Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I’m glad a mainstream romance author has a protagonist who’s had some homosexual encounters in his past, but I’m disappointed that Stuart, who’s pushed some interesting envelopes in the past, seems to be sticking with tradition in making those same-sex encounters traumatic.

I’ve been pretty vocal about this topic on AAR, so I won’t repeat myself here, but I just want to point out that I’ve yet to read anything that indicates exactly what Stuart’s going to do with Jensen’s experiences; that is, whether she will have Jensen characterize them as pleasurable or traumatic or what.  Has she specifically said this? 

I hope he got pleasure from them, because after years of reading about women who were pseudo-raped into orgasm, I’d like it to be acknowledged that straight men can get pleasure from unexpected places, too.  NOT that I’m equating m/m sex with forced seduction—only saying that both male and female bodies are capable of enjoying all sorts of things outside of the mainstream boy-girl missionary dance of love, and I think Romance should be more egalitarian in showing this :).

Why can’t a guy in a romance novel just enjoy cock because he enjoys cock

Exactly. I love you, you wonderful, dirty, wicked bitch.

Before I clicked the “More” button, I got my hopes up that this might be a really interesting book, but now I’m not so sure. Does he ever say he actually enjoyed these encounters with men, or is it some angst-y thing with him? I’ve read a few books where the guy had same sex encounters in the past (usually not by his choice), and it takes the heroine’s almighty vagina to make him right again. Ugh.

“I won’t be buying it because it’s too far outside my comfort zone.”

Candy, this quote surprised me…in that, I’m surprised that you took it out and highlighted it.  I don’t think there’s anything bigoted about that comment.  It’s fair.  It’s outside my comfort zone, so I won’t read it.  There’s lots of stuff I don’t want to read about because it’s outside my comfort zone…like children being abused.  I managed to get through one book that had that theme and promised never again.  Why is that any thing less than fair?  Readers have a right to pick and choose what they want to read based on whatever criteria.  Now, if someone wants to BAN that book, that I’d have a problem with.

Some people have a problem with man-man sex.  Doesn’t mean they hate gays or bisexuals or that they are right-wing conservatives.  It only means they don’t enjoy reading about man-man sex.  Don’t they have a right to pick what they want to read based on what they are comfortable with?

I, personally, would probably buy and read the book just to see how Stuart handled it.  Sort of bothers me that a book is being decried by some and praised by others before anyone has even read it.

All I can think is: Anyone else out there watching Rescue Me?

Dear God.  Someone actually admitted to “[getting] past” same-sex encounters because “the men in question were not human”?! 

Talk about your fucked-up priorities.  Guess someone’s gonna have to revise his/her moral compass to point at “one man, one woman, both human, unless they’re not, and if it’s hot.”  Hey, it even almost rhymes.  Now I just need to find something that rhymes with “bestiality” or “necrophilia.”

I will say, though, that some of the emphasis on the whole “He has absolute control over his body!” and “He’s a machine, emotionless and always in control!” aspects lead me to believe that the experiences were unpleasant, especially because detachment is a fairly common defensive mechanism for coping with trauma—or so my fiction would have me believe, anyway, and FICTION WOULDN’T LIE, WOULD IT?

And this is a fair inference, Candy, IMO.  I am generally not a Stuart fan, but I really, really liked Black Ice—in fact, it was the first Stuart book I read where I felt she actually gave a nuanced portrayal of her usually (IMO) asshole heroes and Wonder Bread heroines.  And in Black Ice, Bastien can have sex with anyone, too (although no mention of men), and I got the impression he could experience physical pleasure but not be emotionally involved with any of the women he had sex with.  So I’m hoping that she does the same for Jensen, although I certainly think the other is possible, as well.  Also, re. speculation about Cold As Ice, LFL’s original question, which started the whole discussion, included another question about the potential appeal of bisexual heroes in general, so a lot of the conversation is related to that more general issue, as well.

I see your point, Candy, but I really don’t think that’s what people mean when they say it.  I know people who consider reading about hetereosexual sex to be “outside of their comfort zone” and yet, that doesn’t mean they have anything against man-woman sex.  They just choose not to read about it in print.

You’re totally right that my example didn’t illustrate my point.  I had to pick something since there is very little that is outside my comfort zone, LOL!  If done well, I’ll read just about anything.  Except dumb heroines.  Okay, THAT’S outside my comfort zone.  Does that make me a bigot against stupid women?  And if it does…is that wrong?

And for the record, I also hate asshole heroes.  I usually can’t stand them long enough to watch them get reformed.  I don’t mean Alpha heroes.

Saying something violates your comfort zone places a sort of moral judgment on the enterprise.

This is something I have to really think about for a while.  While I agree with the majority of your broader points, Candy, I’m torn about this one.  Romance, after all, is fantasy literature, and all of our erotic fantasies differ.  I am not into S/M erotica, but that’s because it doesn’t appeal to me as an erotic fantasy.  Consequently, my visceral response to reading it as a fantasy is one in which I can feel uncomfortable, depending on how intense the scene is.  But I really don’t think I have any moral problem with people who practice S/M—it just doesn’t work for me as an erotic fantasy.  So is that the same thing as people who feel uncomfortable with m/m or f/f sex in a romantic fantasy?  I don’t know.  Maybe it comes down to what the nature of “the problem” is, or what someone really means when they say something is “outside their comfort zone” or not romantic to them. 

This to me is similar to the virgin heroine question.  I understand that there are readers who enjoy the fantasy of the virgin heroine for a number of reasons—the fantasy of a personal do-over of the first time, for example—that IMO don’t necessitate a moral condemnation of sexually experienced heroines. OTOH, I think that having the Romance genre persistently align virgin heroines with virtuous heroines is a moral judgment.  So maybe I feel the same way about readers who don’t appreciate gay Romance as a romantic fantasy—that they can feel that way without morally condemning homosexuality, but as long as the genre seems to villainize homosexuality, there is a moral condemnation of such.  I don’t know—like I said, I have to think more about it.  Very interesting issue, Candy.

I have to agree with Robin on this - for me, the issue comes down to the appeal of the fantasy.  The genre of romance is about entering a world of make-believe that suits one’s own sexual and/or romantic tastes. As examples, I do not enjoy inspirational romances because I cannot relate to intensely spiritual characters and I do not find them sexually/romantically intriguing.  Neither do I enjoy stories featuring S & M sexual encounters because I do not, personally, find those practices sexy.  Tried it.  Didn’t care for it at all.  Would not like to read more. 

Thus I can understand if a woman finds a bisexual hero off-putting, if the idea of homosexual encounters is so distasteful, curious or unromantic according to her own personal standards of eroticism or romance.  For such a woman, a bisexual hero would be outside of her comfort zone with regard to fiction, but she might not necessarily have a problem accepting bisexuals and gays in real life.  This could apply to heroes of other nationalities, too.  Maybe a woman does not find a black man or an American Indian attractive.  That does not necessarily mean she is prejudiced against other races in daily reality.

I know a LOT of people and have a factual understanding of many of my friends’ sexual preferences (heteros too!), but I do not need to read in extensive detail about aspects of their sex life.  For some people, I might want to know more.  For others… nope.  Fiction allows us to pick and choose our turn-ons, but I do not think it necessarily means real-life bigotry. 

Personally, I find the whole issue of rampant womanizing (or, um, the equivalent with other men, too - manizing?) more of a turn-off than anything.  I do not care who the hero slept with before, man or woman, but too many past sexual partners only makes me think of disease (I read mostly historicals - syphilis, anyone?) and future philandering.  For me - not sexy.

Can you think of an example of a violation of a comfort zone that doesn’t involve negative moral judgment of some sort? Even those who don’t want to read explicit heterosexual sex scenes because they’re outside their comfort zone do this because they believe that sort of writing is morally offensive, or even that reading that sort of thing constitutes psychological infidelity, even if they don’t think there’s something wrong per se with heterosexual sex in real life.

What about if someone says that watching operations being carried out in television dramas is ‘outside their comfort zone’ or watching footage of women giving birth is ‘outside their comfort zone’. It’s unlikely that a decision of this sort is going to be made on moral grounds.

