re in that slide, heaven help us.
That bit about the demographic? Made me howl with laughter. HOWL. WITH. LAUGHTER. Since when was “moral” an explicit demographic for any American business other than the shills of fundamentalist money-making scams run by fucknuts like Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson and the crew at Focus on the Family? But more than that, I love how “moral” is suddenly tied in not only with marriage and monogamy, but college-educated and middle class. Brilliant!
Seriously, reading this shit just makes me want to make out with girls and donate more money to the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign.
And as for the centuries-old standards of romance: Do tell, what are they? Butler seems to be an expert on so many things, no doubt supported by impeccable research and logic, I’m just agog to hear her opinions on this. Do let me know how the unwritten “no pre-marital sex” rule in romances has remained so steadfast for centuries.
What brought romance fiction to its present level of success is a collection of decades’ worth of one-man, one-woman relationships stories, in all their richness, variety, and power. RWA should be the first to endorse that, rather than attempting to placate fringe groups trying to impose their standards upon the rest of us. If anyone’s in danger of being “censored” here, it’s believers in “what comes naturally”: one-man, one-woman romance. We in RWA owe it to ourselves not to let that happen.
And here we see the magnificent set-up of a false dichotomy: romances featuring homosexuality, bisexuality and polyamory/group sex must somehow endanger the state of monogamous hetero romances. I’ve never understood how homosexuality in ANY way threatens or limits what a heterosexual person wants to do, by the way—and this applies for marriage, way of life and reading material. Don’t like gay marriage or gay sex? Then I highly, highly recommend that you not marry or fuck somebody your own gender. Don’t like gay romance? Don’t read ‘em.
The old “but we’re the ones being persecuted by being forced to accept this immorality!” argument also holds no water. By arguing that gay and/or polyamorous romances shouldn’t be published in the first place, a group of people are, in effect, being restricted, censored and disenfranchised. People who try argue otherwise are not only being stupid, but dishonest about their motives. Look, “because I think it’s gross” or “because my religion tells me it’s so” is not a good enough reason to impose your standards on everyone else. And I honestly don’t see how publishing gay/poly romance novels oppresses those who like only straight romances. I can assure you, gay and poly romances don’t somehow emit radioactive Immorality Waves in cartoony stink-lines and somehow corrupt all the surrounding books so that alla sudden, the cowboy is slipping his range-raised meat up the sheikh’s dark cavern instead of shagging the amnesiac virgin heiress.
Things don’t go away because we dislike them. You can sweep all the books and movies etc dealing with homosexuality and polyamory under the rug all you want. It doesn’t mean people will stop falling in love with other people of their gender. Or that those people won’t want to be able to read romances about people that are relatable to them.
Also, I notice a lot of people have commented about pedophilia as a topic; and even as that topic being off limits. I’m wondering what about books like Lolita? Or Confessions of Victor X?
Owowowowow, I think I broke a rib laughing!
I dunno, I tend to be on the side of “As long as you don’t do it in the street and scare the horses….” so my opinion tends to be very broadly liberal.
I think a big part of the problem is that certain people are afraid to teach their children to think for themselves, because then they might actually, you know, do it, and think different things than Mommy and Daddy did. Tough titties, the kids will think what they will think anyway. But a drawback to that mindset is a generation that can’t think for themselves, and therefore must rely on other people to do it for them—making them malleable of thought and easy to lead ‘astray’ (for whatever value of astray you care for.) THIS is what the writer of this is worried about—her daughter, who has been emotionally crippled, being perverted by a book! Because Mommy never taught her to make value judgements on her own to know that the things in the book are not things the child wants to do!
I never understood this way of thinking meself. What’s the point of raising children who never think on their own? That just means you have to do it for them forever, and that’s an awful lot of work.
Addendum to my post above: Scaring the horses also refers to ‘hurting someone who is not-consenting’ (to leave room for those who love the whip.)
I didn’t want anyone to think I supported any of the non-consensual types of lurve out there, whether the dissenting partner is a child or an adult.
