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. Rosy says:

    I used to say that romance was porn for women. (I mean, I wasn’t ashamed of it, I loved romance, I just felt like it was basically pornography.)

    Whenever I’d argue with someone who disagreed with me, someone who insisted romance wasn’t porn, their argument was always that porn was disgusting and romance was… well, romantic. After that, it always turned into a “is porn immoral” debate.

    But reading a few of your posts about it changed my mind. You’ve brought up a lot of points I’d never heard of before.

  2. Tam B. says:

    I am flat out disgusted by the term “mummy porn”.  (I promise to never use it again unless I’m ranting against it.)  I am further disgusted by “mummy’s naughty e-reader”.  Are the people who use these terms twelve?  It is an insult to reading women and to mother’s the world over.

    I have an e-reader.  I got it because when I’m on a roll I can have a book a day habit (they don’t happen often) and with an e-reader I don’t have to live at a book store, it lives with me (so to speak).  The only way in which my e-reader is naughty is when my credit card bill comes in – then it’s been bad, very bad.  (It just ignores me and buys all these books.)

    I read romance, erotica, PNR and enjoy it.  I admit I do prefer not having covers showing not only for my privacy (and judgement avoidance) but also in the same way I wouldn’t like a Penthouse or similar being flashed at me or more importantly my son in a public space.  I don’t really need to flash boobs and anything else on the cover of XYZ Passion to all and sundry. 

    As for content.  I think there is a world of difference between words on a page depicting an erotic scene and a Playboy spread (pun intended).  I know the point can be argued but from my point of view, I can read an erotic book on my e-reader and all my son knows is that it is “mummy’s book”.  There is no difference between an erotic romance, mystery or PNR title as far as he’s concerned.  However, if a Playboy centrefold is left open to him – he gets to see it all regardless.  (My son is three.)

    I haven’t read 50 Shades of Grey and can’t say that I’m all that inspired to (although I was recently gifted a copy).  I do however have the right to read whatever I damned well choose.  An no-one has the right to judge me.

  3. ZaBeth says:

    I think whoever coined the term “Mommy Porn” needs to read your book “Everything I Know About Love I Learned From Romance Novels”. I love Romances; and the passionate scenes in them. I’ve encouraged all writers to read your book on my blog. http://findingmeinwords.wordpr…

    Thanks for bring Romance out of the darkness; it never belonged there in the first place.

    Romance Readers Unite!

  4. Joni says:

    My apologies.

  5. Susan says:

    “I think perhaps you’re missing one reason why romance novels might be derided, and by people who are pro-female arousal—the horrible writing quality.”

    In response to the above statement from one of the posters, I can’t help but point out that bad writing isn’t by any means limited to the romance/erotica genres!  Go to the sci fi or fantasy section for some good giggles.  Or the mystery section.  Heck, those early potboiler detective stories practically invented OTT purple prose.  And don’t forget Westerns.  I’m not meaning to be rude here, but singling out romance is just a cop out.

    As for “Mommy’s naughty reader,” we’ve talked about that before.  I have to admit that since I got my first Kindle, almost overnight I virtually quit reading paper books altogether.  Yes, I buy more romance and erotica now, but I also buy waaaay more sci fi/fantasy/UF/paranormals/etc. than I ever did before.  In fact, I buy more of everything now.  My ereaders are a big ole mix of stuff from cookbooks to inspirational to mysteries to history to romance to younameit.  And you know what?  I don’t let anyone browse thru them.  None of their business.  I’d no more ask to look thru someone else’s ereader/books than I would ask to go thru their purse/wallet.  It’s just rude and nosy.

    I’m probably on the older end of the age spectrum for the posters here, so I’ve lived thru a lot of women’s issues being fought for and about—equal access to education, equal access to jobs, equal pay, equal access to health care, reproductive freedom (contraceptives, abortion), etc.  Despite all the progress that’s been made, it hasn’t been nearly enough.  That’s why I’m so close to despair at seeing people try to turn back the clock on the achievements that actually have been gained.

  6. Cara says:

    The whole “cover-shame” thing makes me laugh. Yeah, I like the fact that no one can see what I’m reading. But that stands just as much for when I’m reading The Hunger Games, or some other YA book, or – dear god, *if* I were to get around to reading ANYthing on the the Oprah reading list, or, well, do you get my drift? It’s no one’s business what I’m reading, whether it’s romance, erotica, Harry Potter, Neil Gaiman, or Star Trek fan fiction!