Some readers of romance find it outside their comfort zone if the hero and heroine kiss/have sex in the morning before they’ve had a chance to brush their teeth and have a shower. It makes them go ‘ick!’. That could, just possibly be due to some idea about ‘cleanliness being next to godliness’ but I really doubt it. And as a lot of readers on the AAR threads said, they wouldn’t like to think about their parents having sex, their children having sex, ugly people having sex…. All those combinations would be ‘outside their comfort zones’ not because they consider it immoral for their parents/children/ugly people to have sex, but because they don’t want to visualise it. I don’t think that this sort of objection is due to concerns about ‘psychological infidelity’ either. It’s a combination of aesthetics and a feeling that some activities are private.

One of the things that bothered me the most was the whole this is going to demean/end the romance genre.  Well if you don’t want to read it then don’t but stop trying to prevent others from reading them. 

Also the whole homosexuality is a sin/going to burn in hell, and anyone who doesn’t mind reading about it is a degenerate pervert who after reading the book is going to go out and rape an animal and a child.  Funny how often homosexuality/beastiality and pedophilia all pop up together.

I would rather read a good story about characters who really love each other, if the characters really touch me I don’t care what gender they are.  Love is love between consenting adults/vamps/werewolves etc.  So does werewolf/shapechangers shagging equate with bestiality?

Good job Candy.

Sorry, watching two men kiss or reading about it grosses me out. Thinking about 2 men having sex?  I really don’t want to go there.

Just because *some* people think it’s ok to portray gay sex or bi sex in a book doesn’t make the rest of us homophobes or unenlightened or Christian fundamentalists or what have you because we DON’T want to read about it.

If Anne Stuart wants to get this book out there, lovely. Let her do it. But people have a right to their own opinions on this topic. If someone is skeeved out by it, they are allowed to be skeeved out.

And why do we have to feel badly about it?

I love this site, but sometimes the politics on here detract from my enjoyment of the main focus of this blog: Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Novels.

Can you think of an example of a violation of a comfort zone that doesn’t involve negative moral judgment of some sort?

How about fisting?  Don’t wanna do it, don’t wanna read about doing it.  Not a moral judgement, just doesn’t seem pleasurable to me.

Are we having a semantical argument here?

“Outside my comfort zone” may or may not equal “not to my taste”, IMO. I can see how they might be used interchangeably in casual or heated conversation. Since we don’t know exactly how the original poster meant it, it’s hard to make a call on it now (or it is for me).

I am inclined to go with Candy’s take on it though, seeing as it was pulled from a discussion about the very idea of a bi hero being NOT OK. I think the original poster meant that “outside her comfort zone” meant it was morally outside what she could accept, not that it was simply not to her taste.

Shit-tons of stuff are not to my taste: from Inspirational to Hardcore S&M. But I don’t find them “outside my comfort zone”. I just find them boring and “outside my interest zone”. You can put anal sex in there too. Love Morgan Hawke’s stories, am pretty much bored shitless by her sex scenes . . . but they’re not “outside my comfort zone”. I just read up until the butt-fucking starts and then I skim ahead.

Either way my hat is off to Candy for getting as far as she did in these posts. I tried, but had to cut myself off before I had a melt down.

I’m reminded of a film called Stage Beauty about a Shakespearean actor set during the time of Charles II when only men were allowed on stage so they played male and female roles.  The main character studied women and would turn on his more feminine qualities at will.  Otherwise, he was very much a man.  He had a few homosexual encounters during the film but in the end he was with a woman.  It was no less romantic to me because I’d watched him passionately kissing a man.  Love is love, wherever you find it.

Taste or comfort zone, Candy, my point was that what a woman chooses to read and what she believes about the basic rights of human beings may differ.  That said, the notion of limiting what people can read, write and publish is as disgusting as limiting what consenting adults may enjoy behind closed doors.  I am all for the idea of expanding a genre that has been confined within certain stagnating stereotypes for too many years.  That one bi character from a mainstream author will ruin the entire genre is just silly.

Excellent post, Laura.  Dead on.  You put into words what I couldn’t, so thanks.

Fascinating discussion.

Morgan Hawke, eh?  Hmmmm….  ;)

Then, Candy, I guess I just don’t see what the issue is. You like it, you read it. I don’t like it, I don’t read it. If someone wants to get all Christian fundamentalist on your ass about it…ignore it. Let ‘em say what they want. And I guess the same should go for me…

Just realize that I didn’t find either of the comments you linked to particuarly offensive or unenlightened. They were just expressing an opinion in a pretty intelligent way.

Harlequin is known for heterosexual romances. And this Anne Stuart book may just cross the line for many of their readers. *That* is what I think these people were commenting on. Give the readers what they want, not what you think may be titillating or “of the moment.”  I think it might just end up upsetting some people to find this book in their mailbox, that’s all.

I guess I don’t quite get the brouhaha. If I’m not interested in a particular fetish / concept / characteristic in a book, I just don’t buy it. For instance…

I’ve never read a book by Laurell K Hamilton, Kim Harrison, or MaryJanice Davidson. Why? Because I think the vampire shit is just played out. I think it was played out in early Anne Rice heyday. Then again, I was slightly ahead of the curve because I was a poser vampire-goth-geek wannabe back in college, and I moved on. That’s just my opinion, no reflection on people who enjoy undead action. I wouldn’t say it’s outside my comfort zone; it’s just not my thing.

A hero who doesn’t mind cock now and then wouldn’t bother me. Good writing, good story, strong characters, and you’ve got me. I’ll give a lot of rope if those conditions are met. Just..y’know, let ‘em be alive.

And while I don’t hold a negative moral judgment against S/M as a whole, I’ll have to examine my attitudes towards those who choose to engage in, say, intense genital torture, or those who do things like bifurcate their penis. I’d certainly be lying if I didn’t say that I think people who engage in the more extreme ends of S/M aren’t, well, kind of a little bit nuts. And I’m well aware that probably makes me a judgmental asshole to those people.

As someone who practices, say, intense genital torture, who has cut her partner with a razor to the extent that it scarred, who both play-pierces her partner and has had her partner’s dangly bits more permanently pierced with a beautiful lorum that he’s never taking out, I’d have to say that, yes, you’re being a judgmental asshole.

There’s a saying in the BDSM world:  never say never because the kink gods will get you.  Never say, “Ew, I could never do that,” because the next party, that’s what everyone will see you doing. You have to go with “My kink is not your kink,” and leave it at that.  I don’t do scat or golden showers, but can at least see the appeal of GS.  I do blood play, but I’ve seen much more extreme blood play and can see the appeal.

Very very very few people go to the far extremes, but everyone’s extremes are different.  I’ve never seen a bifurcated penis (thank the lord), but I’ve seen the most enormous Prince Albert that just about made me barf—but I was young back then;  today I’d probably ask to touch it.  ;)  I’ve seen scrotal infusions and blood cupping and intense caning.  But I’ve also seen some of the most intensely loving relationships and met some of the most self-confident people (in the good way not the asshole way), the most helpful, friendly, generous, giving people in the scene.

And, yes, while some people in the scene are completely fucked up, most aren’t.  It’s my firm belief that we’re just wired differently—just like gay people.  Only our activism is 50-100 years behind gay activism, mostly because most kinky people don’t believe that what they DO is actually who they ARE.  While most of my BDSM colleagues wouldn’t agree with me, for me at least, BDSM is as genetic a thing as being gay is.  Not something I can help, not something I can stop, and if I want to enjoy my sex life, not something I can avoid.  And for someone—anyone, even completely open-minded liberals—to say, “Ew, that’s sick,” is the same, for me, as someone saying the same thing about what it is that gays do and who it is that gays ARE.

And if it’s true that being kinky—seriously, completely, can’t get aroused without hurting someone kinky—is a genetic thing, why is it any different from being gay, as long as you’re playing with a consenting, serious, can’t get aroused without being hurt partner?

Still love you, Candy, but yes, you’re being judgmental.  Know that there are people out there who brand you, with your little bits of rope play, as bad as me, with my pierced partner and my closet full of impact toys.

