Romance, Arousal, and Condescension

The media courage of 50 Shades continues, long and frequently enough that there are some themes emerging. One fantastic example: mommy porn.

In two words, there are a lot of things wrong with Mommy Porn. Add to that “Mommy’s naughty reader” and the rhetoric that women are ashamed of their erotic reading material and thus buy and read it digitally, as the Wall Street Journal suggested yesterday, means that the shame-wagging-finger gets bigger.

I have a different finger to use in reply. It’s the middle one.

Romance has struggled with the pornography label for a long time. And I give the middle finger to that label as well. I’m sure you’ve heard it: “romance is porn for women!”

There’s a lot of things wrong with that statement, too, almost as much as “Mommy porn.” I realize this is a long ass entry, so if you read only two sentences, let it be these:

Romance is not porn for women.

Porn is porn for women.

 

There is nothing wrong with either one.

And whatever a woman employs to satisfy her own sexual curiosity and hornypants is her business, not yours.

The coverage of 50 Shades and the number of women willing to discuss their own arousal, and the equation of their reading material with pornography makes me ponder seriously the lines of demarcation between romance and erotica, erotica and pornography, and – hold on to your hatpins – romance and pornography.

I will be the first to admit that I get really twitchy when someone says romances are pornography, or “porn for women.” It’s a complicated yes/no answer. Yes, some romances are explicit and erotic and they do create arousal. But no, not all romances do, and thus romances cannot be accurately equated with pornography. Romances are not merely porn for women.

But as I was discussing with anyone who would listen to me rant, anyone who labels romance as “Porn” is most often being derogatory, because “porn” is also often declared bad, shameful, and something that ought to cause embarrassment. People say “porn” in the same tone of voice they’d use for the word “smut.” And if women are indicating interest in pornography, that same derision is applied to them. “Nice girls” don’t look at pornography and shouldn’t do so. Neither should adult males who used to be stars of children’s programming (Hi Pee Wee!).

Many of the articles about 50 Shades make much of the idea that women are ashamed to be reading explicit books, and hide their arousing material on digital readers. The furious whisper virality of 50 Shades of Grey and the media coverage adds to the shaming and hiding, because several women went on record saying reading the book turned them on, and that they hid their reading on Kindles or smartphones. Yet again, women are reading erotica (true) and reading it digitally (true) – but are they reading it digitally because of shame and embarrassment?

My reaction to that: yes and no. Yes, women do sometimes hide their erotic reading material on digital readers so that they have privacy while they read. But no, I don’t think all women feel shame about it. Moreover, I don’t think they SHOULD feel shame.

It’s not so much that women automatically feel shame for being aroused. Politically and culturally we are instructed that we should feel shame for our own sexual curiosity and arousal. Take a look at the current political climate of my home country, the US of WTF:

In Texas, Gov. Perry has blocked funding to Planned Parenthood. The decision has left more than 300,000 women without healthcare access such as annual ob/gyn exams.

In Virginia, the governor signed into law legislation that requires transvaginal abdominal ultrasounds prior to an abortion. (Correction via Avery F.) Several states have similiar laws.

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh publicly and repeatedly ridiculed Sandra Fluke for testifying before Congress about the need for birth control.

The subtext here: your vagina is not yours, neither is your uterus, and various state governments can dictate what you can and will be doing with it. Women are embarrassed to publicly stand up and defend their own gynecological healthcare needs because of the resulting humiliation and publicity, and we watch as someone who testifies on their behalf gets an assload of asshattery dumped their way.

So is it any wonder that healthy sexual curiosity and arousal are something women might prefer to keep to themselves? God forbid Rush Limbaugh see you buying a book that’s sexually explicit or that congress hear you defending your own right to sexual arousal.

So, no, many women (myself included) are not ashamed of reading explicit material. But yes, some prefer to keep that material and the purchase thereof private – for a variety of reasons, sanctimonious douchbagging asshats among them.

Regardless of whether anyone does or does not want to keep their reading material private, it still begs the question: why is reading explicit material something bad? Why is this a “naughty” thing we ought to be ashamed of? Many of the recent discussion of 50 Shades underscore that negativity: “mommy porn” is one term I cannot WAIT to hear more of. Not.