    And to tell you the truth, romance covers have gotten a LOT better. There are some that I think are just gorgeous, and I’d have no problem flashing them around. Hell, there are some erotica covers that are even prettier.

    As far as everything else goes, I’ve already said it, but it’s said much more eloquently and rationally here. I just see all the media idiots giggling and behaving like beavis and butthead and I want to weep/stab. At least now there’s the internet, and with e-books surfing a huge, swift tide of popularity, there are book blogs like this one. Thanks, Sarah.

    *sigh*

  7. Dave Thome says:

    I don’t know about porn seeking to demean one or more of the participants. I haven’t seen a lot of porn—really!—but I have HBO where silly porn/erotic/erotica/adult/whatever movies run every night, and from what I’ve seen, it’s very important to the men in these movies that the women are satisfied. In fact, from what I remember of reading Penthouse Forum years ago, it was always just as important for the woman to climax as the man. In other words, only a real man makes a woman see fireworks. (A good book on the subject is His Secret Life by Bob Berkowitz.)

    This, Sarah, is a very insightful and provocative post, but I have to say, porn or erotica for men certainly induces plenty of sniggering. In how many of those Super Bowl ads with bikinis did the men actually end up fulfilled? In one of them, the guy, it turned out, was talking to a car instead of a woman! In another, the point was to get men to send flowers to women to romancing them the way we’re always told women want to be romanced.

    Face it, this society makes it difficult for anyone to advance past the mentality of a 12-year-old when it comes to sexuality—male, female, gay, straight, etc. So rage and rant on. I’ve done it in my own blog, Man Writing a Romance many times. It’s about time our society grew up.

  8. covers can suck.  Authors often have about as much choice in those as you do in the color of your eyes (natural eye color).  That changes if you’re a bigger seller, sometimes.  Not always.

    But as to the writing?  You’ve read how many? 

    Give us an idea of how many, and what, and when.  Because the the subgenres of romance are varied and the romance genre has changed a lot.

    There are more than a few subgenres and writers that aren’t my cuppa and I wouldn’t really recommend them, but they appeal to many.

    The books I love?  If I recommended them to those same readers who love the books I dislike?  They’d look at me like I was a freak.  There’s a subgenre of romance that would appeal to almost every-and yes, I mean almost every reader out there, if they’d be willing to look at it with an open mind.

    Are you up to the challenge, Chris?  Because I bet the bitchery readers could find something that would appeal.  But you have to have an open mind and be ready to try a few things.  You might be surprised at the results.

  9. riwally says:

    What happened here?  Did we suddenly jump into a time capsule and zip back into the Dark Ages?  Since when should someone else govern what I read or why I read it?  Think out there oh ye with your finger on the button of sactamonious bullshit, push it and your choice in condoms, erectial disfunction medicine (I personally hate watching those freaking commericials and aren’t they out there for every child to watch and wonder about?) and the choice of boxers or briefs may come under closer scrutiny and be considered unacceptable in “polite” society.  Don’t judge me for what I do unless you’re willing to put your life under the microscope, asshat jerkwad.

    I have been buying and reading erotica for several years and it doesn’t embarrass me or make me ashamed in any way, shape or form.  I’ve bought it in books stores and never received a snicker or a snort for my choice of reading material.  And, oh hell yes!, sometimes what I read turns me on.  I am a healthy woman and I enjoy reading a sexually explicit book and I’m damn proud of it!!  So stand up and shout, all of you who love to read a sexy book and hold your head high because you’ve given up the chastity belt, the corset (well except for those rare occasions, of course), ten layers of clothing, long, buttoned to the neck nightgowns, and control of your life to a man.  We have jumped into the 21st century, ladies, it is our time.

  10. Debra Hyde says:

    Sorry for the tangent, but years ago—no lie—I saw a kid wearing a powder blue, leather NASCAR jacket… for the VIAGRA-sponsored car. Kid couldn’t have been more than 8. To think they made the jacket in kid sizes.

    Of course, sensible parents would probably say “it’s just a product” and shrug it off. And I probably wouldn’t fault them much for their largess. But imagine the kid years later when he learned what Viagra was for…

  11. Cheryl Smith says:

    Heh. Despite what many people think, the Puritans weren’t all that “pure”. As a matter of fact, almost 75% of their first born children were born less than 9 months after the wedding. LOL

  12. Yeah, I think when they say “romance is porn” they mean “romance is hasty titillation of one particular appetite, instead of three-dimensional character literature”.  Some romance is bad like that.  Or maybe I should say limited.