I’d certainly be lying if I didn’t say that I think people who engage in the more extreme ends of S/M aren’t, well, kind of a little bit nuts. And I’m well aware that probably makes me a judgmental asshole to those people.

Well, I’ve yet to me anyone who’s not judgmental—we’re human and we make judgments about things (shit, just wait until you get to law school :)).  Certainly we differentiate among different kinds of judgments, like “I don’t like white chocolate (which isn’t even chocolate, by the way)” isn’t the equivalent of “I don’t like the idea that gay people have sex” or “I don’t want black people in my school.” 

For me the difficulty in pushing the “comfort zone” argument into the moral judgment camp is that, as several people have pointed out, things can be uncomfortable for various reasons.  The unfamliar, for example, often makes people uncomfortable.  Perceived pain often makes people uncomfortable.  The list goes on. 

I don’t know where I’m going with this except to say that I’d rather someone say that gay sex in Romance is outside their comfort zone than to say that it doesn’t belong in Romance.  It’s like with erotica—I don’t think everyone who finds erotica uncomfortable is a prude, and I’m certainly not going to try to argue that person out of their personal taste.  But if someone tells me that they think erotica CAN’T be romantic or part of Romance (within its definitional guidelines), then I’ll argue with them, because I think THAT’s often a moral judgment (although I’d entertain the possibility that it isn’t always).

And I totally appreciate what you’re saying about the irony of people trying to say that the fact that you enjoy reading gay sex is perverted or whatever, but for the most part, I don’t think those who are reasonable in their comments that gay Romance is not to their taste are the ones trying to make you feel bad that you find it to be to yours.

Okay I started reading those threads over there, what the hell does this even mean:

If one believes that judging is wrong, remember not to judge those that judge. Some think it is ok to judge. And that is up to them.

Don’t judge the people judging other people because you believe it’s wrong, but WE believe it’s okay, therefore our judgment is okay and yours is not. Is that an accurate extrapolation? Hooray double-standard!

I am inclined to go with Candy’s take on it though, seeing as it was pulled from a discussion about the very idea of a bi hero being NOT OK. I think the original poster meant that “outside her comfort zone” meant it was morally outside what she could accept, not that it was simply not to her taste.

I agree that this is a valid distinction, and that context counts.  But still, as long as it’s someone’s personal moral judgment (since mine, though opposite, is certainly a moral judgment, too—i.e. that there is nothing wrong or unnatural about gay sex in or out of Romance), I’m not sure it’s mine to condemn.  Sure, if that person starts telling me how I’m perverse and how they don’t think gay Romance is possible, then I’m gonna argue with them and defend my position.  But I’ve met enough people who aren’t judgmental about homosexuality but who are personally selfish and socially apathetic jerks in other ways, that I’m not ready to take out everyone who is personally morally opposed to homosexuality.  I may not like their position, but then again, they won’t like mine, either.  As long as I’m not force-feeding them gay Romance and they’re not trying to get it banned from the RWA, I’m okay.

Shit-tons of stuff are not to my taste: from Inspirational to Hardcore S&M. But I don’t find them “outside my comfort zone”. I just find them boring and “outside my interest zone”.

This is very well put, pretty much my feelings exactly.

Hi everyone, I’m brand new to posting, but I thought I’d weigh in anyway.

I have to say that I was initially as up-in-arms as Candy about this issue. I definetly have a hot-button in this area. Robin, I thought your most recent post was made an excellent point about not condemning some else just for stating their moral opinion. You’re right that I don’t like that opinion and that they don’t like mine. That is something I will think more about.

Kardis, the problem with what you said:  “I thought your most recent post was made an excellent point about not condemning some else just for stating their moral opinion,” is that is, as Candy stated, this were a discussion about inter-racial romances, anyone who said it was outside their comfort zone would be denounced—rightly—as a racist and anyone rational would dismiss their arguments.  For someone who believes that homosexuality is NOT a choice, but a genetic imperative, the logical extension is that it’s EXACTLY THE SAME as inter-racial relationships and therefore NOT a moral issue at all, ever, in any universe.  So it’s not just “they can have their moral opinion and I’ll have mine.”  One of you HAS to be wrong, and wrong, in this case, equals immoral.

But then, I think I’m a little more hardline on things like this, because I’m in the sexual minority so very few people think is moral.

And Candy, there are laws against BDSM.  And they’re mostly Domestic Violence laws, which are a Good Thing, but make my life a bit more difficult. 

And re: BDSM romances?  You should check out Joey Hill.

Oh gods, and my sign-in thingy is “service78”.  Very apropos.

Wow, I waded through six pages of that stuff over on RT, and now I feel queasy, kind of like I ate a whole sleeve of Oreos. Except I didn’t get any cookies with this queasy feeling.

Roseread, in the interest of brevity in my previous post I think I may have oversimplified my views. I don’t like the arguments that people are making about “comfort zones”. I agree with Candy, what I was mainly trying to express in my post is that Robin’s comment made me think about this from a different perspective. Sometimes I feel like I *personally* get so caught up gnashing my teeth, but her comment made me take a (half) step back. I felt for me that it was a valuable insight. That’s all I’m trying to say. I tend to take a pretty strong stance as well in these issues as well.  :-)

Any one aware of any romances where the heroine has had same sex relationships before she meets the hero? From Kinsey to more contemporary sexoligists, the research indicates sexual relationships between women who idenfify as heterosexual are not uncommon. Yet the current romantic trend is to write about m/m sex and romance. I would be great one day for the romance genre to fully embrace the idea that some people are attracted to the person not the gender.

I just wanted to give a thumbs up to Candy for her points on bisexuality. It’s annoying when people think that just because you’re bi, you can’t be monogamous or that you think cheating is ok because it’s with the same sex. I’ve been in a monogamous hetero relationship for over nine years and my bisexuality has never caused any issues.

I just love you. As usual.

That’s sexologists - why do I lose my capacity to spell on the internet?

celeste wrote: I’ve read a few books where the guy had same sex encounters in the past (usually not by his choice), and it takes the heroine’s almighty vagina to make him right again. Ugh.
Diana Gabaldon did this. Then again, she’s pretty adamant that she is not a romance author. Latidah.

WHAT “one-man one-woman rule”?  Did Scarlett O’ Hara and Amber St. Clair miss the meeting? 

Somebody’s trying to rewrite history, I think.

I can’t remember titles right now, but it seems to me I read some romances from the 80s where there was lots of globe-hopping, sort of sweeping adventure stories, and the heroine would sometimes sleep around a bit before she settled down with Mr. Hero. They were a bit campy, quite like the covers of Ms. Brandewyne below but they sure weren’t one man - one woman, only.

And what about all the historicals that open with a man fondling his mistress (or some hooker) on the boobies just so us readers don’t miss the fact that he’s a dangerous womanizing rogue?

“as Candy stated, this were a discussion about inter-racial romances, anyone who said it was outside their comfort zone would be denounced—rightly—as a racist and anyone rational would dismiss their arguments.”

Why does it have to come down to such a powerful label being given?  Maybe such a person is racist and maybe they’re not.  Maybe their background is one of tremendous racial homogenity and they are really unfamiliar with much racial diversity.  What about non-wite readers who won’t read interracial Romance?

I’m still waiting to find the person who is completely free of some form of prejudice against any category, group, organization, individual, etc., because I’ve yet to locate one (myself included).  I am very uncomfortable reading many Native American - Anglo Romances, because I think so many of the Romances themselves are pretty racially insensitive.  But beyond that, I just don’t think most people fit so easily in and out of categories—something you seem to suggest yourself in explaining your own sexuality. 

Now, if someone says that they don’t think interracial Romance should be part of Romance, I’ll argue very strongly against that position.  But really and truly, the vast majority of people I know and observe harbor any number of fears and anxieties and suspicions about a range of “othernesses,” many born of unfamiliarity. It doesn’t, IMO, make them an “ist” of a certain variety, especially if they are not actively campaigning against other groups or victimizing said people or loudly proclaiming the inferiority, perversion, etc. of such people.

“Why does it have to come down to such a powerful label being given?  Maybe such a person is racist and maybe they’re not.”