Most of the Superbowl commercials featured male sexual fantasies. I lost count of how many women in bikinis I saw on television. Male sexual fantasy and sexuality is standard public consumption. But female sexual fantasy and arousal are shameful (i.e. “Mommy’s naughty reader”), or held up for ridicule (“Mommy porn”), or both*.

*ETA: To be clear: I referenced the “Mommy’s naughty reader” comment here not because of who said it, but because in the article, from what had to be a longer interview, that was only quote used after identifying the source. Of everything Tori likely said (confirmed by Mandi below), that was the “salient point” to be made in the article, and thus emphasizes the idea of presumed shame.

Take the attention given to the bookshelf at AllRomance ebooks (they sponsor the bookclub hereabouts) when many of the titles that appeared on the main page were exceptionally explicit and featured covers with a great deal of nudity. I saw more than a few conversations labeling the books as “porn” – e.g. ‘That’s not romance. That’s porn.’ Given that the site name is “AllRomance,” and thus promised romance ebooks, the difference was and is important, especially for a consumer looking for one and buying the other. But can those books and stories be accurately judged by their (salacious) covers? Can the determination of romance/erotica/pornography be made without reading the content? I don’t think so. One person may consider a book erotic romance while another considers it porn. Moreover, labeling something as “porn” instead of “romance” or “erotic romance” is also making a value judgment about the material itself, and that’s equally troublesome.

So what is pornography? Surprise, surprise, it can be difficult to reach an agreed-upon formal definition – I’m sure you’ve heard “I know it when I see it.” Another shocker: my definition of “porn” may differ from yours.

My definition of pornography may not be entirely accurate, now that I’ve done some research. I thought of “pornography” as visual: movies, images, and not text so much. But the definition located at Wikipedia says pornography is “the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction.”

Not just visual then. But what’s the difference between pornography and erotica? Wiki suggests (and yes, I’m aware it’s not the strongest resource for definitions) that erotica is “the portrayal of sexuality with high-art aspirations, focusing also on feelings and emotions,” which differs from pornography because porn focuses on “the depiction of acts in a sensational manner with the entire focus on the physical act so as to arouse quick intense reactions.”

Some, such as this MIT newspaper article cited in the Wikipedia definition, argue that porn is the depiction of sexual acts, and erotica “seeks to tell a story.” I disagree with that. Some pornographic movies tell a story. Moreover, some depict emotional connections between the characters. The store Good Vibrations used to label the films they sold in their catalog with tags that included, among other things, “chemistry between the actors.” Their website also makes distinctions between films offered. They have a section for “all sex no plot” movies, and movies that are “feature films,” and all of these are housed under the relatively bland term, “Adult films.”

Here’s an example: there is one film, Love’s Passion, that depicts a romance novelist writing a Civil-War-era romance, with scenes that take place in her historical romance in progress and in the present. The reviews mention the characters “expressing love and affection during sex” and the “tender lovemaking.” (NB: I own it. Some of the dialogue is HILARIOUS.) That’s an “adult film,” though not housed in the “all sex no plot” section. It has a story.

So is that erotica or pornography? Arguments could be made for either label. It’s still difficult to define the difference.

The other source cited in the Wiki article says,

“One point of view is this: eroticism is the exploration of the feelings and emotions inspired by sex and sexuality. Pornography however, focuses entirely on the physical act – be this in writing, photography or film. Pornographic images, for instance, tend to dwell entirely on the sex act. They are voyeuristic in nature and only involve the user in the most alienated way – as an onlooker. (emphasis mine)

The stories in pornographic magazines for instance, all use a string of ‘Buzz words’ to describe various parts of the anatomy and sex acts. These words and descriptions are used for the sole purpose of titillating the reader. What we read is, ‘It felt so good when he did this…’ as opposed to, ‘It felt so good when he did this because…’

Therein lays the difference. A piece of erotic writing will try to explain or explore why something feels so good, or indeed, bad. Pornography does not. One of the key points about eroticism is that it can also uncover the darker side of sexuality. It has the ability to do this in a much more analytical way.”

[Pardon my inner 12 year old snickering at the idea that the difference between erotica and pornography is “Analysis.”]

