Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

Good article, Candy! And you are right, it does twist and turn down some unusual roads.

It also pretty much addresses one of my pet theories about erotic romance, that is, that in my experience the most popular authors are taking cultural taboos and twisting them just enough to make them acceptable and tittilating for a majority of readers.

For example:

One of the hottest things going out there right now is a menage, whether it be m/f/m or m/m/f (f/m/f is not too popular with the ladies—methinks they don’t want to share). A big percentage of these menage stories involve, brothers, cousins, or best friends who look enough alike to be related. Incest fantasy made acceptable because there is a woman sandwiched in between.

Other variations on this theme would be “sharing” books, in which wives are shared among brothers, cousins, etc. Again, the tittilation factor here is a “safe” non-squicky incest fantasy.

You hit the nail on the head with regards to the werewolf/shifter fantasies. They are safer, more acceptable bestiality fantasies. Passionate sex with a man who is part beast? Shifting during sex? Sex in animal form with a human mind? All ways to make animal/human sex tittilating and yet still keep it acceptable to the majority of readers.

I say majority, because of course there are readers who view any sort of “shifted” sex as bestiality—but my guess would be that those readers have chosen not to read were books at all.

Vampire erotic romance? Certianly a tinge of the necrophilia about it. Why else would there most always be the obligatory “after screwing like bunnies heroine wakes up next to a corpse the next morning” scene?

It is all about titillation and taboos. Obviously most people do not actively dream about sex with a family member or family pet—but because they are such huge societal taboos, something that addresses those taboos in a safe, acceptable, sexy way can become really, really popular.

Here’s the comment I posted over at RTB:

Great column, Candy!  I think you’ve started to uncover the “dark side” of privileging certain values in Romance (fidelity, monogamy, the One True Love, etc.).  We can find sex with a vampire/cyborgg/alien being/part animal character (and it’s usually the male character, let’s face it) perfectly, normally romantic, while polyamorous plots are seen as “unnatural” or at least unromantic.  What we view as “natural” is pretty culturally informed, IMO.

I’ve asked myself some of the same questons as you regarding the rape scenario.  How is it that readers can accept non-consensual sex in the genre while rejecting sexually promiscuous heroines, for example?  Why does one seem romantic but not the other?

It’s interesting, because I think a lot of what may seem like a mish-mash of values in Romance is a product of the genre’s evolution.  And some of it is quite interesting and even liberating for the genre (I think paranormals are definitely breaking some boundaries).  But at the same time, you’re absolutely right that there do seem to be some core ideas that the genre won’t really contemplate, at least not directly.  It’ll give us a boinking vamp but NOT a polygamous boinking vamp.  Fascinating.

Marvelous discussion and great blog post, Candy.

I’ve gotten hold of one of those incest fantasy things, and it definitely leaped like a gazelle way over my Squick Barrier.

I think Candy nailed it, so to speak, about the taboo-breaking nature of paranormal erotic romance.

However, I think that erotic speculative romance often misses the core attraction of the sub-genre, at least for me.

If I want to read about taboo-breaking, I’ll visit our freaky friends in the literary fiction aisle. I turn to speculative romance novels for that elusive sense of connection with something that isn’t human. I don’t think it qualifies as bestiality because these things are sentient. Aliens, shapeshifters, vampires, fairies, demons and monsters of all types—I want to read about connecting with them on a romantic level.

I’m sure there’s some Jungian explanation lurking in my psyche. Some boringly technical explanation involving shadow selves and the concept of the “other” being just my shadow self, blah blah blah.

But so often erotic paranormal romance falls completely flat with me. I don’t need some paranormal stand-in so I can safely explore breaking taboos. Sheesh. I want The Monster In Love. What I want is for Laurel K. Hamilton to finally get Princess Meredith into bed with Sholto, the guy with all the tentacles, because, holy crap, he’s so marvelously NOT HUMAN. Clive Barker writes some incredibly romantic dark fantasy with these themes. I keep hoping that speculative romance writers will catch up with him.

