Rant
Genre: Contemporary Romance, Erotica/Erotic Romance, Romance
Archetype: Blue Collar, Cop/Sheriff, Military
I received the following Book Rant from MoWeezy, who had a really, really difficult time reading Lora Leigh’s Nauti Temptress. Expect livid fury, unabated. With gifs!
…
Long time reader, first time caller and all that.
I wanted to tell you about a book that made me scream, throw my kindle, and metaphorically rend my garments.
I used to be a big fan of the Lora Leigh oeuvre. Sadly she’s long since gone off the rails, and I’ve returned to my first love of Regencies and Jennifer Cruisie. However, I read a Leigh recently that made me FLAME with anger.
Like this, pardon the swear:
Should have known from the title: Nauti Temptress. I thought I’d send it over to you so you could either tell me I’m crazy or if i’m crazy right.
Seriously this book made me so angry I winged my e-reader at my boyfriend screaming. Essentially there’s some really patriarchal “let’s shame the woman who makes choices for her body” that I had to keep checking that this was in fact by the same author of which I had read SO many books. Apologies if we differ on our viewpoints on abortion/my semi-flippant treatment here, this book just threw abortion/the morning after pill around so much it made me livid.
Point 1- The author refers to the morning after pill as an “abortion pill” multiple times. Medically incorrect. Granted, people shouldn’t look to romance novels as their medical advice but still. Research please. Or just leave it out.
Point 2 – Hero has sex with Heroine and doesn’t tell her that the condom breaks… for DAYS. (She’s a virgin and doesn’t realize it apparently)
Point 3 – Hero has sex with Heroine again, and doesn’t use a condom and then she freaks afterwards.
Point 4 – Hero essentially LOCKS Heroine in this house/ removes her ability to leave the property for 72 hours because that’s how long she has to take the morning after pill. Seriously, there are paragraphs devoted to his thought process here. This is where the screaming escalated.
This is the kicker- Heroine figures it out, and freaks out, NOT because she’s 24* (or so — I don’t know exactly, but LL prefaces this book with the Hero being at least 10+ years older) and her significantly older man is preventing her from getting medical assistance but because she can’t believe his first reaction would be (to assume) that HER first reaction would be to abort.
Especially because they have had NO conversation about this being anything other than casual sex. And she’s just recently lost her virginity. To him.
It’s not just this one section, but this hero’s hang ups with women having reproductive choices separate from what the men in their family would want, is just RAMPANT in this book. Not that I’m expecting a romance author whose male characters are predominately overbearing Type As to suddenly make them all hip with the feminists but seriously, I couldn’t deal with Leigh forcing this stuff down my throat. (hah. get it?)
It’s just weird seeing it from an author who has a whole series of books that revolve around man-wolf/coyote hybrids that have a biological imperative to have TEH BUTTSECKS with their “one true mates.”
Just wanted to see if you wouldn’t mind like to warning readers out there, who may be attempting to reconnect with Lora Leigh, since the first Nauti series was pretty good. There is no mention of this craziness in any of the Amazon reviews, or anywhere I could find in a quick Google search.
I wanted to warn the SBTB community that if they feel as I do re: women’s reproductive rights, they should not waste their $9.99. Unless they want to yell and throw things.
I never DNF a book, but this is the first one I had to force myself to finish.
The real thread that runs through this is my sadness at authors who are extremely prolific (Leigh, Kenyon, etc.) who have these crazy/amazing books or series that start, and then they continue them into this realm of just utter ridiculousness. The parts that I loved about the initial books get tainted with this formula, and they go downhill, and fast. I tend to read a new book and then go back and read the backlog of an author, and I’m usually surprised at how much I prefer the initial books to the ones that are still coming out (see Sherrilyn Kenyon). Combined with this obvious ploy at pushing an agenda — the Hero’s opinion on birth control and a women’s ability to make choices — it completely removes me from the story and it’s hard to even want to go back and read the inspiration for this novel, because my view of these characters has been so tainted. I’ve sworn I won’t buy another Lora Leigh ever again.