I think a big part of the problem is that certain people are afraid to teach their children to think for themselves, because then they might actually, you know, do it, and think different things than Mommy and Daddy did.
It’s interesting, because the newest generation of college freshmen, the “Millenials” as they’re called, mark a real shift in incoming student profiles. As a group (and yes, these are generalizations), they are known to be highly ambitious, driven, and focused, comfortable with group work, extremely high achieving, more conservative politically than previous generations, and extraordinarily close to their parents, who have themselves earned the moniker “helicopter parents” for their close monitoring of almost every aspect of their kids’ lives (not so much respect for FERPA there). I think it’s interesting that this new generation of college-age students is dovetailing with increasingly vocal calls for curbing academic freedom and freedom of speech on college and university campuses. More and more you’re seeing this alignment of morality, patriotism, and national security in the U.S., and frankly I find it really, really troubling.
“That’s the problem with the world today, actually – not enough solid, well-written cowboy/sheikh romances featuring a substantial amount of deep kissing and brave experimentation.”
This is giving my imagination a very new and interesting twist on Hidalgo. Mmmm … mmm … mmmmm!
I won’t even get started on how I feel about homophobia because I could be here all day. I’m a middle class woman in a monogamous hetero marriage and I consider myself very moral. I don’t see how other people being in homosexual relationship/marriage or open marriage in anyway threatens my way of life. Of course, I also happen to be bisexual and my view of what is and is not moral does not always line up with what other people might consider moral.
I don’t know … it just seems to me that people who get so worked up about a little homo/poly erotica just aren’t too secure in their sexuality or their beliefs. Otherwise they wouldn’t feel so threatened.
I think it’s safe to say that she missed that episode of Diff’rent Strokes 😉
I hate it when people lament that Things Used To Be Better. No, they weren’t, only people used to not talk about the problems. If she doesn’t like some books then she shouldn’t read them. No one forced her to watch that episode of Diff’rent Strokes and no one’s making her read about the amnesiac coyboy and his shiek lover.
is it just the explicitness of the homosexual love? Because JAK’s books have long contained lesbian lovers.
The first time I submitted a m/m story to a critique group, one of the women told me, “wow, you made it seem so normal.”
I think that’s one of the things that frighten people—that some writers can take something they don’t understand (whether it’s love, hate, fear, anything) and help them connect to it. Suddenly it’s not Other, it’s Them, and they can’t deal with it.
I say in protest of this shite, we should all go buy a gay and or poly romance.
good idea. May I recommend A M Riley?
Along with the ‘moral’ crap, is the assumption that somehow a romance between straight people is somehow more ‘natural’ or normal.
Grrrr.
This whole pedophilia is more rampant with gay folks thing has been the primary fundie position for a long time—despite numerous studies that say the total opposite is true. The phrase I normally use is talking out their ass, but they may take that as a homosexual reference.
This kind of crap is why one of my authors was told she couldn’t enter her book under the romance catagory in a contest. The sexual content was nothing wilder than you’d read in a Zebra Historical, but OMG IT’S TWO WOMEN.
I say bring ‘em on. I already put out a call on my pub list for GLBT romance.
Love is love. If both parties are of age and consenting, then it’s none of ANYONE’S business who gets naked with who unless they’re doing it in your damned living room or on the hood of your car. Period. Either grab the lube and join in or shut the hell up.
I agree with every line, Candy. And especially loved the last, which is priceless!
And somehow am reminded of the cartoon posted on my fridge. A helicopter labeled “Right Wing Politics” hovers over a family huddled on a roof surrounded by water in which items with names like “Iraq War” and “Katrina Disaster” and “Rising Gas Prices” float. A man with a bullhorn is shouting from the helicopter “Atheist, flab-burning married homos are going to make us all sing the National Anthem in Spanish.”
The damn thing still makes me laugh. Or cry. Or both…
_I say in protest of this shite, we should all go buy a gay and or poly romance._
I agree 🙂
Check out the authors at:
http://www.arkwolf.com/manloveromance/
They’ve written some really cool stories.
I say in protest of this shite, we should all go buy a gay and or poly romance.