    So, in less satisfactory episodes, “The West Wing” was porn-for-Democrats: through most of George W. Bush’s presidency, you could turn on your TV and see a Democrat be President if that turned -you- on.  And not only be President but blow up stuff and assassinate terrorists and fix the nuclear reactor that one time.  (Actually, not himself.)  And he was super smart and had a Nobel Prize and Roman Catholic and secretly unwell, some of that sounds familiar.  Actually, I enjoyed the show a great deal, but it made me not like Presidents very much.  (And, with the blowing up and assassinating and getting into wars and his daughter kidnapped, and his wife impeached by the AMA or whatever, Bartlett really had a pretty bad Presidency.)  And the romance storylines in the show… some of them worked.  Better than in “24”, anyway.  Did I mention the smart?  He had knowledge Tourette’s.  You could not stop him from telling you facts.

    If you use badly written porn as a guide book then you or someone you care about can get hurt because you don’t know better; I guess that goes for badly written romance, too.  And badly written political fables.

    If you titillate certain appetites, including in written form, you just need to understand that that’s what you’re doing.  Maybe even including reading your one favourite scene from that romance.  A diet of just that isn’t healthy.

  13. Interesting article.  Still, a combination of explicit sex and power fantasy isn’t my idea of romance fiction. 

    To me, romances should be about love.  Sex, if any, should be the seasoning, not the substance.  To me, one sex scene after another isn’t romantic.  Just boring!

    About the definition of pornography—-well, you know what the word means in the original Greek, right?  If not, a quick google will tell you.  If a creative artist is prostituting his or her talents, and the subject is sex, to me that’s porn.  And that includes a lot of books that pretend to be romances.

  14. Amanda Brown says:

    I buy my eroitca books on my kindle for the same reason as many people on here have have said, I have a 7 year old daughter who is a very strong reader. When I wasn’t a mommy I was buying my “dirty books” at the bookstore.

  15. Sarah says:

    Love you, SB Sarah!  I’d like to say you took the words right out of my mouth, but you’re way ahead of me.  Three cheers from a fellow native of the US of WTF!

    I personally believe that there’s no fundamental difference between porn and erotica – they’re just words used to express disapproval vs. approval (or justification), respectively.  At most they delineate differences in the subcultures of the people buying them, or to put it more plainly, erotica is porn for snobs and anyone else who doesn’t want to be associated with “porn”.

    But you’re absolutely right that the basic subject of romance is different from the basic subject of porn=erotica – though they’re closely related, yum 😉

  16. DONNA says:

    I proudly celebrate my sexuality – always have.  And to be honest, I buy erotic romance/erotica on my Kindle because I’m greedy. I have very limited bookshelf space and boxes of DTB erotica that I can’t display. I like the fact that most of it is cheaper in e format than in DTB; allowing me greater purchasing power. I also get to take hundreds of books with me wherever I go.  If one doesn’t interest me, I can try another. I have no kids to hide my reading materials from and true, some of the cover art is enough to raise a few eyebrows, but so what.  I read what I like.  When I was going to bookstores, the personnel would recommend stuff to me, and one of them was male. He often referenced what his wife found interesting. I don’t have any friends that I know about who read ER, but if I did, I’d gladly share my stash and recommendations. I’d like to discuss what I read with people I know, not that the forums aren’t great, but I still believe in conversations face to face. Dying art and all that. Anywhoo, keep up the great work SB. Give ‘em HELL!

  17. Angel R says:

    Oh, dear…wanting to be exempt from paying birth control is not the same as banning all access to it. Employers who have a moral and/or religious opposition to sterility treatments and birth control shouldn’t be made pay for it. Birth control isn’t a “right”- the freedom to not violate your moral conscience is.

  18. henofthewoods says:

    Even better, is what HB2625 actually repeals:

      HB 2625 proposes to remove the clause that reads:

      A religious employer shall not discriminate against an employee who

      independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.

    Which means that HB2625 would make it legal to discriminate against women who use contraception.

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/5……

  19. sarah. says:

    I’m not quite caught up on the comments here, but I just wanted to jump in and say how absolutely delighted I am by the conversation that’s happening. There is no better way to contradict closed-minded bullshitting than to have intelligent conversations about it. All of this is wonderful, and bless your heart Sarah for starting it.

    And also, I watched that Today segment expecting to be uniformly disgusted—and mostly I was, but I was also pleasantly surprised by the “relationship expert” Logan Levkoff who was so on her game and taking the stodgy TV personalities around her to task! She was a total badass, imo, and I wanted to make sure she got the credit she deserves.