I think that’s what made me so rage-y, these original characters who were such fun romps (although the book’s not what I would categorize as a “romp” it’s just super fun and quick to read) get turned into caricatures in order to sell more books in the same series.
This book is available from:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
We also may use affiliate links in our posts, as well.
Thanks!
Yes, they were. Just not a good fit for me. And I hope not a trend.
“I know of at least one couple who have done this on more than one occasion. “
Well, is it one couple or more than one couple? If you know this couple well enough to know their intimate lives, you surely know how many couples are involved. You’ve also said they had preparations for BC even if they forgot to use it – are you claiming that they made a decision to use abortion instead of BC? When they had BC and were in fact using it most of the time?
I think this anecdote stinks of “friend of a friend”. The real world data shows what Evie describes is not what happens.
“At least EvieM owns her shit and apologizes. “
Some apology which repeats the offence and adds personal attacks.
She may own her shit but she can’t see what shit it is. Nor can you.
She was attacked because she’s the holder of offensive and wrong-headed opinions, which she’s repeated. You can’t separate someone from their opinions. Judgemental is as judgemental does, you know.
Also, what shit have I not owned? Have I not signed all my comments with my professional name (for which I will undoubtedly get caned?)
I think someone participating in a conversation with just initials has a nerve implying that I’m somehow not ‘owning my shit’.
You’re just a damn troll.
Consider me irrelevant, as Ann does, but here’s the thing, Meoskop: who gets to decide which thoughts are worth having?
You? Ann S? only those select people who are “right”?
Isn’t that exactly the problem? That people who think they are right keep stepping on those considered to be wrong?
So how is it better for women at large, and for humanity as a whole, if the end—the rights of women—is used as an excuse to silence those we disagree with?
I know not all countries have the right to speak their minds enshrined in their constitutions, and I know that in the US that freedoms is challenged all the freaking time, but seriously, why should we condone Ann S screeching rants, insults, derision, etc. and yet demand silence—and even mindless compliance—from women who agree we all should have the right to choose what the fuck to do with our own bodies, simply because a) their own choices would be different and b) their religious beliefs tell them that abortion is not a decision made lightly or that it is always a tragedy.
If those same women will ask their representatives to sign laws and then will vote for those laws, granting women the right to do with their bodies as they see fit, regardless of what the fuck they may think about women choosing to terminate pregnancies by whichever means.
If those same women stand on the same side of the trench as you do, working to break those walls that make all women second class humans, why the fuck should their thoughts matter?
Why is our speech more important/superior than that of other women?
Oh snap.
Well, is it one couple or more than one couple? If you know this couple well enough to know their intimate lives, you surely know how many couples are involved. You’ve also said they had preparations for BC even if they forgot to use it – are you claiming that they made a decision to use abortion instead of BC? When they had BC and were in fact using it most of the time?
A couple, as in a man and a woman who are together as a couple. I know the intimate details of this situation because the woman was one of my roommates. Our other roommate worked at Planned Parenthood and brought home bags of condoms on a regular basis because we were superfreak slutty like that. So yes, on more than one occasion this couple (my roommate and her boyfriend who was not a roommate) made a decision in the heat of the moment to have sex without birth control when it was readily available, got pregnant and had an abortion. Twice. Sorry if this messes with your world view. The other two times she got pregnant was due to failed birth control.
The real world data shows what Evie describes is not what happens. What real world data are you talking about? If there is any actual data that makes the assertion this never happens, I will find the flaw in the data collection for you, because this does happen. Maybe not frequently, but it does. Shit happens, people do stupid things.