I have an even better idea: I say we all go out tonight and have hot hot hot gay and/or group sex!
*crickets*
…what? It’s an AWESOME idea. AWESOME.
Oh, OK, the gay/poly romance idea is better. Anyone have recommendations, besides Kate? SB Sarah really liked The Compass Rose, which is a poly romance, and Emma Holly’s Strange Attractions and Menage feature some very nice bisexual/poly action.
Bush/Cheney 4-EVAH!
Ha, my personal favorite bumper sticker:
Bush+Dick=Screwed.
Need I say more?
Jan R. Butler sounds like she’s basically a female version of Senator Bill Napoli.
Perhaps it’s a good thing though when they say these totally outrageous things because at the least it does show us their ignorance and how truly lacking in compassion they are for much of the human race.
We can then avoid the mistake of supporting them in other areas where they might have hidden agendas.
What I love is the whole “fringe element” reference. She makes us sound like a handful of wild-eyed, free-loving anarchists with bad personal hygiene, storming the RWA national offices.
Interesting times in Atlanta next week. Yes indeed.
Love is love. If both parties are of age and consenting, then it’s none of ANYONE’S business who gets naked with who unless they’re doing it in your damned living room or on the hood of your car. Period. Either grab the lube and join in or shut the hell up.
Hehehe..I love it. Nicely put, and very blunt.
It is crap like this rant in the RWR that breeds only hate. How can humankind ever hope to find peace when we sit back and find reasons to hate based on pure prejudice?
Since when does “romance” involve defining the sexual preferences of the participants anyway?
‘What I love is the whole “fringe element†reference. She makes us sound like a handful of wild-eyed, free-loving anarchists with bad personal hygiene, storming the RWA national offices.’
I personally am a married woman with a six year old daughter, and my hygiene is just fine.
I was just raised in an openminded and bullshit-free household. Curse you, Mother, for encouraging me to use my mind instead of following the status quo. Now I’m a damned anarchist.
If that’s the worst thing you can complain about, my child, I have done my duty. LOL
It’s interesting this arises just now, as I complete work on a Western historical gay romantic suspense novel by the well-known writer Dorien Grey. It’s not erotic—the two lovers don’t do more than kiss—just a (you should pardon the pun) straight romantic suspense novel in which the h/h both stands for “hero.”
I’m almost tempted to set up a blog about it just to see how many tight-assed bigots like what’s-her-name will come by. 😉
Liz
Oh please won’t someone think of the children?!
All those “moral” romances featuring premarital sex that result in secret babies. And of course the heroine is living hand to mouth because she won’t drag the asshole Alpha Neanderthal into court to get some damn child support checks out of his sorry butt. So you have a dead beat father and a woman endangering the life of a child because don’t you know she’s scrapping pennies together to feed and clothe the tyke.
At least with the gay cowboy and sheik I’d be spared the abhorrent secret baby claptrap. Unless they adopted or used a surrogate – but that seems like a lot of work to keep “secret.”
Jan Blunt – another one trying to tell me how to think and what to read. Well, fine. Maybe I’ll consider her way of thinking as soon as I finish reading Strange Attractions, Personnel Assets (Emma Holly), Erotic Weekend (Cheyenne McCray), and The Price of Temptation (MJ Pearson). Maybe.
Nah, I don’t think so…
But I will lend them to her if she’d like. People that bent have some very surprsing skeletons hiding in their closets. Remember Jimmy Swaggart?
Just as an aside do you think the fantasy genre is more acceptable of homo/bisexuality? I highly recommend the Nightrunner series by Lynn Flewelling, a very romantic and touching relationship is developed over 3 books.
Anyway I love Nora Roberts, she is awesome, she does a good job in her J.D. Robb series dealing with social issues.
So many people are morons but at least when they are stupid and spew their ignorance and bigotry you can then see them coming, I am more worried about the evil and brillant ones that can hide their true natures/agenda.