So let’s use that as the “working” definition of porn vs. erotica. Porn is the depiction of sex in written or visual media, without focus on emotions, cause or effect, while erotica includes the depiction of sexual acts with additional analysis of the reason why that sexual act works. To put it another way, with pornography, you’re not included in the character’s minds or motivations, and with erotica, you are.

Thus erotic romance is the story of a courtship or establishment of a romantic relationship… with a heavy focus or presence of explicit sexual scenes, and may include analysis or insight into emotion and motivation beyond “I wish to have the sex now.” Moreover, with erotic romance and erotica, the sexuality is integral to the development of the story; it’s not just embellishment to the sex scenes.

So erotica and erotic romance have more in common with one another than they do with pornography, gravity-defying sex notwithstanding. That is not surprising.

And I want to make something clear here: Porn is not inherently bad. There is nothing wrong with pornography. I’m not talking about child pornography or situations wherein there is not consent. I’m talking about all the various depictions of consensual sex between adults.

Romance isn’t pornography, but defining the difference does not mean elevating one above the other.

Moreover, some people read explicit romances to be turned on, because the explicitness arouses them physically. Are they employing romance in a manner similar to someone who watches films depicting sexual acts? Are they using romance the way others use porn? Maybe. And it’s their right to do so. But everyone’s arousal is different. Some people might find dryer sheets or women’s shoes or David Beckham in his undergarments similarly arousing, and those things not freely labeled with the word “porn.”

Why is this important at all? Well, aside from the ever-enraging political climate, Paypal thought this distinction was of the utmost importance – or they did until recently when they backed waaaay up on their decision to censor explicit ebooks. Paypal had tried to blame their new policy on credit card issuers as Visa and Mastercard, but when Visa and MC issued statements that they had no policies about the content of ebooks that did not include explicit images, Paypal had to back up.

As long as romances have sexual scenes in them – and as long as those scenes become more and more explicit as has been the trend for awhile now – the equation with pornography will continue. It’s not accurate, and even though there is nothing wrong with the existence of pornography, it’s still used as a demeaning insult.

Romances are not about sex; romances are about courtship. Sometimes there’s sexuality in them. It’s an important difference.

But the way in which romances are used by readers is still subject to demeaning coverage, especially when that coverage includes the frank admission of female readers that the material they are enjoying turns them on. Some women are sexually excited by reading some erotic romances. They are employing those novels, deliberately or accidentally, in a manner conducive to arousal.

It is their choice to do so, and no woman should be shamed for it. But it’s also unfair to presume that anyone who picks up a romance is only after physical arousal and titillation.

I wish things were very different, especially the way folks talk about sexuality in books predominantly written by and read by women. I wish that female arousal wasn’t mocked, laughable, or demeaned. I wish it were as acceptable for a woman to say, “Hot damn, that turned me on,” as it is for a man to say the same. I wish that a desire for reading privacy wasn’t instantly equated with personal shame. And more than anything, I wish it were possible to examine the ways that some romance novels have become more erotic, more explicit, and more determined to arouse without engaging comparisons meant to be insulting and demeaning to the genre as a whole. I wish it were possible to talk about all of these things without it leading to shades of shame or embarrassment.

The Time article by Erika Christakis echoes many of the reactions I’ve seen online, and said out loud:

The buzz about this book seems to be that women, apparently, have unregulated fantasy lives. Big deal. Women have been reading erotic fiction for eons. Is there something “phenomenal” about women enjoying sex, or just the possibility of it? Today’s cultural narrative about female sexuality has no shades of grey: young women are being portrayed as louche sluts who need government interventions to control their badly behaving bodies yet, by age 40, turn into spayed harpies with libidos in the dumpster who would happily sacrifice their sex drives for a man who does laundry.

 

…we still act shocked that women have grown-up desires. After decades of advocacy and progress, it’s hard to believe the staying power of some of these one-dimensional portraits of women. The hype around 50 Shades of Grey feels more like 50 shades of condescension.

Yesterday I was corresponding with some folks in a publicity department of a publisher, and one of them said, “The fight against mainstream condescension never ends.”

In this case, the condescension isn’t just about a specific book, or a specific genre. The condescension is also focused on female arousal, that females with hornypants are something to be controlled or laughed at, depending on whom you’re asking.

This is amazing to me, especially since so much of the romance genre, going back to old skool Woodiwiss and Rogers, is about the exploration of female arousal and autonomy.