Totally, 100%, absolutely bunk.  There’s nothing especially ‘powerful’ about the label if you come from magic-non-reality Ignoranceland—if the lable is taken as powerful than the person who said the stupid shit obviously should have known better.  If you don’t want to be labled racist… don’t be racist.  If you don’t want to be called a homophobe… then don’t be homophobic.

But, don’t run around pretending that theres some sort of “get to be hateful for free” card based on your upbringing.  I wouldn’t let a person kick me in the knee, because they came Knee Kicking Country.  I’d tell them knee-kicking makes you an asshole.  They can either change thier knee-kicking accordingly, or choose to willfully be an asshole.

I agree with Veronica.  Own your freakin’ labels, folks.

If somebody calls me a bitch, my first response is, “Thank the fuck outta you.”

I can be a bitch at times.

If you’re a bigot either change or own it, all y’all bigots! 

Americans particularly stroke out being called racist, because so damn many of y’all are. 

Yep, I said the ‘R’word.  If the shoe fits . . .

Totally, 100%, absolutely bunk.  There’s nothing especially ‘powerful’ about the label if you come from magic-non-reality Ignoranceland—if the lable is taken as powerful than the person who said the stupid shit obviously should have known better.  If you don’t want to be labled racist… don’t be racist.  If you don’t want to be called a homophobe… then don’t be homophobic.

One of the things I get most frustrated with in W. is his absolute certainty that there is a right and a wrong way to look at things—a black and white reality, so to speak.  The Axis of Evil, Islamofashism, stem cell research, Plan B, choice, Christianity.  That kind of absolutist certainty, regardless of the political ideology and party behind it, frightens me a little.

Burning a cross is a racist act; racially segregating schools is racist; proclaiming that Blacks are inherently lazy or that the Chinese are inherently industrious (a la African American political scientist Thomas Sowell) is racist.  You want to throw in all Romance readers who don’t like interracial Romance?  Really?  Wow.

Americans particularly stroke out being called racist, because so damn many of y’all are.

Wow again.  This statement feels sort of racist to me, and I’m actually way less comfortable referring to something/someone as racist than I am being called racist.

Robin,

I respect your feelings, but hear this.

Most black people would have no problem at all with my statement.

Americans particularly stroke out being called racist, because so damn many of y’all are.

While I don’t speak it out loud because it’s taboo, I define racist as being treated or solid evidence of being regarded differently from a like white person solely because I’m black.

Late and short but my two cents (that’s Mexican, by the way):

The problem I have with rigid moral compasses at any spot in the spectrum is that most of those holding them want to make everyone else follow the path of that one compass.

This.. proselytizing, if you will, would be a trivial matter if some of those same rigid moral compass holders weren’t actively trying to regulate everyone else’s morality and behaviour.

(Can’t resist! spam foiler: came69)

While I don’t speak it out loud because it’s taboo, I define racist as being treated or solid evidence of being regarded differently from a like white person solely because I’m black.

I see what you’re saying here, Monica.  I guess that for me there’s a difference between racialism and racism.  To me, anyway, what you’re talking about here is racialism, which is the phenomenon of identifying or believing in differences among races.  And I do believe that America is an incredibly racialist country.  While racialism can become racism, I don’t think it’s the same thing (and I don’t think it’s a “soft” form of racism, either).  Racism to me is hatred, discrimination, or a belief of inferiority or superiority singularly based on race, and while I think everyone has prejudices and holds certain group stereotypes (many of which huddle around circumstantial differences like race, culture, religion, language, etc.), I think the proportion of true racists is smaller than what you’ve represented.  For me it’s the difference between segregating AA Romance, and portraying African American Romance characters as subhuman (i.e. stupid or violent or even hyper-sexualized).

I want to add that I feel the same way about gender issues; I get nervous when people start calling various men misogynist, because, really, I don’t think most men hate women (they fear us! ;)).  I think misogyny is a really strong word, and while I think that both genders have a tendency to essentialize each other, I think person to person discrimination is less of a problem than passive acceptance of patriarchal social values we don’t challenge persistently enough.  And perhaps it’s the same with race.

Respectfully, Robin,

Why is romance segregated?  What is the message?  You say it’s racialism. 

Bear with me. 

What if a romance writer writes a romance and the majority of romance readers refuse to read her romance or don’t get the opportunity to read it solely because of her race?

What if her romance is treated differently than the other romances, to the point of being put on a separate shelf, even though the content of her romance stories are no different from the others? 

What is this telling her about her worth as a writer—and as a person—compared with the other writers whose books get regarded the same as the other romances?

Isn’t the message that she’s inherently different, somehow subhuman and naturally inferior writer if her romance can’t be treated the same as the others?

How is this less harmful than a book portraying African American Romance characters as subhuman (i.e. stupid or violent or even hyper-sexualized).

She might say it’s more harmful because it affects her life, her hopes, dreams, and her potential.

There is no difference between racialism and racism.  It’s just different semantics for the same thing.

I’m sidestepping the most recent branching of the conversation, but I wanted to respond to something Keziah said a bit up-thread:

Any one aware of any romances where the heroine has had same sex relationships before she meets the hero?

I don’t actually read romance (fantasy novelist and reader here, but I find it interesting to read about the trials and tribulations of other genres), so I can’t answer that question.  But I know that in fanfiction, m/m is astronomically more common than f/f, and the majority of it is written by women.  There’s plenty of speculation about why that is the case, but I suspect whatever the causes are, they’d apply to romance, as well, since the majority of the authors (as I understand it) are, again, women.

Or, to put it another way, as long as the majority of writers and readers of romance are straight women, they’re more likely to find m/m action hot than f/f.  For whatever reasons that may be.  I live ten minutes’ walk from the Kinsey Institute, but getting into their library requires permission from God, so it’s not a question I’ve ever tried to research. :-)

Monica has a point. I’m in a mixed-race marriage myself, and the novel my agent is currently shopping around is an interracial romance. She loves the book, but when I first signed on with her, she gently suggested I might want to make my hero Italian or something else because it might make it a tougher sell. I did all the other revisions she asked for but I didn’t change my hero’s race.

We’ll see how NYC feels about it because it’s a great story otherwise.

Oh, and since somebody mentioned this up-thread, too—

—the linking of homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, and various other kinks/perversions (depending on your point of view) probably happens because of boundaries.  That is to say, some people view homosexuality as lying on the other side of the boundary of Moral Behavior, and once you cross that line, everything goes.  Things fall apart, the center cannot hold, cats and dogs living together, etc.  It isn’t rational; those behaviors don’t actually correlate.  But they’re all (for such speakers) in the territory where there are no longer any boundaries.

(It’s also my amateur opinion on why men are more likely to be bothered by m/m sex than f/f.  In the sense that men penetrate, and women are penetrated, m/m sex violates their bodily integrity and breaks the boundary of their self, which isn’t supposed to happen to them.  If I had the spare time to read up on sexuality, I might know whether I’m totally wrong about that or not—but I only have time to wear so many hats.  Alas.)

After reading the six pages on the RT forum, I think the thing that bothered me the most was the knee-jerk reaction. If they had actually examined the book in question, there are no graphic m/m scenes. The hero isn’t currently sleeping with guys for fun, although if he were, more power to him.

The character is not a sociopath or a budding serial killer; he’s more like a spy or an undercover narc officer. He does whatever he has to get to get the job done. I don’t think Stuart really delves his enjoyment of m/m sex, although hopefully she won’t go down the Schone road and make it traumatic. It’s part of the backstory; that’s all.

And yet to have so many people flipping out, saying it’s gross, unnatural, immoral, aberrant—that blows my mind.  It’s not even a story element, for Christ’s sake!

So why all the freaking out over it?

What if a romance writer writes a romance and the majority of romance readers refuse to read her romance or don’t get the opportunity to read it solely because of her race?

Isn’t the message that she’s inherently different, somehow subhuman and naturally inferior writer if her romance can’t be treated the same as the others?

Well, I think there are some assumptions and conclusions here that are arguable.