(Go on, go read Lynn Flewelling she is awesome—she also has a second series that deals with gender issues in which the next true queen who would be killed at birth is magically transformed into a male to save her and then later will be returned to her form-talk about gender confusion—go on you will be missing awesome books if you don’t pick them up)
I’m lucky enough to review books. I just finished two incredible fantasy novels, MELUSINE and THE VIRTU by Sarah Monette. In my review for each book, I felt compelled to include a line about how ‘readers offended by homosexuality’ should skip the books. I feel kind of bad about including that line, actually, because it makes it sound like there’s something “bad” or “wrong” in the books that I must warn readers against. I’m realistic enough to know that some readers, or their book-buying parents, would be shocked and horrified and all sorts of ugly things if they bought a book (even a great one) and found gay characters. It’s just irritating and sad.
That said, yes, I do think gaiety or poly relationships are seen as more acceptable in the fantasy genre. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that “fantasy” immediately puts the reader at a bit more a remove from the story?
Amen! Gay is A-OK! Just ask Silo & Roy, Central Park’s gay penguins, or any of the 450 other animal species known to engage in homosexual behavior.
The idea that traditional institutions (or, rather, institutions perceived as having the status of tradition) like marriage are actively threatened by the public acceptance of alternate ways of being is a mystifying one, but it’s very important to the social conservatives who want to force everyone into their desired molds. I think there’s some value to this fact: Our society, more and more, is moving towards rejection of the idea of victimless crime. Several related ideas are all pushing the majority in that direction: the idea of privacy and freedom from state interference, a generally greater inclusiveness, and implicit acceptance of modern liberalism. Conservatives need to argue that most of us will somehow be hurt by a few iconoclastic deviants, otherwise their arguments appear for what they are – purely motivated by personal animus. Now, if only people would see how foolish the argument is…
You’re brilliant, Candy.
Five of us who came to Atlanta yesterday read the letter in RWR with a mix of hilarity and outrage. Then, realizing we were all immoral, shrill and on the fringes according to Ms. Butler’s definitions, we considered embracing our lesbian underpinnings with an all-night girl fest.
But we were too tired to ride the slippery slope.
Nora
Ummm… Someone was saying something about a cowboy and a sheikh?
O, Buck Morningstar rode out of the West
On a quest for revenge in a fringed leather vest
His trousers bulged oddly, his holster, low-slung
Pulled down by the weight of a six-shooter gun
A saturnine sheikh, with a ‘tache and a scar.
Planned to wed his foe’s daughter, heard Buck Morningstar.
He rode in a fury, burst into the hall
‘Mongst kilt-wearing dancers and pirates and all
Then spake the dark bridegroom, a gleam in his eye
(That caused Buck to feel unaccountably shy)
“I’m not going mad, though this may sound bizarre,
“Don’t I know you from somewhere, buff Buck Morningstar?”
Those husky tones lifted the veil from Buck’s mind
His mem’ries returned in a rush to remind
Him of near-fatal head wound and dastardly plot
To take him away from the love he’d forgot.
“It’s you, Ram!” breathed Buck, “Whom I loved from afar!”
Grammar brought back Ram’s feelings for Buck Morningstar.
“Buck, when they hit you, I thought you were dead!
“The trauma then wiped you right out of my head!
“Look, we’ve read the guidelines, and know this should end
“With burned biscuits, and handcrafts* for me and my friends
“Are too studly to kill off – dames like my scar.
“Can you stick endless sequels, brave Buck Morningstar?”
And with that the sheikh called his Zeta Force chums
They summoned a chopper, black, bristling with guns
And flew through the sunset to Buck’s secret den,
While the bride put her comfortable shoes on again,
And left jeans that must zip by aid of crowbar
To the sheikh and his cowboy, buff Buck Morningstar.
*redemptive ones, of course. But it didn’t scan.
…while them Gawd-fearin, chest-thumpin, “Red†southern states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, abortion… and divorce?
Not everyone in the South is red, you know.
Hm, my link didn’t show up. I was trying to move you here
http://www.britebluedot.com/
just to point out that the South may have a more diverse culture than you think.