On Good Morning America, if you watched, after the segment on 50 Shades aired, the anchors were trying to playfully get their hands on the book to see what was in it. Why? I do not think it’s merely because there’s sex in the book. Good Morning America is filmed in midtown Manhattan, for God’s sake. If anyone in that room wanted depictions of sex, real or simulated, it was not that far away – a subway stop at the most.

I think the real temptation and curiosity for those people and many, many others was that many women were saying “This is great for my sex life. This is great for my marriage.” Better sex? Who is saying no to that?!

I certainly wouldn’t, though 50 Shades did not crank my engine the way it has for so many other women. But I remain stunned by the fact that yet again we’re repeating the same assumptions, and answering with the same assertions. We cannot examine female arousal without demeaning condescension. And that is a shame. I wish it were possible to speak candidly about what books turned women on, and why. It would be fascinating to see what those books have in common, and why some work and some don’t.

So one more time, with feeling:

Romance is not porn for women.

 

Porn is porn for women.

Women have active sex lives and sexual desires.

 

All of these things are ok.

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. Not to mention the whole “Mommy” moniker and how it infantilizes us. Or did the mainstream media miss the whole explosion of ebooks being driven by romance, erotic romance, and erotica?

    They ignore the whole romance genre because it’s “just woman books” and are shocked (shocked, I say!) when a crapton of women buy an erotica book. As if craptons of us *haven’t* been buying *craptons* of erotica books for *years.*

  2. Sally Wilson says:

    I’m not sure mixing politics in with this discussion is germane. I like spicy books myself but the political issue is a different subject. Those you mentioned in gov’t aren’t trying to shame women’s sexuality. Just asking the question of why taxpayers should fund it. BIG difference. And while Rush’s remarks were awful, he apologised repeatedly. Bill Maher is one of the most misogynist jerks alive and his nastiness is lauded. And I don’t understand what the fuss about Sandra Fluke thing was about. Birth control is free, cheap, and plentiful. There is no dearth of control. How else would 98% of women use it? If women don’t want the gov’t ‘on their bodies’ why should the gov’t also be expected to pay? Not taking sides, just using some critical thinking here.

    As for the shame of erotica side of the post, well, let’s just say women who read these books usually have happier husbands. I know I do!

  3. Anonmint says:

    I don’t think there’s a popcorn GIF big enough for this drama.

  4. Bnbsrose says:

    On what planet do you live that birth control is “free, cheap and plentiful”? And could you give me the citation for that 98% of women take birth control?
    I’m pretty sure I’m not the rare bird that you’re making me out to be, and when I was on birth control – to preserve my fertility because of a MEDICAL ISSUE, which is true for thousands of women – I paid A LOT of money for it. Or are you talking about birth control provided by agencies like Planned Parenthood to people who don’t get it subsidized by their health insurance, cause they don’t have any, or have jobs that pay enough that they can afford to buy it at full cost? You’re right we should NEVER help out the poor or the needy. I mean that’s awful:  doing unto others what we would have done to us. What kind of world would that be? Maybe one where a man thinks it’s okay to call a woman a slut for using birth control as long as he apolgizes for it after his sponsors pull their advertising from his show.

  5. Jody Wallace says:

    Taxpayers don’t “fund” the stuff insurance covers, like, for example, birth control. Or the life flight my kid needed when she was 18 months old. The person who bought the insurance funds the insurance company, which then covers some stuff and not other stuff, which is more and more every time we turn around.

    But that’s not really what this discussion is about :). Reading is awesome! Dissing people’s reading choices is not awesome, especially when you don’t really know what you’re talking about. I’m looking at you, people who don’t read romance.

  6. IStarr says:

    This post reminded me of something I read back in June.  I don’t recall the title, author, or website (HaBO anyone?), but the basic argument was that romantic fiction and pornography are not the same, but function on a similar level.  The idea being that pornography taps into sexual fantasies while romantic fiction functions through emotional fantasies.  So, while the actual motives and reactions are very different between porn and romance, both act as a more or less safe place for fantasy fulfillment.  The article did not examine erotica, possibly because it problematizes this argument, but I still believe it is another important facet of this discussion. 