  20. Lais says:

    I can’t begin to tell you how much I love, love, love this post!

    We’ve been discussing it over at Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/topic…

  21. KZoeT says:

    “In another, the point was to get men to send flowers to women to romancing them the way we’re always told women want to be romanced.”

    Just curious: the Teleflora ad that had the supermodel that said “Guys, Valentine’s Day isn’t that complicated. Give and you shall receive.”?  The one that insinuated that to get laid, he should give his partner flowers? 

    “Face it, this society makes it difficult for anyone to advance past the mentality of a 12-year-old when it comes to sexuality—male, female, gay, straight, etc. “

    Word to big bird on that one, Dave.

  22. That was an interesting read.

  23. Mercysmail says:

    Like probably alot of readers of “romance novels” I am not forcing anyone to read it.  It is for my enjoyment and mine alone. If I watch a porn then it is for my enjoyment and my parnter who doesn’t object or me and my vibrator.  I can’t hold a book in one hand and vibrator in the other….
    Yes I predominatently read erotica but have you read some “main stream”novels lately eg Lora Leigh, Anya Bast or Kresley Cole. Someof them are hot but ofcourse not on the Ellora’s cave level of hot but reallyI know when I read a romance, romantica or erotica. Written porn is tasteless and just down right awful and usually written for men maybe objectors should read a porn novel from theirlcal sex shop and a ellora’scave novel and then a mainstream romance.
    They are miles apart!
    Wendy

  24. Copa says:

    I read romances. I watch porn. I do not read erotica as it simply doesn’t do enough for me in either the porny or romancy categories, but I fully support anyone who does read erotica.

    If reading romances/watching porn and taking birth control magically turned me into a whore I sure as shit wouldn’t be working my ass off at target every day to pay my bills.

  25. NancyLoughrin says:

    Best rant I’ve read in a long time, bravo!! I write romance and erotic and my female and male beta readers can’t get enough. Thank you for taking the time to put ‘pen to paper’ so to speak on this topic for all readers and writers. Keep up the good work and good fight. Cheers!

  26. Karin says:

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Insurance is an employee benefit, but no employer should get to pick and choose what medical procedures or medications the employee uses, anymore than the employer gets to tell you how to spend your paycheck. That’s between her and her doctor. The woman’s right supercedes the boss’s right because it’s her body. This has already been argued ad infinitum, but what if your employer has a moral objection to vaccines, or blood transfusions, or in-vitro fertilization, or organ transplants or anything involving stem cells? 

  27. Ashley Leann says:

    I’m a nice girl and I read erotica and watch porn with my boyfriend. Since when did reading dirty words on a page make me soiled and unfit for society? I thought we had moved on from the madonna/whore dichotomy after the womens movement. I find it insulting to be charaterized in such rigid and limiting terms.

    Where does the GOP get their beliefs on birthcontrol and sexualty from The Handmaids Tale?

  28. MFMYardley says:

    This was a great article. It took a little longer to read it than usual. The Beckham pic is a little distracting.

  29. FairyKat says:

    Porn is porn for women. And romance is romance for men.

    Thank you.

    What we read may be appropriate to make public (I teach literature at university, I belonged to a book group, and I am evangelical about books I think my friends will love), or may be appropriate to keep private (because it’s part of getting away from my job, because some things are more fun if it’s a wicked and private indulgence, or because I don’t think my friends will enjoy it).  Neither is about shame or approval, but about the many subtle interactions between what happens in my own head, or my own skin, and what I share

  30. Real Women Read W(ever)TF we want. Did you know that in the middle ages it was considered necessary for a woman to have an orgasm to conceive?  Damn Science gave guys the night off.
    We all have our own definition of this stuff. It becomes dangerous when people with a more restrictive definition of any form of expression are in power or have a soap box.
    My personal definition and opinion:
    Porn promotes treatment of one person, gender or class in a way damaging to that person, gender or class and through that, damaging to society as a whole.  But that leaves a grey area between freedom and censorship, ideation and the acting out of ideas, art and not art. Where it is dicey is that we are conflicted between the promotion of freedom of expression and that which is damaging. No one thinks yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected expression, but does pornography cross the threshold from artistic expression to something that in reality creates a tangible danger not based in fear or subjugation based morals?

    I think porn is a sub set form of expression of the general set “sexually explicit material.” Erotica is also that subset. Romance is not necessarily in that same set.  Think Venn diagrams.  Is one “bad” and the other “good” and on what basis.