As a 31 year old single woman I wonder how I got hooked on romances over 15 years ago if they are supposed to target married folks. Oh no, does this means I’ve learned stuff I’m not supposed to know about? I wonder what she thinks I have been reading.
It’s been coming in stages. Certain folks in RWA have been playing this game for a long time.
First there was the ridiculous amount of sales required for ebooks and POD to qualify that kept rising as the companies grew. No reason for raising the numbers.
Then the content complaints. Romance doesn’t have all that nasty sex in it. Ew. People don’t want that. Unfortunately, sales proved otherwise.
Then there was the complaints about cover art restrictions being required. Ridiculous restrictions that their OWN artists didn’t even follow.
So what’s left? Well, complaining about heterosexual sex blew up in their face, so why not hit a more sensitive area? That should do it.
They don’t want erotica/erotic romance in their neighborhood. Period. Even if it means alienating a huge market that even the big houses finally had to acknowledge. A very VOCAL and computer-savvy market that already has proven they speak their mind.
The phrase cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face comes to mind.
Nora Roberts wrote: But we were too tired to ride the slippery slope.
OMG! Sounds like a euphemism—I’m just not sure for WHAT.
😉
I’m hetro. After reading this, I want to make out with you and donate all my money to the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign.
And flew through the sunset to Buck’s secret den,
While the bride put her comfortable shoes on again.
Auntie, I just DIED!
Well, all I gotta say is you’re just brilliant. Tell all those fuckwads jumpin’ on the hate bandwagon, you tell ‘em, girl!
DebH said: I just finished two incredible fantasy novels, MELUSINE and THE VIRTU by Sarah Monette. In my review for each book, I felt compelled to include a line about how ‘readers offended by homosexuality’ should skip the books. I feel kind of bad about including that line, actually, because it makes it sound like there’s something “bad†or “wrong†in the books that I must warn readers against.
—>Deb, the solution I use is just to refer to the relationship in the first paragraph or two of the review. So something like “Character A, along with his (male) lover, Character B, are pursuing [character’s goals].”
Off topic query for DebH: I checked out your review for The Virtu because I read Melusine when it came out (I’d been following the author’s blog so knew of it before it was published). I see you give both books a 9 – is that out of 10?
I felt Melusine was a strong story (and that all of the sexual relationships were handled quite well and believably), but also that the author could use some more seasoning (for lack of a better word) – there were some scenes and a few other minor things that I thought could use some more tightening up or polish and I was hesitant about plunging into The Virtu. I suppose if I were using the 1-10 scale, I’d have given Melusine a 7, or possibly 8.
Anyway, I was just curious to know if those 9s imply a very good or a moderately good opinion on your part about the books.
That said, yes, I do think gaiety or poly relationships are seen as more acceptable in the fantasy genre. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that “fantasy†immediately puts the reader at a bit more a remove from the story?
Maybe also the fact that Romance is viewed by some as portraying an “ideal” love relationship. And befitting the conservative origins of the genre, traditional Romance can sometimes be viewed as promoting the family as the microcosm of society, thus the controversy over what kind of idealized family the genre is representing. To someone like me, the concept of the family is always politicized, always socially constructed and in flux, but from the perspective of Butler’s argument, morality and politics are separate and society in danger from weakened morals. I would say that such a distinction is artificial and the appeal to a transparent morality illusory, but nonetheless, the appeal to some folks of Butler’s position seems to be the invocation of the “good” and the “right” as universal concepts. When people look around them and see so many problems that don’t appear to have easy solutions, the IMO simplistic insistence that loose morals are to blame can seem quite appealing, especially because it necessarily places blame and responsibility on *others* rather than on oneself.
He rode in a fury, burst into the hall
‘Mongst kilt-wearing dancers and pirates and all
Then spake the dark bridegroom, a gleam in his eye
(That caused Buck to feel unaccountably shy)
“I’m not going mad, though this may sound bizarre,
“Don’t I know you from somewhere, buff Buck Morningstar?â€
“buff Buck Morningstar”???? Holy crap, EAP, that there is some clever shit!