    I think it particularly important to present this argument to help emphasize the point that neither pornographic nor romantic fantasy fulfillment are wrong.  I also think it might be one of the reasons why many people feel more comfortable reading romance electronically, because I think that many of us don’t want others judging or barging in while we are enjoying our personal fantasies. 

  7. Jody Wallace says:

    Don’t most forms of media, particularly the narratives, appeal to one or another of our personal fantasies? Our personal fantasies of justice, of sex, of romance, of emotional fulfillment, of all-consuming power, of family relationships, of being James Bond, etc!

  8. I agree. A lot of these issues get all muddled together when they have nothing to do with each other.

    I enjoy porn sometimes. I like “chicklit” novels and films sometimes. I don’t announce what I’m reading because it isn’t anyone else’s business. 50 Shades is getting the attention not because it is erotica, but because it is heavy on the dominance leading some to question if women WANT to be dominated. This gives a story line for the whole “conservative women vs liberal women” theme that the politicians and their media mouth pieces are trying to play this election cycle. Conservative women don’t want to be dominated any more than liberal women want to be dominated.

    Anyone who wants birth control can head on down to CVS and pick it up. The issue isn’t access, it is who has to pay for it. If you are a big girl and old enough to have sex, you should be responsible for your own part in the sex act and fund it yourself. I shouldn’t have to pay for it!

    Even more infuriating to me is that men have been left completely out of the birth control issue. Why can’t THEY pay for birth control?

    Like it or not, if you are for women’s rights, you are for women’s choice and the rights of ALL women. Not just the women who agree with your position. Anyone who decried Rush calling one woman a “slut” without equal indignation that Ed Shultz or Bill Maher calls other women “slut” or “t**t”, or “C**t” is a hypocrite.

    The truth of the matter is that our “shame” over porn is down to us as women. Just as not forcing men to take 50% responsibility in sex and procreation is our own fault.

     

  9. Why the condescension with the parenthesis around “moral conscience?”

    Your not an indentured servant. You have a choice of where you work. You go to interview at companies that fit with your interests, your experience, and your own moral conscience. If you didn’t believe in eating pork, you wouldn’t go to work for a pork processing plant and them demand that they change their company for you…would you?

    Employers choose heath options for the employees all the time. That includes what will or will not be covered. As an employee you have the right to accept that insurance or reject that insurance. Just as you have the right to NOT apply for a job at a company that has an ethos that is different from yours.

    The entitlement. The idea that everyone should change to meet your personal beliefs is crazy. This was called a “free country” not because you get everything you want for free, but because you were free to choose how and where you would live your life. That means if you don’t like a potential employer’s health plan, you can CHOOSE not to interview for that job.

  10. ToppysMom says:

    As I said someplace else this paying debate was raging, iffn my health insurance is paying for the little blue pills to get Mr. Frisky up and in the game, then it had better damned well be paying for there to be no unintended consequences to me because of what Mr. Frisky’s shooting off.

    Pay or don’t pay, but make it equal. If he gets his pills, I get mine. Fair is fair.

    As for the rest of it Sarah, you go, girl! My husband of 30 years long ago learned not to diss my reading material and instead just lie back and enjoy the results.

  11. Olie says:

    If only this discussion were sparked by a book that was both erotic and good.

    No kidding around. 50 Shades was godawful. I just wish some of the seriously awesome erotica out there had sparked the discussion in stead.

  12. Kylie says:

    It isn’t very useful for seeing a heartbeat, that is for sure.  As someone who had both at the seven week mark, the dildocam does a much better job at showing the heartbeat and growing blob.  But not the most comfortable process ever.

    I left the USA after college, and kerfuffles like these make me grateful that I do have choices. 

  13. Bell says:

    I’ll be perfectly honest: I prefer digital versions of romance books almost entirely because of the lack of embarrassing covers for all the world to see. I’m sorry, romance novel covers are terrible. They make us all look like we have such bad damn taste. They inaccurately portray the stories as cheesy porno parodies, to the point where I even have trouble taking the stories seriously just because I’m connecting them to the cover – and yet the stories are good (and totally non-shameful, non-porno, etc.).

    Maybe, just maybe, sales and hype are through the roof for 50 Shades of Grey partially because it has a classy cover. Finally – a romance novel that looks like a “real book” from the outside, because it is.