To me, trying to whitewash incest fantasy for square state soccer moms is way way way way way over the Squick line. Romantic monsters, however, they’re great. Even if they’re animated corpses!

Great article, Candy.  I posted over there ‘cause no one else had and I didn’t want you to feel neglected.[g]

I’ve got a different take on two of the scenarios that E.D’Trix mentioned. Not that I’ve read any of these books, so I’m just speculating wildly, but here goes:

1) “A big percentage of these menage stories involve, brothers, cousins, or best friends who look enough alike to be related. Incest fantasy made acceptable because there is a woman sandwiched in between.”

I don’t see what this has to do with an incest fantasy for a woman, if she’s the one being sandwiched. It’s not any more incestuous than polyandry where the woman is married to a pair of brothers. It would only be incest if the brothers had sex with each other. So what I was wondering was if the female readers have fantasies about group sex, but because the conventions of society and romance are about couples and monogamy, a pair of brothers, or two men who are somehow the same make it seem like it’s almost monogamous (but as though the one man can split into two men for the purposes of sex). So maybe this way you end up with a group sex fantasy which doesn’t create guilt/totally break the taboo for the reader.

2) “You hit the nail on the head with regards to the werewolf/shifter fantasies. They are safer, more acceptable bestiality fantasies.”

Again I was thinking this could be turned around. In a lot of romances men are described in terms of how like a panther/lion/eagle/wolf they are. And some readers like that alpha male who is animal-like in his speed, grace, power etc. Maybe some people just like to take it a step further, and make the men shapeshifters/werewolves. I suspect that what they like about the animal elements is the fantasy of wildness, of uncontrolled sexual responses, of animal power and freedom. And given that the alpha male with all these attributes is perhaps getting less and less credible/acceptable in modern society, it’s maybe easier to accept a male with these attributes (and not think he’s irritating and sexist) if he’s really part-animal.

Hmmmm…. Most interesting. Excuse the plagiarising of Candy’s preferred food metaphors, but I’ve missed dinner. When it comes to reading/writing taboos I suspect the existence of a big fat layer cake of meaning, with everyone’s subconscious picking out the bits they like.

So yes, there’s a titillation factor but I think that part of the whole vampire/werewolf thing, especially as it features in mainstream romance, in part clicks into the whole “ultimate alpha male” business. After all, your average supernatural hero can pretty much kick any human male’s butt. Something to do with the changing perception of male roles, perhaps? Anyhow, Anita “bury-me-in-a-Y-shaped-coffin” Blake aside, most heroines in these encounters go for the top dog/big vampire daddy rather than a cheese-puff minion they can stake with a nail file.

Then you’ve got the importance of blood and destiny that plays into these myths; the fact that they’re usually written to incorporate soul mates or similar notions about a heroine’s uniqueness.

There’s also a little pet theory of mine about how some of these books seem to work out anxieties about political realities from a safe distance. But I worry that this is me reading too much into them, so will leave it at that.

Like others who’ve commented already, I’ve also found it interesting that monogamy seems to be one of the absolute core values of the romance genre. It’s also interesting that when writers sneak multiple partners into mainstream books, these scenes are definitely the preserve of the bad guys or pre-reformation rakes (lucky them). This is something I dislike because it seems to be a double cop-out along the lines of “look, pervy sex, he’s so eeeevviiilll, pervy sex.” Another big mainstream no-no is a BDSM-type relationship where the male is the sub (see alphas above).

Squick factor? Bizarrely I seem to be fairly relaxed about reading most sexual fantasies in romance, although context plays a big role in this. Blame my early exposure to Nancy Friday, perhaps, or the fact that I don’t feel a need to consciously identify with most fictional characters. If they’re interesting, I’m quite happy that they’re fictitious and not me. Either that I’m a complete pervert.