First off, in terms of the shelving issue, does that really occur because bookstores and readers consider African American Romance to be inferior, or does it happen because, as in my Borders, for example, African American history and Chicano history and Native American history and culture and general literature categories are shelved separately?  And is that related to the fact that African American Studies has its own department on most college campuses, a separation actually insisted upon by many African American scholars who prefer the prominence of the separate title?  That is, not because African American Studies is viewed as inferior, but because it’s seen as requiring a certain insulated protection?  Gay/lesbian literature is shelved separately, too, and several of my gay friends have expressed the fact that they are more comfortable with that, because they can find it easily and don’t feel uncomfortable browsing the shelves with other customers.  I am actually against segregating Romance on the shelves, but I’ve heard from African American readers that they prefer having a separate place to go where they know they can access AA Romance.  I’ve heard booksellers say they shelve separately because of so many reader requests for AA Romance.  Some of it, I think, is intended as a sort of literary affirmative action, not as the denigration of Romance.

As to AA writers being treated differently, can you elaborate on that?  When this topic comes up on boards, I see so many requests from non-AA readers that they are open to read AA Romance but have just not actively sought it out.  Is this so different from readers who don’t seek out books that take place outside of England?  I don’t know the answer to this question—I’m asking for an opinion about it.  Does the fact that white Romance readers aren’t actively seeking out AA Romance mean that AA Romance authors aren’t being read, SOLELY because of their race?  How many AA authors actually write AA Romance?  How do AA authors who write white Romance figure into this in terms of being judged solely on their race (as opposed to the race of their characters).

Also, what about AA readers?  The long-time friend who started me reading Romance, who has read Romance since she was a teen, doesn’t read AA Romance, even though she’s an academic who heads the African American Studies program on her campus and works specifically on issues of race and culture.  Where would she fit into this equation?

Can you give me some examples of how AA Romance authors are treated in such a way that they are being told that they aren’t worthwhile as writers, examples that are distinct, for example, from white Romance authors who can’t sell manuscripts that take place in France or Belgium, or WWI Germany, or 15th century Spain?  I think it would be easier for me to accept your conclusions if I had a stronger grasp on your premises.

And yet to have so many people flipping out, saying it’s gross, unnatural, immoral, aberrant—that blows my mind.  It’s not even a story element, for Christ’s sake! So why all the freaking out over it?

Might it be because the administration changes at the national level in RWA left these sad and frightened bigots feeling as disenfranchised as they believe gay and lesbian people should be?  And there’s nothing angrier than a thwarted bully?

On the interracial thread: I must admit that when I first started looking around in online romance sites, the idea that there was a separate category for ‘interracial romance’ just trounced my ‘comfort zone.’  Or, to be frank, it pissed me off.  For godsake, Kirk kissed Uhura over 30 years ago.  Our race is Human.  (Except for those pesky vampires and were-beasts.)

Speaking of which, I find it passing strange that gay-lesbian stories are often lumped under ‘exotic’ in many chat lists—with the aliens, vampires, and other non-human creatures.

Candy, kudos to you.  “Outside my comfort zone” is a soft-core condemnation by someone who hasn’t even got the guts to honestly acknowledge a prejudice.  If you don’t like it, don’t read it.  What sane consenting adults do together is their own business and no one else’s.

But we’re getting into the free-speech zone again, I think—the “how dare you tell me I might be wrong?”  Since when is literature about any subject supposed to be restricted to a “comfort zone?”  Dickens made many wealthy Victorians uncomfortable by his realistic portrayal of what happened to the helpless in poorhouses and orphanages—should he have been censored because he threatened their “comfort zone?”  Or how about Solzhenytsen?  Martin Luther King?  Any random feminist? Environmentalists?  How about the person who yells “fire” in a theatre because the place really is on fire? 

Insular ignorance is “comfortable” to people who are threatened by the idea that their way is not the only way.  Recognizing that gay and lesbian love is a legitimate form of human expression may be uncomfortable in the short run, but growing up is frequently a terribly uncomfortable experience.

But the alternative is to remain a perpetual adolescent, with ignorant and immature opinions—and we have far too much evidence of what can happen to a country that’s run by people who are stuck in that state.

The whole homo(bi)sexualality thing linked to beastality/pedo behavior just has to come up every fuckin’ time!! Like a man that would stick his cock up another man would inherently stick it in any hole around. Dick is well-named.

And why is this an issue now?? Emma Holly has a bisexual hero in Beyond Seduction how many years ago? Seems to me the genre is still kickin’

The gay/bisexual prejudice is just a new twist to an old thing.  Prejudice and hatred of an other unites people. 

Gay people are doing something different from most, so are an easy target for hatred. 

Gay folks will have arrived when Harlequin starts a line of gay romances. 

However, while books featuring gay sex are segregated in some places, and places like my hometown in Kansas refuse to carry any gay books books (or books by black authors for that matter), books by gay people that aren’t about sex and coupling don’t seem to be separated.  We haven’t come to that yet.  Truman Capote was gay, but his book In Cold Blood was shelved with the true crime like any other author’s book. 

Robin, we’ll have to agree to disagree.  You think blacks have little beef when it comes to racism, even when we’re segregated from the mainstream. Many white Americans share your views that prevasive racism is a made-up construct.  Something blacks say just to have fun and piss them off, I guess.

Candy, you are amazing.

Thank you for posting about the stereotypes attached to bisexuality, which few ever question. 

In the bisexual world, the polyamorous types are the exception, really.  And those that are doing the orgy circuit are most often young, which is true for heterosexuals as well.  When bisexuals get older, we settle down into traditional (though sometimes gay) monogamous relationships like anyone else.

I’m not disputing that AA Romance may be separated in a lot of bookstores. But certainly not in all. In my husband’s store Romance is shelved alphabetically, period. I don’t think it would have occurred to him or any of the staff to do otherwise. But his store is small and independent, and isn’t a yardstick for the industry.

I don’t know if he carries gay Romance. I’ll have to ask.

Just because I can, I’ll add that at his upcoming event in Oct, I’ll be signing with Dennis Lehane, Michelle Monkou and George Pelecanos. So that’s a couple of Irish types, a black woman and . . . is that Greek? Not sure. But it’s a pretty diverse lineup.

It never fails to amaze me how people have no problem reading about sex with what is essentially a corpse (vampire romances) but they will totally wig out over a little implied homosexual or bisexual action.

Whooohooo, Michelle gets to sign with Nora, Lehane and Pelecanos?!  I’d be tickled for the opportunity to chat with my heroes.

I’m trying to puzzle out the ‘bisexual partners are more likely to be unfaithful’ argument. Several people in the AAR discussion have suggested that they find Happily-Ever-After to be much less likely with a bisexual man as the hero. It doesn’t make sense to me. Why is a bisexual man more likely to be unfaithful than one of those Toxic Alpha Man-Hos that Romance seems to be littered with?

I don’t think that anyone making the argument that the HEA is less likely with a bisexual hero could back it up with logic. To me that seems an argument based on their prejudice or plain ignorance. I know that someone (probably Candy) already provided a study showing that just because someone is bisexual has nothing to do with them being able to have a monogamous relationship.

Perhaps (staying on the “personal preference” rather than the “morality/exclusionary” side of the issue) we just gravitate toward romance novels that elaborate on our own fantasies and reflect/validate our own realities. I know I’m much more likely to pick up a book that has an older pairing, rather than a twenty-something couple. I’m more likely to stick with a book in which the hero is more of the academic type than a cop or a cowboy (in fact, I am definitely NOT into cowboys or SEALS, etc).

Bisexuality is irrelevant to me, as long as the novel I’m reading presents a plausible romance that I can releate to. Race is irrelevant, as long as it meets the same criterion.

What I *really* want, and what I almost never find, are books that reflect my own reality, with a middle-aged heroine finding her middle-aged hero. Don’t give me that 35=midlife crap, give me a woman over 50 who’s still looking for passion and commitment. We’re invisible, but we exist. Limiting romance novel characters to the young, slender, and beautiful says to me that I’m not a candidate for a HEA myself, and reinforces the myth that sex/love/passion are the province of the young.

Talk about a slap in the face to an entire generation!

I was wondering when you were gonna post on this. 

Very well done.

Wow, a lot to comment on today.