Also, what shit have I not owned? Have I not signed all my comments with my professional name (for which I will undoubtedly get caned?) When you call someone on their shit it means pointing out problematic behavior, it has nothing to do with how you sign your name. And I think you know that. The shit you have not owned is resorting to a personal attack. I have no problem with attacking someone’s statements or opinion, what I do have a problem with is a personal attack, which you resorted to. Own it and apologize, if you’re capable of that amount of critical self-examination.
Some apology which repeats the offence and adds personal attacks. Deflection to avoid having to acknowledge and apologize for your own bad behavior and nowhere did she personally attack you, please point it out if I missed it.
She may own her shit but she can’t see what shit it is. Nor can you. More deflection.
You can’t separate someone from their opinions. Judgemental is as judgemental does, you know. The irony is killing me.
I think someone participating in a conversation with just initials has a nerve implying that I’m somehow not ‘owning my shit’ And yet more deflection.
You’re just a damn troll. *Rolls eyes*
Use up all your crayons drafting that one, AL?
Indeed, dearie.
“So yes, on more than one occasion this couple (my roommate and her boyfriend who was not a roommate) made a decision in the heat of the moment to have sex without birth control when it was readily available, got pregnant and had an abortion”
That is *not* the same as deciding to choose abortion over BC. Jesus Fucking Christ. Evie claimed that ‘educated’ women deliberately eschew BC in favour of abortion. Your anecdote doesn’t disprove that at all.
“The shit you have not owned is resorting to a personal attack.”
Bullshit. You want me to *apologise* for what I’ve said? Well I ain’t gonna. Evie offended me personally, called women like me slutty baby murderers in not so many words, and wants women like me to be punished for that. No fucking way.
I own what I said. I’m not sorry for a word of it. Just because you want me to be, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Evie makes a faux apology and suddenly she’s the one everyone’s pandering too. Wake up and smell the horseshit. Evie hasn’t had an epiphany – she’s just sorry she’s been called out. The problem with her mindset – and yours, and others here – remains, and that is the REAL problem.
Yeah, you’re still a troll. And a judgemental bitch. Why do you give a shit what contraceptive choices other women make? Why does it matter that your roommate had 4 abortions, or a hundred? Why is abortion so very different? It’s not. It’s just one of a suite of options which should be free, safe and legal for all women.
The absolute volume of stupidity and slut shaming on this thread is horrifying.
Here’s two statements.
Statement Number One: I disagree with you vehemently. Your statements are offensive and damaging to women.
Statement Number Two: I disagree with you vehemently. Your statements are offensive and damaging to women, you stupid crazy meanie.
See the difference? Statement number one does not provide solace to the oppressors. It doesn’t sugar coat anything. It is passionate and clear. It simply leaves out name calling. If you, Ann, or anyone else, is incapable of stating an opinion without name-calling and personally insulting the women who are trying to have a conversation with you, then congratulations. You’ve just handed over a whole ton of ammo to the patriarchy. Why should men bother to tell women they disagree with to sit down and shut up when you are so eager to do it for them? I hope that none of us on this site, including Ann, and including the people who I disagree with most deeply, ever sits down and shuts up. Ann, you have opinions that we need to hear and a story that needs to be told. And you sure as hell have a right to your rage. In this world, even the most privileged woman is attacked in body and mind a million different ways a day. We should be angry. But there is no reason to add a personal insult to every post you make. If you can’t have a conversation without telling the people on the thread that they are crazy, or mean, or stupid, then maybe you’re the one who has a few too many legacies from patriarchy running around her head, because that’s what women are always told when we pose conflict and I, for one, am fucking sick of it, no matter who is doing it or why.
I don’t really want to get involved with this brouhaha, but “the truth is somewhere in the middle” is a logical fallacy. It is possible that one side, and only one side, is correct. It’s incumbent upon everyone in an argument to make their case for validity. No one is required to humor anyone else’s argument.
Honestly, if someone is judging me, I hope they sit down and shut up. And if they think some women “deserve” to carry a child to term, they’re judging me.
Doesn’t that make sense? Why should I tolerate an insult?