But any sort of nastiness against kids is a big indigestible lump of disgusting candied peel that I will spit out even at the risk of appearing rude. Extreme violence is also a no-go area of vile glacé cherry instant nausea. On the other hand, a paranormal with human male and superhuman female? Marzipan. Yum.

Good points everyone! I certainly don’t think my theory (or any of the others presented) is the be-all and end-all of what draws women to certain types of fantasies in erotic fiction. There are so many nuances and things to consider, and there are likely as many reasons as there are readers.

That being said, I still think, consciously or subconsciously, a lot of the most popular subgenres of erotic romance flirt with these deep, dark societal taboos for a reason.

My squick is more with how the author approaches any particular sexual practice. I honestly don’t have a problem with a lot of tab-A-into-slot-B as long as it’s well-written and avoids nonconsensual sex. (Whoa. There’s a big squick for me.)

I don’t mean to rain on the parade, because everyone is (as usual) making much smarter comments than I am capable of. But for me, the absence of squick is a function of how much I can trust the author to tell me a ripping good story (pun unintended.) Bad writing turns me off more than sexual calisthenics, and a writer who is evidently just going for the “ewww” factor instead of giving me compelling characters (even if they’re dead and hairy) will trigger my squick factor.

In other words, as far as I’m concerned you can make your characters do whatever you want to each other, but you’d better write it well.

Hooboy. The number of submissions and stories I have read in the past two months alone in which the hero has the ability to clone himself speaks to the reader’s desire to have her cake and eat it too--in this case, by being in a monogamous relationship but also getting two men. I’ve seen these hero stunt doubles pop out by way of magic, spontaneous generation, spirit guides and shape-shifting by another man into the image of the hero. The beauty of paranormal is that people can be kinky with a snap of the fingers/summons of one’s familiar, instead of having to rely on the personals (White Protestant couple, 36 and 34, seeks third...)

Another paranormal treat is the possibility of alien or other supernatural body types, because they have all kinds of interesting features. I’ve read about very flexible tails, multiple phalluses, telepathic stimulation and countless other bonus tracks that, for some reason, you just don’t see as much in contemporaries or historicals.

I’m with Lilith on this one.  If something is written well it will be easier for me to read about than a poorly written version of the same thing. 

That being said the major squick for me would be anything that reduces either hero or heroine (it’s generally the heroine) to a child - the hero’s so facinated by how innocent, tiny, young she is.  It’s just cringe inducing.  There are very few times where this is done and the story isn’t terrible.

Brilliant post, Candy.  Read it.  Loved it.  Thanks.

Oh no!!!!  I just wrote this long-ass post about alphas and powers and imperialism and post-feminism and it was kind of interesting and it got lost.  Oh well, I haven’t the brainpower left to recreate.  To sum up:

Candy--Great post.  I really like your commentary always, lots of good food for thought.

Eveybody else--Thanks for the interesting, comments, it’s been great reading.

Personally, I think that the reason I read primarily paranormals and historicals is because the heroes can embody all sorts of qualities that I find sexy and alpha, yet can reconcile with my good old feminist self. Because they are not real, do not exist in this day and age, I can enjoy super big muscles and strength,and often obsessiveness, possessiveness, overprotectiveness and other borderline “virtues” without feeling like someone should stage an intervention for the heroine. And hey, cool powers. 

Regarding squick barriers, I have a couple of no-nos (pedophilia, most rapes) but I am constantly amazed with what I can be comfortable with, even turned on by, if I like the writing.  Yet there are certain types of mainstream romances, that I may not exactly be squicked by, but I will avoid at all costs.  Because the type of story or hero is such a turnoff to me. 

Oh, and EAP I think there’s a political anxieties thing going on too.  I wrote about it in my other, better comment. Hearkens back to a Victorian Lit seminar, Dracula, British Imperialism and the concept of the “other.” God I’m such an English major dork, still, after all these years.