Megan said:

It never fails to amaze me how people have no problem reading about sex with what is essentially a corpse (vampire romances) but they will totally wig out over a little implied homosexual or bisexual action.

You said it. No matter what mythos people come up with, I never get past the “But he’s dead” in my own mind, followed quickly by “Ewwwwww.” In my world, vampires don’t get to have sex; they drink blood. Maybe they experience intense pleasure through feeding, but actual physical sex doesn’t fly for me.

SandyW said:

Why is a bisexual man more likely to be unfaithful than one of those Toxic Alpha Man-Hos that Romance seems to be littered with?

First, the idea that a bisexual hero is more likely to be unfaithful is ridiculous. It doesn’t mean someone is indiscriminate. To me, it’s an indicator that someone is extremely enlightened and is able to be attacted to a person, not just their naughty bits. And that’s a convention that I thought was yummy when I was like 18 and fresh to romance. Now that I’m older, I find that particular formula revolting. I mean, we have a man-ho who fucks his way through the world because he’s emotionally damaged, unable to love a woman, and then, here comes our heroine, who will cure him magically the first time he sticks his penis in her magical vagina. Well, shit, if the woman’s hoo-hoo is really that special, she should be on display at the Holy See with petitioners lined up to touch it for its healing properties!

Finally, Nancy said:

Limiting romance novel characters to the young, slender, and beautiful says to me that I’m not a candidate for a HEA myself, and reinforces the myth that sex/love/passion are the province of the young.

I agree and would recommend Black Rose from Nora Robert’s In the Garden trilogy. In fact, this book blew both Blue Dahlia and Red Lily out of the water, not that they were bad, but Black Rose was ground-breaking. I like challenging the stereotype that a woman has to slowly become matronly and non-sexual as she ages. Great book.

And could a bitch please fix my Italic faux pas below, please?

Robin, we’ll have to agree to disagree.  You think blacks have little beef when it comes to racism, even when we’re segregated from the mainstream. Many white Americans share your views that prevasive racism is a made-up construct.  Something blacks say just to have fun and piss them off, I guess.

I’m not sure exactly how much we disagree on, Monica.  You threw out an extremely strong statement:

What if a romance writer writes a romance and the majority of romance readers refuse to read her romance or don’t get the opportunity to read it solely because of her race?

Isn’t the message that she’s inherently different, somehow subhuman and naturally inferior writer if her romance can’t be treated the same as the others?

I asked for clarification and specification.  Telling me a situation is racist and expecting me to simply agree is different from giving me your definition of racist behavior and then providing examples that have led you to that conclusion so I can see for myself how you’ve reached it.  I feel that because I’m not ready to simply agree to something just because you’ve told me it’s so (i.e. that AA writers are being treated as inferior, not that inferior treatment doesn’t indicate racism), now I’m one of “those” white people who just doesn’t get it.  Which feels sort of essentialist to me in its own way. 

You don’t really know what I think about the situation of AA authors in Romance,  because I haven’t yet drawn a final conclusion, although I will endure the implications of your comment because it would be disingenuous of me to simply say, yeah, you’re right, AA authors and AA Romance is the object of racism in the industry and in the Romance reading community.  I’m stil working my way through the analysis.  And it would take too long for me to explain all of the things I believe about racism and race in America more generally.  I have a lot of thoughts on that, some of which involve the “R” word, and some of which don’t.

Someone below, Lia, I think, brought up the word prejudice, and I just have to say that I wish that word would make a comeback in our vocabulary.  I think she had the right of it when she said that not wanting to read outside one’s comfort zone was a form of prejudice, because after all, the damn word means what it says—to pre-judge—and certainly, this is what readers are doing in these circumstances, IMO (the question beyond is whether people should be condemned for, or forced to face or overcome their prejudices, which is, IMO, a slightly different discussion).  What I don’t think is that prejudice is necessarily the same thing as racism, and while you imply that Americans (particularly us white folks) need to wake up and get comfortable with the “R” word, I think the “R” word has become so overexposed that its use actually discourages people from attending to the differentiations and the prejudices and the stereotypes and the inequities you want us to see.

I live in one of the most liberal counties in the country and in the most liberal state in the US, and am considered to be very liberal in my political and social views.  I work in an extremely liberal academic setting and go to one of the most leftie law schools in America.  Even here I see the burnout and the backlash, and it’s frustrating because the area in which I work—on equity issues in higher education—has become a battleground.  Why?  Because the more conservative politicians and pundits have been able to capitalize on people’s frustration with what they believe to be unfair advantages given to “minorities” (and what I think has been both political sides’ unfair and inaccurate generalizations about race in America) such that these people are ready to listen eagerly to diatribes on “political correctness” and the like.  A number of years ago, when we had a proposition on the ballot to deprive illegal immigrants of public services, one of the major voting blocs of support came from Chicano/Latino voters.  Same with the state proposition to ban affirmative action in public institutions; although the percentage was smaller, a significant number of non-whites voted for that proposition. So now we’re not only fighting for real equity issues, but we’re also battling these broad generalizations from both sides of the political aisle, which, in some ways, are more difficult to contend with and overcome.

My vision is admittedly circumscribed by my own experiences both professionally and personally, as well as the work I’ve done on race and the development of the American national identity (my dissertation work was on Indian captivity narratives and the social constructions of race and culture), and that research (much of it primary) continually surprised me with its nuances and complexities, especially the confusion around what constitutes race and what constitutes culture and how unstable both categories really are (I highly recommend Theodore Allen’s two-volume work, The Invention of the White Race, for anyone who is interested in this stuff).  So between all that and what I see as an overuse and overapplication of the term “racism” to dynamics that may or may not be out and out racism, I am hesitant in using it liberally, so to speak.  If that makes me one of those white people who doesn’t get it in your eyes, then I’ll have to live with that, because no matter how smart I think you are Monica—and I do think you’re extremely smart—I’m not ready to agree with you just to avoid being called the “R” word.

I’m not calling you a racist.  It’s too charged a word to bandy.  But that’s all it is, a word. 

I don’t see why I have to defend that segregation is dehumanizing and degrading.  The fact that historically segregation is a bad thing seems to be a given.

Why do societies segregate?  By the act of setting apart, the set apart are demeaned and made inferior. 

Apartheid, the Untouchable caste in India, Jews under Nazism, blacks in the U.S. pre-Civil Rights Act. 

The only writers of romance and other popular fiction segregated by race are black authors. 

You can defend the hows and whys we are set apart, but it doesn’t change the reality of the many ways, small and big, that we are segregated.

I’m going to speculate that shelf-segregation is actually a marketing ploy. I think publishers intend to appeal to racial solidarity: black women will buy this book so we’ll put all romance novels written by black authors together in hopes that they will hit the same target audience.

However, that thinking is paltry because it seems to carry the assumption that a white soccer mom from New Hampshire won’t read the same book as a black PR specialist from Miami. They’re limiting their audience when a good book is a good book. Romance should be slotted with romance.

Publishers were so astounded when they realized that black people actually read books in the early nineties, they flooded the market with black-authored books.  Black romances were allowed in numbers in 1994—before that if you wanted to write romance you had to pass for white.

What’s telling is instead of adding black authors to their existing lines and imprints, they made separate categories just for books by black authors.

The black book niche is thriving around 15 years later.  Black folks read a lot.  Many blacks are grateful to be published at all and to have characters in books that look like them, so they’re not complaining.  We remember well when we couldn’t be published at all or read a genre book with black characters. 

But a bitch like me reminds folks that segregation is segregation and segregation is bad, no matter the economics.

Ana said: Romance should be slotted with romance.

I agree. Every other writer I’ve talked to about this agrees, but I don’t know if this opinion is in any way universal in the romance-writing community.

Why, then, do so many bookstores do it? Are they just guessing that AA romance readers want the books to be shelved in the AA section, or is their decision based on market research? If the latter is the case and a store decided anyway to shelve AA romance novels exclusively in romance, would that hurt sales?

I don’t know the answer to that. The good thing about most of the bookstores I frequent here in Atlanta is that AA romances are shelved in romance as well as the AA section.

Monica said: “The only writers of romance and other popular fiction segregated by race are black authors.”