You don’t have to tolerate an insult. Replying with something like statement one (“I vehemently disagree and consider your opinions to be insulting and damaging and here’s why”) is not tolerating an insult. It’s standing up for yourself, as well you should, but by expressing your feelings and making an argument to support your case or to explain your position. Replying to said insult by calling someone, as Ann just did, “a judgemental bitch” is both ironic, considering what site we’re on and that using bitch as an insult is hardly a feminist moment, and counter-productive. You can call someone cold, a troll, say they are too stupid to understand what’s going on, but that’s just flinging venom around in the air. Ann has made some fantastic points to bolster her case in defense against perceived or actual insults, as have others, and they were most convincing when they were clear, thought out, passionate, and not name-calling. There is a real argument here that deserves to be had. “Bitch” is not an argument. It’s noise.
Refraining from screeching like a banshee when someone disagrees with you hardly equals humoring their arguments.
If all views are equal, I imagine you find the comment threads of news articles worthy reading.
I look forward to the day when this slut shaming rhetoric is as shocking as race conversation from the 1950’s. Today’s reasoned stance is tomorrow’s jaw dropping hate.
Tolerance is not acceptance. I do not stand on the same side as those who tolerate bodily autonomy nor will assumptions about shared chromosomes compel me to pretend otherwise.
If you’ve insulted me, why do I have to sit your ass down politely?
You’re making a tone troll argument here.
You don’t have to do anything. I don’t have any power to control the tone here. What I WANT you to do is consider what you are trying to accomplish and how best to get it. Screaming epithets at people is usually not productive. Are you trying to make people who disagree with you change their minds? Are you trying to reach others? Are you trying to bully your opponent into shutting up, because you think free speech only applies to you?
I think that a lot of people like this site because we treat each other with respect even when we disagree. If saying that makes me a tone troll, I don’t have a problem with that.
I don’t think I have anything to add to this conversation beyond my post in which I compared the assertive statement to the insulting one. I won’t try to influence the discussion beyond this point because, you, know, free speech, but I wasn’t willing to stay silent in the face of the multiple ad hominem attacks that have been carried out. I think I’ve made my case as well as I can.
“So yes, on more than one occasion this couple (my roommate and her boyfriend who was not a roommate) made a decision in the heat of the moment to have sex without birth control when it was readily available, got pregnant and had an abortion”
That is *not* the same as deciding to choose abortion over BC. Jesus Fucking Christ. Evie claimed that ‘educated’ women deliberately eschew BC in favour of abortion. Your anecdote doesn’t disprove that at all.
Uhm, nooo, let’s get it straight, what she said was, “I don’t believe abortion should be used an excuse to forego birth control (for the female OR male partner). If someone is educated and has access to birth control and refuses to use it because “Oh I can get an abortion”, then I see that as plain stupidity. You said this doesn’t happen, Nobody says this, Evie. The fact you consider this remotely likely, tells me how deeply you believe the right wing lies about women. I pointed out that it does happen. On two separate occasions, my former roommate and her boyfriend had easy access to condoms, chose not to use them knowing they could get an abortion if she got pregnant. You chose not to believe me rather than face the fact that there are women (and men) who forgo BC, risking pregnancy, knowing they can have an abortion. You may not like my anecdata, but there it is. And here’s even more, I texted that other roommate who worked at Planned Parenthood for appx 15 years, at 4 different locations (3 in low-income communities, 1 in an affluent community) in 2 different states, here’s her anecdata. In her personal experience, there are some women who have easy and affordable access to traditional birth control methods and, for whatever personal reason, may choose not to use it and if they become pregnant, choose to have an elective abortion because abortion is not viewed as this terrible thing, but rather a valid and acceptable form of BC. You may still wish to continue to deny and erase these women’s choices and experiences because it doesn’t conform to your idea of how a woman should or would behave, but that doesn’t change or invalidate their choices.