    There is a positive porn movement online. But it remains that “porn” is considered unacceptable outside of certain arenas and that calling something “porn” is one way of marginalizing it, and calling romance or erotica “porn” is also a way of marginalizing and deprecating women, our needs and arousal. For whatever reason some people find women’s sexuality a threat.  Unfortunately some people see that employing that fear rhetorically is a way to impose their own will or morality on others.

  31. Lynnd says:

    Really, and would your “moral conscience” extent to employers who would refuse coverage for blood transfusions or providing blood products to hemopheliacs because there are religious groups that object to those kinds of health services as well?  What would you say to an employer requiring every employee to wear a hijab “on religious and moral” grounds as a term of her employment? (BTW, I have no issues with anyone wearing a hijab or any other item of religious significantce if he or she CHOOSES to do so).

  32. Theresa Meyers says:

    I think I’ve hit my head on the desk so many times in the last few weeks over all this kerfuffle that my forehead is now flat.

    Seriously, why in the hell do they FEAR women’s sexuality so much? That’s the only reason to shame is as a form of control. And the contreception debate, please, what are we in the Victorian era here? Women have every right to their own bodies, including their brains. Keep your damn legislative hands off of our healthcare and your opinions about what we want to read to yourself. TYVM.

    Thanks for the post, Sarah! Now if we could only get them to understand this isn’t a secret at all—that *gasp* romances outsell all other forms of fiction for a reason—they’re amazing stories!

  33. Bec says:

    I loved reading this! It made me kind of angry that my vagina and its needs and desires are somehow thought to be inferior, and possibly even dirty and shameful, in comparison to the penis and its needs and desires.  But then I remembered that without the vagina and all of its capabilities, the penis would have very little to do except to hang around looking sad and forlorn.
    I got my new issue of Entertainment Weekly last night and Lisa Schwarzbaum called 50 Shades “the pornographic runaway bestseller…” in the first dozen words of her review and she also referred to it as “lady porn” near the end of her review (she ended up giving the book a B+). Anyhow, call it what you will, but I went online and promptly pre-ordered the trilogy from Amazon—the actual books, not the Kindle versions—just so I could see what the hubbub is all about.

  34. @ Angel R ~

    If your “moral conscience” requires that you impose your religious beliefs on others by denying them access to healthcare via insurance for which they have already paid, you need to get out of the “employing other people” business and get a cube farm job of your own.

  35. MFMYardley says:

    @ Anglea R – at some point do “you” whomever that you may decide to be – get to sit and decide what is a ‘morally acceptable” prescription, condition, surgery, vaccine??

  36. Ella Quinn says:

    Great post. I’ve been watching this go on for over 40 years now. Women need to be make sure they are voting for people who respect their rights.

  37. DonnaMarie says:

    Simple answer? Control the uterus you control the world. Explains a lot, doesn’t it? Don’t let 35,000 years of evolution fool you. That little primordial remnant in our brains still answers to the biological imperative that causes lions to kill the cubs of other males and other disturbing behaviors in order to control who’s dna makes it into the future.

  38. Lijakaca says:

    This is getting really scary. One of the publishers on Kindle, Digital Manga was recently suspended apparently due to a violation of a very vague prohibition: “Pornography and hard-core material that depicts graphic sexual acts.”

    I believe Digital Manga publishes yaoi manga, so now I guess male-male erotica in comic form is deemed to be pornography? How long will it be until it’s considered ‘obscene’ in prose form, and then why would het romance be any different?

    It’s so easy in this weird puritanical atmosphere to be ashamed about enjoying anything related to sex, especially when those who want to control it will stoop to ridiculous shaming tactics when a regular person doesn’t act sufficiently modest (regular person and act being the operative words, since it’s proven time and time again that they don’t care about what rich/powerful people are actually doing in secret). Since when is being on the Pill a shameful thing? Since when is enjoying our sexuality shameful? It seems like we’ve regressed several decades here, and if ‘regular people’ (that’s all of us regardless of sexuality, AND our partners) don’t stand up confidently for our right to own our bodies and sexuality, our rights will continue to be stripped away.

  39. Linked-In is having a run on this and a MALE retorted to the male that said thirty percent of all books are women’s porn by asking for the citation, which of course he never received. I think the underlying cause of this is the genetic imperative that it would be so much more convenient for men if women didn’t expect romance. And that Beckham display in the store window stopped me in my tracks and I am “old”.

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