I’m sure you’ve seen this, but it’s not necessarily done in all bookstores; I didn’t see a separate shelf the last time I was in B&N (admittedly, I may have missed it, as I’m not in there often, but a black romance shelf was not present, unless it was tucked in the children’s section), nor is the practice present where I normally shop - online. I regularly get referrals to black writers (including Monica) on Amazon (and I may get even more than I know, because a writer is just a writer, and unless I have reason to know her/his race,there’s no way to tell.)

I’m not privy to the secrets of the publishing business, but since the primary motivation has to be profit, perhaps the initial reason for black romance being labeled was to let the large numbers of potential black readers see the books, in a “hey, here we are” kind of way. It was a marketing move to establish a customer base, nothing more or less.

That being said, now that the market is established and the presence of black writers is a given, the time is long past to fold ‘em all back into the mix.

Is there any place, do you think, for ethnic labels on literature? Good writing is good writing, I’d say, but I also see the worth of recognizing different ethnicities in order to appreciate different points of view,  different senses of the world. (Coming at it from an academic viewpoint, however, rather than as a recreational reader. In this sense, the divisions are certainly not to infer inferiority but to explore how universal themes are expressed through different filters - surely the aim of Black or Women’s or Latino or Asian Studies, etc., departments)
***
Unless you’re saying, Monica, that one of the reasons black writers are shelved apart is to help white readers avoid black characters, rather than to help black readers find black characters. I do get the impression that you are. And then do you see this in all genres, or just romance? If that’s the case, it would lead into some observations about gender-based attitudes, wouldn’t it?

Just throwing out some thoughts, because, as I said, I don’t see any such segregation in my shopping online, and haven’t noticed it in my rare visits to brick and mortar stores. (And yeah, I’m just a dumpy middle-aged white woman, but I do realize that my whiteness may blind me to the more subtle realities.)

I’m going to speculate that shelf-segregation is actually a marketing ploy. I think publishers intend to appeal to racial solidarity: black women will buy this book so we’ll put all romance novels written by black authors together in hopes that they will hit the same target audience.

This may be the case, Ana; I’d actually like some more publisher or bookseller feedback on this issue.  Where I live, in California, EVERY cultural/racial/religious group has their own literature or history or culture section.  There’s Asian American literature, African American literature, Native American literature, Chicano literature, etc.  Same for history.  At our colleges and universities, there are Asian American Studies and Asian Studies programs, Chicano Studies, African American Studies, Jewish Studies, Islamic Studies, Native American Studies, etc.  Many of the scholars in these fields prefer to separate designation because they feel it gives them academic legitimacy, while others feel there would be more legitimacy to be integrated into a larger discipline.  We have a Cross-Cultural Center on our campus that has long been the object of contention, since it’s largely a place for “minority” students to hang out and sponsor programs.  Some people feel it’s reverse racism to have the center, while others feel it balkanizes the campus and promotes divisions among groups, and others feel it’s necessary to build cultural pride and a sense if representative identity among certain groups of students. 

I don’t see why I have to defend that segregation is dehumanizing and degrading.  The fact that historically segregation is a bad thing seems to be a given.

You don’t have to defend anything, Monica.  But as I said above in my response to Ana, where I live and work, there are numerous instances of “segregation” that are actually insisted upon by non-whites as positive rather than negative. 

The only writers of romance and other popular fiction segregated by race are black authors.

As I said, this is very much NOT the case where I live. Everyone gets their own shelf space here.

I don’t know what the cultural and racial diversity is like in Kansas, but in CA, our diversity has created a double pull.  For example, bilingual education has been nixed on the theory that non-English speaking children need to be “integrated” into English speaking classes (the so-called immersion theory).  But much language theory indicates that it does not matter so much which language a child has as a primary language, as long as they have a strong enough grasp on that language to be able to transfer the general language skills over to a second language (i.e. when you move them too early, they don’t master either language).  Some people think that immersing non-English speakers in English speaking classes is racist, and some people think that keeping them in bilingual classes (which are segregated, generally on the basis of race or culture, because there is MAJOR debate here as to whether Chicano and Latino folks are white or a separate race) is a form of racist segregation.

As I said, this is very much NOT the case where I live. Everyone gets their own shelf space here.

Really?  I had no idea.  There’s not much diversity in Kansas, although we’re getting a lot more Mexicans.  I can understand separating the books in Spanish from the English ones. 

I could see the opportunity for marketing. 

But how do they figure it out?  Are the publishers designating author race in their publisher sales catalogues for other types of people than the way they do for black authors?

Do they put Jennifer Weiner and Lee Goldberg in the Jewish Studies section, and Dirty Girls in a Hispanic section?  Do they put Tess Garritsen, Jade Lee, Marjorie Liu and Amy Tan together in the Asian section?

Do they double shelf them (put them in two categories)?  So Julie Leto goes into both into the Hispanic and romance section? 

What about the darker skinned East Indians?  Where do they go?  Do they have a separate section?  It seems as if they should.  Lots of East Indians that buy books.

Well, in romance, we now know that very few are permitted to engage in “indiscriminate and unethical sluttiness.”

Basically, that privilege is confined to straight males. Because they can be “redeemed” if they fall in love.

Straight females aren’t generally permitted this latitude within the genre.

And now we see that bisexual or gay people aren’t allowed to have “too much” sex, either, lest readers find their promiscuous “gay lifestyle” upsetting.

Sleeping around is just a straight male privilege. Got that, everyone?

You know, Candy, I’d agree with you, but I believe that some Magic Hoo-Hoos are more powerful than others. (And I don’t mean their owners have done a lot of Kegel exercises.)

Like, if you REALLY need redemption, there’s nothing like that virgin’s blood. That’ll do it every time.

You can’t just be sticking it into a Magic Hoo-Hoo that’s been well-used. The magic wears off a little after a certain number of uses. It’s just a very thin coating, apparently. (Even if it’s only been used by someone’s husband; thus, importance of the virgin widow.)

I just don’t get this obsession with comfort-zone friendly fiction.

A well-told story SHOULD make you think, fire your emotions, push your boundaries, open up new facets of awareness.

How can a reader be truly engaged if that tension isn’t there, if emotions aren’t being stoked? How can you care about the consequences to characters who are never truly challenged?

None of the “comfort zone” comments make any sense to me at all.

Yeah, I DO know what you mean.  One of the best flings of my life was with an admittedly promiscuous man who was 99.9% gay but once in a while, for some inexplicable (even to him) reason, got a hankerin’ for female companionship of the intimate kind.  It was a wonderful two months, full of champagne and laughter and lovely sex and devoid of expections, demands, and dishonesty. 

Would that all my relationships with straight men could’ve been that enjoyable!

In part as a paean to that old liaison, the male “love interest” in my upcoming novel from Samhain has had homosexual relationships.  However, since the book isn’t strictly a romance, I suppose I have a better chance of getting away with such a blemish on his past.  (I wish you could hear the tone of that last sentence lest you think I feel relieved.)

Candy said:

And to briefly wade into the stormy waters of racism vs. racialism, and prejudice and bigotry in general: I can appreciate the differences Robin is trying to point out. My parents are deeply prejudiced against dark-skinned people, and the Very Tall Husband’s parents are prejudiced against gays (they’re hardcore, devout Catholics, so this is not too surprising). However, their behavior towards the individuals they’re prejudiced against has generally been good. They treat them with courtesy and consideration, though my parents sometimes use epithets in private conversation that make me cringe. Is this the best way to operate? Not in my opinion—I do wish they’d change their minds and attitudes. But there are degrees and variations on prejudiced behavior, and we need to recognize that.

What? Their behaviour towards dark-skinned and gay people has ‘generally been good’; they deign to say good afternoon; smile; touch them with a handshake; share workspace – this means they’re ‘less’ prejudiced or not racist?

I never knew racism was behaviour – racism is belief. You don’t have to spit in my dark-skinned face to be a racist. You don’t have to have a banner. Third parties don’t need to declare you racist to make it official. So, your parents ‘sometimes use epithets’ in private conversation and this somehow makes a difference? How is this possible? The differences I see between people who keep their ‘prejudiced’ thoughts to themselves and those who shout it out are manners, decorum and most importantly – the ability to cover their ass. Your parents know the repercussions of stating their problems with dark skinned people in polite society but this no way no how makes them less prejudiced or able to avail themselves of a more palatable degree of prejudiced behaviour.