I own what I said. I’m not sorry for a word of it. Just because you want me to be, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Evie makes a faux apology and suddenly she’s the one everyone’s pandering too. No one’s pandering to her, everyone called her out. I would have, too, but she owned her mistake and apologized by the time I read her post. I get you don’t see it that way. But I will defend anyone I see being attacked like that no matter how wrong-headed their views because it’s fucked up and it derails the conversation. I had hoped you’d be willing to recognize when your own behavior is problematic.
The problem with her mindset – and yours, and others here – remains, and that is the REAL problem. You don’t know my mindset.
Yeah, you’re still a troll. And a judgemental bitch. Why do you give a shit what contraceptive choices other women make? Actually, I don’t and I never said that I did. I was simply refuting a statement you made, that doesn’t make me a troll, judgmental or a bitch; it makes me someone who is pointing out where you’ve made a false statement.
Why does it matter that your roommate had 4 abortions, or a hundred? Why is abortion so very different? It’s not. It’s just one of a suite of options which should be free, safe and legal for all women. Again, I never said it matters, I happen to believe every woman is in charge of their own body, no exceptions, and nowhere did I say different, if you’ll actually read what I wrote without bringing your preconceived notions of who I am into it, you’d see I, a) refuted a statement you made and b) called you out for resorting to a personal attack. That’s it.
“You don’t have to do anything. I don’t have any power to control the tone here. What I WANT you to do is consider what you are trying to accomplish and how best to get it.”
I’ve tried to go back and read this thread a few times, and I still don’t see the problem. Some posters engaged in some pretty heavy slut shaming and other posters called them out on it. Are you arguing that calling someone a “judgmental bitch” is a worse offense than judging women who have had abortions as irresponsible and/or immoral?
If I’m having a discussion and someone says “I feel you are judging me” or felt that something I stated was judgmental, I’d look at what I wrote or go over what I said and ask myself what it might look like from their side of it. Maybe I am being judgmental and don’t realize it, maybe I’ve got to do searching in myself. You call me a judgmental bitch and the first thought in my head is “Screw you! You don’t know a damn thing about me!” There is no thinking over your point or trying to see it from your side, because now you’ve taken it from a discussion on views and ideas, in which I’m perfectly willing to try to see your side of the argument, to a personal attack against me, where I could not possibly give a shit less about what you have to say. It is no longer a discussion, it is a fight, and I won’t concede an inch. It’s pointless and it either incites other people to join in the fight or alienates people who might have otherwise agreed with either side because all they see is crazy people yelling at each other over the internet. It creates a hostile environment, accomplishes nothing and makes people think less of those involved in the end.
Honestly, I think you’re still missing the point CarrieS is trying to make. She’s not talking about who is right and who is wrong. She’s simply trying to point out that attacking people isn’t getting your point across to anyone. She’s saying that you have to look at what your goal is in the discussion and whether calling people names is is going to get you what you want. If your goal is to get get some anger off your chest, then by all means, foam at the mouth and rant away, but if you’re hoping to make someone really think about what you have to say, then maybe calling them names and purposely antagonizing them is not the way to go. Personally, I find that personal attacks tend to close lines of communication rather than open minds.
Well, Ann did say that she wasn’t trying to change the opinion-holders’ minds so much as to just call shit out for being wrong.
I’d like to know who in the history of humanity has anyone ever changed their mind on abortion and sexuality because someone contradicted their opinions politely.
And can we please stop with the “free speech” nonsense? Because unless people are seriously suggesting that others be jailed for their words, free speech is not an issue. You say what you want. Someone replies how they want. Your right to free speech isn’t threatened because someone tells you they think your opinion is shit.
Well, this whole convo devolved pretty quickly into utter crap.
“when you can work a ten-hour day in the freezing rain, take down four drug-crazed dealers intent on having your head” hahaha what does this man DO for a living? Professional Airport Fiction Protagonist?