  14. IStarr says:

    Yes, most media has elements of escapism, but when it comes to romantic or sexual fantasizing I am not really interested in advertising it to my fellow subway riders.  I, however, also believe this is a very personal stance, and has more to do with how I experience and enjoy romance and arousal than any position on sexual politics.  I have noticed recently that I am more private about my sex life than others, and I think it correlates to being more private in my reading.  Other, more exhibitionist-like (or at the very least, more openly sexual) readers may be less bothered by their company when bringing out the paper book. 

     

  15. Kristin says:

    Great post, Sarah. Thank you!

  16. Angel R says:

    Dear Nathaniel,
    Who said anything about denying access to healthcare they have already paid for? I’m referring to HHS’ mandate that organizations cannot be religiously exempt from paying for the employees’ coverage for non-vital services that the employer (e.g., a religious or faith-based group) is morally opposed to.

    It is a fallacy promoted by the liberal media that overturning that mandate will somehow create a ban on all birth control. The situation currently is this: certain groups including the Roman Catholic Church have an opposition to contraceptives as part of their moral teaching, and they are saying “We refuse to pay for services that go against our beliefs, even if it means having to close down.” The HHS is forcing an issue that doesn’t need to be an issue, because letting these groups have their exemption isn’t going to prevent anyone from getting birth control who wants it.

    Personally speaking, I’m a single woman who finds it baffling that people are equivocating birth control with vital services like blood transfusions, vaccines, etc. The only thing I’ve managed to gather from watching the popular media’s coverage of the recent HHS mandate is that if you’re not sexually active for any reason (emotional, religious, physiological) then you are some kind of freak of nature living with impaired quality of life.

  17. Angel R says:

    Do you think the government should decide what constitutes a religious exemption or not? Do you trust the government (either this or any administration) enough to say they can force an organization to close its doors if it doesn’t fit their standards for religious exemption?

    And to answer your question, yes; I either make moral decisions or choose moral decisions every day, as do you, and everyone else. And both of us have the right to make moral choices; my moral choice need not affect yours in any way.

    For example: If I’m morally opposed to non-local meat or to pork, and you came into my diner demanding a bacon and kobe burger sandwich, I’d explain that those items were not available. If you really were set on having one, I’d ask if you could go to a diner down the road that could serve your needs better. But if you forced me to make and serve you that sandwich anyway (at extra cost to myself) and threatened to have my shop closed if I didn’t? That’s exactly what the HHS mandate is doing.

  18. PamG says:

    The brouhaha over 50 Shades is political in that it expresses attitudes that have far- reaching consequences for women.  Discussions of insurance coverage for contraceptives and attacks on Planned Parenthood are examples of those consequences. If you feel a disconnect between the condescension being heaped on women for their reading choices and the attacks on their reproductive choices, perhaps it’s because you are fortunate enough to belong to the privileged percentage of the population. 

    Contraceptives are a medical treatment and the decision to prescribe them should be between a woman and her doctor, not the insurance company, not the government, not the employer, and not women who blithely assume that birth control is “free, cheap, and plentiful.”  When I went on the pill, 40+ years ago, it cost me $2 a month.  Even with my factory worker’s paycheck, it wasn’t a burden.  A new economy car cost about $2000.  Well a modest car is now ~$20,000, but the pill is $70 a month.  The car cost is up by a factor of 10; birth control, a factor of 35.  No one in a minimum wage job can afford that.  Nor can they afford to bring up a child.  So don’t give me crap about choice, when the only choice on the table is to give up sex—married or not—because you’re too poor to deal with the possible consequences.  Cue the unfunding of Planned Parenthood.  None of this is about morality, it’s about power. 

    Kudos to the poster who mentioned The Handmaid’s Tale, one of the most terrifying yet plausible dystopias I’ve ever encountered and a book that keeps popping up in my mind these days.  It is all about what happens when a society is not aware of the political underpinnings of the most seemingly innocuous trends.  THT is about as far from romance as it is possible for a novel to be, but I highly recommend it to anyone who thinks these issues are unconnected or irrelevant. 

  19. Kbcutter says:

    Sexuality- the last American Taboo. While we are subjected to countless versions of CSI crime drama, which graphically depict scenes of human carnage, in prime time no less, sex is verboten or dirty. Those who read erotica or write it are closet pervs.