Robin (I think) said:

there are numerous instances of “segregation” that are actually insisted upon by non-whites as positive rather than negative.

My 14 year old cousin and her friends wanted to buy skin-lightening cream to be ‘prettier’. It’s unfortunately a booming business in the Caribbean amongst blacks and Indians, these creams – in both adults and teenagers. They don’t want to change the status quo - they want to reach over to the white side of it. They’ve been brainwashed by media and larger society. Non-white people who ‘insist’ upon books being segregated are really insisting on it staying segregated because they’ve grown accustomed to the status quo. If they started off integrated and then there was a push to segregate they’d be up in arms. No, I can’t prove it – just taking a wild wild wild guess.

I’m sorry for continuing along the ‘racist’ branch when this discussion is supposed to be about some narrow-minded people who post at AAR. I got sidetracked with the narrow-minded people posting here.

I lost my post so in a long nutshell:

Candy, no need to waste time being bothered at my inability to see the gradations. I understand them just fine. My life as an Afro-Caribbean woman in London involves constant navigation through these gradated minefields of racism. I have a problem when talk of gradation is used to bring the element of ‘acceptability’ of the lesser forms of prejudice/racism into the discussion and this is what I inferred from several posters here.

Personally, I would rather prejudice laid bare than having to suffer the pinpricks of gradated prejudice to the ilk of ‘you’re pretty smart you know, for a…you’re smart.’ - and suffer it with a smile.

Your comment upset me because I was reminded of my white S.African roommate who told me her parents still felt very uncomfortable sharing restaurants etc with black people but she would just give them time to come to terms with it on their own and wanted them to take it slow so it wasn’t too ‘sressful’ for them. This is not what you said but I was reminded of it.

I don’t know your parents, of course not. You introduced them as an example of prejudice though deep, as differentiated from other violent forms and I commented on it. I’m ‘assuming’ things as much as every other poster here is because none of us knows the other. That your parents are Malaysian don’t change my views and I certainly did not intend disrespect but since it appears I have, I apologise.

Dalia

(First of all, apologies if the italics don’t work; I’m used to LiveJournal, where the

< and >

keys denote the coding, but some blogs use the [ and ] keys. Ack, technology.)

Marie Brennan said upthread:

But I know that in fanfiction, m/m is astronomically more common than f/f, and the majority of it is written by women.  There’s plenty of speculation about why that is the case, but I suspect whatever the causes are, they’d apply to romance, as well, since the majority of the authors (as I understand it) are, again, women.

Or, to put it another way, as long as the majority of writers and readers of romance are straight women, they’re more likely to find m/m action hot than f/f.  For whatever reasons that may be.

Speaking as a reader and writer of m/m fanfiction, for me the equation goes like this: I am attracted to men. I am not attracted to women. Therefore, a m/m sex scene is hotter to me than a f/f one.

Because yes, m/m slash is exponentially more available than is f/f slash, to the point where I think we’re close to “slash” being the default term for m/m pairings and using “femmeslash” or “femslash” to denote f/f pairings. (As opposed to the historical usage of “slash”—yes, fanfiction has a history!—which denoted any same-sex pairing, whether m/m or f/f.) And I think it’s because the majority of fanfiction writers are women, and (dare I say it?) most of them are straight.

Which brings me to the Romance portion of the discussion. I’m new to the Romance genre, and really just bopping around, trying to figure out what (and whom) I like. But I do know for sure that a male bisexual or gay character would induce me to give a book a chance, because I’m already inclined that way from my decade of activity in m/m slash.

All of which is to say, those people who are trying to narrow the definition of Romance, or influence the market to discourage publishers from releasing Romances with bisexual or gay characters, should tread carefully, because in my case (and probably those of a number of other readers), they’re actually *driving* us to read those books. *writes down Stuart’s name in ‘books to read’ notebook*

I really don’t understand why anyone is bothering to point out the graduations prejudice, ‘cept to maybe assauge their own concious or feel better about their relatives.  If you say and think hateful shit about gays, you’re a homophobe.  If you beat gays you’re a violent homophobe.  If you say and think hateful shit about blacks, you’re a racist.  If you drag black men behind trucks you’re a violent racist. But, the existence of one bolsters the other, and neither is guiltless.  Why the desperate clawing for a blameless space to enshrine hatred and bigotry?

I don’t get it.  What is the ‘shades of hate’ stchick supposed to prove?

Woo hoo!  This is like when LFL and I were compared to KKK members for defending the forced seduction scenes in Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold on AAR. 

Non-white people who ‘insist’ upon books being segregated are really insisting on it staying segregated because they’ve grown accustomed to the status quo. If they started off integrated and then there was a push to segregate they’d be up in arms. No, I can’t prove it – just taking a wild wild wild guess.

My life and my work would be so much easier if things were this simple.  I don’t know how much you know about the rise of ethnic studies departments in US universities, there has been a tremendous amount of scholarship on both sides of the discipline segregation line, including much cogent and sophisticated work in support of separate academic programs for particular national/cultural/religious/racial identity groups.  Some of the arguments forwarded have to do with respecting the individual integrity of certain histories, raising social and political consciousness (i.e. changing the status quo), and, perhaps most materially, ensuring adequate departmental funding and FTE appointments (that is, dedicated faculty positions, which much be fought over in a large integrated department).  Whether or not I agree or disagree with any of these arguments is, IMO, irrelevant to the larger point, which is that some of the scholars who want dedicated departments actually believe that such a structure is a path to greater social and political capital for “minority” groups (I hate this term, especially because in CA, for example, Chicanos are statistically a majority but politically a minority).

Not that long ago, we had a discussion here about the merging of morality and politics on the far Right.  How is designating anything that falls short of some sweeping absolutist standard of racism one may personally define from the Left any different?  Because we know racism is wrong?  Of course it is; that’s not at issue.  What’s at issue for me is the flattening out a lot of complex intersections of identity and race and culture and religion and politics and class and gender, etc. and deciding that anyone who doesn’t recognize these obvious black and white differences is “narrow-minded” or racist or (fill in the blank with the derogatory adjective of your choice).  No one here is trying to defend hate crime; I’m not even trying to defend people who don’t want to read interracial Romance.  I’m simply saying that I’m not ready to condemn all those folks as racists.  If that makes me racist, then I think the campaign for social and political equity across line of circumstantial difference in America is in way more trouble than I did before this discussion.  On the most basic level, I don’t think calling those people racist is going to do one thing to eradicate racist beliefs and behaviors.  In fact, I think it’s going to facilitate the exact opposite of creating any greater understanding across lines of difference.

Veronica said: Why the desperate clawing for a blameless space to enshrine hatred and bigotry?

Oy. I don’t read Candy’s comments that way. At ALL. My relatives are Southern whites, and I have similar issues with them. Not for ONE MINUTE do I excuse their bigotry. They are my family, however, and the best I can do is influence them by example and argue with them outright when it’ll do the most good. I’ve been beating my head against this particular wall for a few decades now, and the jury’s still out on whether I’ve made one bit of difference.

If you think Candy is enshrining or excusing bigotry, I think you’ve seriously misread her comments.

Robin, I have yet to call you racist so I hope your comparison to a situation when you yourself were compared to KKK members is not drawn from something I wrote.

I know absolutely nothing about the rise of ethnic studies in US universities. The support for separate academic programs for particular groups - is this like an ‘Hispanic-American History’ class for Latin-Americans (though I’m assuming anyone is eligible to attend but the focus would be on Latin-Americans) or is this like a Macro-economic class for Latin Americans?

Focusing on black or gay romance novel segregation: I think it’s dangerous to use ‘non-whites agree with it’ or ‘booksellers say its best marketed that way’ as reasons for keeping it as such, no matter how intelligently worded or argued these reasons are. They always seem to be reactive statements to the existence of novel segregation when I just can’t get past why they were separated in the first place. Romance is romance is romance.