    My gripe with the hoopla surrounding 50 Shades of Grey is not its supposed salacious content, but the barometer to which erotica literature is now judged. It’s poorly written and poorly edited. And I’m being kind. There is no way it would pass muster at the publishing company I write for. However, it does give indie erotic romance authors, like myself, hope that one day we may tap into the popular cultural zeitgeist and become wildly successful.

  20. SBTB Admin says:

    Excellent Post! I agree with about 99% of what you had to say – LOL I havent read this book 50 shades of grey but just from the uproar eveyone is making about it has caught my attention. I’m not into the hard core BDSM so usually I do not read anything that has sadomasochistic in it. However I do read lots of erotic books, I actually have my own blog site that is strictly 18 & Over site. Anyone who goes there will get their eyes full of nice eye candy and great reviews that are explictedly written.

    I have to say I love your choice of words
    Romance is not Porn and Porn is porn for women.
    There is nothing wrong with either one.
    What ever a women employs to satisfy her own sexual curiosity and horny pants is her business, not yours.

    Well Said!

    I am a very independent woman, a veteran, a mother, and a grandmother – no man or woman will ever tell me what to do or control me. I have my own mind and am my own person and if they dont like what they see than move on and I could care less of what they think of me.

    I read erotic books and I do not consider it mommy porn, I consider it an escape from the horrify reality that we live in today between the politics, the wars, and the war of Christianity and Muslim hood etc….

    People just need to worry about their own selves and not everyone Else’s life. Men and women are not in competition with their sexual preferences.

    If anyone really cares about sexuality then they need to start with the shit that is played on TV, the video games, and elementary school. My 5 yr old grandson knows what a vagina is. Hello people, I’m not saying I dont care that my grandson knows what it is but what I’m saying is your bitching up the wrong tree. In other words, people are the pot calling the kettle black. They need to correct their own shit before bitching about other peoples shit.

    I will you with this. This book is fiction! This is not a book on how to or a guide for dummies, its pure fantasy and will not – I say will not save anyone’s marriage, that my friend is on your own shoulders.

    Great post!

    Ronda Tutt
    mrsqueentutt @ yahoo.com
    Queentutt’s World of Escapism
    http://queentuttsworldofescapi

  21. Heather says:

    Two questions here:

    1) How are there 500 reviews on “Fifty Shades of Gray” when it’s not even released yet (Amazon has the release date as 3 April)? I find it hard to believe that some ARCs have generated this much press.

    2) What exactly does “mommy porn” *mean* and why did the press/people/whoever choose that label?

    Yes, I’m rather behind the times on this little controversy. : P

  22. CarrieS says:

    WORD, Jody!  Was going to respond but you did it so well already.  Joni, your post clearly comes from a good place in your heart but maybe you wanna re-think your assumption that, OK, SOME Moms can be sexual – but not all of them.  As one of the soccor-mom, mini-van driving crowd I’m not aware that driving a mini van makes a person vanilla, or sexless.

  23. CarrieS says:

    Hi Pam G, I share many of your views on the over-sexualitzation of our culture, particularly as pertains to what kids are exposed to and encouraged to reflect, and I also have a personal preference for more “fade-to-black” sex scenes.  But I think those are separate issues from the “Mommy Porn” issue.  Men and woman may both have varying levels of wanting to keep their sexual interests private, and for varying reasons, but I think along broad lines you see more of men being expected to keep their outlets private and women being expected to have no outlets and, outside of their husbands, no desires.

  24. ShifterCat says:

    (Here from Felicia Day’s G+ post)

    I’m going to step up and say that way many people (such as the author cited on Wikipedia) are so quick to define pornography as lacking in artistic or cerebral value is evidence of our culture’s lingering anti-sex attitude; the notion that any media which focuses “too much” on sexuality without other content to “redeem” it must be consigned to the gutters.

    Alan Moore had this in mind when he insisted that his and Melinda Gebbie’s Lost Girls be marketed under the label “Pornography”.

    That said, creators have to eat, so I can see that labels are still going to be necessary for marketers.

    Everything else in the article I think is spot-on.

  25. Leslie Davis says:

    Thanks for rant!!! I love it!

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top