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

I, for one, am glad to see it suspended. As I said over on Jordan Summers’ blog, the RWA didn’t start to enact restrictive rules to protect their “literary credibility” until erotic romance started to get popular, even though they cited the “bodice ripping” covers as a weak spot as well. No one made any rules to restrict those though.

But how conscientious of them. I do hope they are this sprightly when addressing other issues.

Candy, darlin’, much as I appreciate all the traffic you’re sending to my little blog this evening, I’ve gotta tell you that you’re mistaken in assuming I was not disturbed by the graphical standards. When I learned what the board had done I was appalled--get this--because I could see something like that being used to take down any genre, including mine. It was just plain unfair the way the board made that decision and implemented it without bringing it before the membership.

No, I’m not a cheerleader for erotic romance. But I’m not a bigot, either. Whatever you’ve heard, that is not the Christian way.

So, let me see if I understand: you’re saying it wouldn’t be a good thing to disallow churches, crosses, and religion generally? No religion free genre?

I was gearing up to propose that very thing.

Shoot.

I guess I haven’t read all the unfounded accusation rants that Brenda read. Most of the blogs I read were about people who were upset about the GS, about not being able to advertise their books on their own homepages, about Ann Jacob’s book signing situation, about having certain words censored, about not being able to sign their books at an RWA event, etc. Why belong to an organization that doesn’t support your work? was a common thread. Plenty right there to get ranty about.

As far as I can see, the RWA board’s lack of knowledge of their membership’s needs and wants comes off looking alot worse than the ranting bloggers.

But then, I’m an outsider, none of these folks are friends of mine. I’m still trying to decide if RWA would be beneficial for me.

Cynical though I may be, I am reserving judgement on the GS nonsense until the dust settles.  I have one philosophy when reading on the web. 

The amount of truth in an article or post is usually inversly proportional to the amount of outrage it generates.

Some suggest there is a silent majority at work behind the scenes that want the GS implemented.  The question is, why?  It can’t possibly be one genre pitting themselves against another.  Nothing is ever that simple.

I don’t write romances. I don’t read romances. I’m not a member of the RWA. But I was outraged by the incredibly wrong-headed “graphical standards” policy because I couldn’t believe an organization for writers, and governed by writers, would engage in this kind of censorship.

I can’t imagine on the board of the Mystery Writers of America (of which I am a member) or the Authors Guild (of which I am a member, too) proposing “Graphical Standards.” It would never happen. Because they are organizations run by, and serving, WRITERS. Frankly, I still can’t believe the RWA board did it...or that they are even STILL considering it.

I don’t think the RWA board realizes how bad this makes them look to other writers in other genres...or how negatively this reflects on romance writers as a whole...who are working hard as it is to get the respect they deserve.

The “Graphic Standards” was a blunder. Continuing to explore the idea is compounding the blunder.

There shouldn’t be an Ad-Hoc Committee on Graphic Standards. There shouldn’t be any “graphical standards” at all.

I just have to say Me Too!  Not because I’m a huge fan of Lee Goldberg’s, which I am.  (Despite the fact that he doesn’t read romances -dang, that’s one sale I didn’t make.)

RWA has done some idiotic things in the past, but this was just silly.  I can imagine the board meeting, where ten to twenty women are sitting around listing all the “bad” words. 

Please.

Brenda: Candy, darlin’, much as I appreciate all the traffic you’re sending to my little blog this evening, I’ve gotta tell you that you’re mistaken in assuming I was not disturbed by the graphical standards.

Brenda, honeychile, I didn’t mean to imply that at all. If my article didn’t make that clear, I’ll edit it right away and make a very explicit note about it. My whole point was that you took an extremely detached--even disapproving--view of the outrage being expressed, and dismissed all of the speculation as being garbage. I tried to provide an example, a progression of events similar to what’s happening with erotic romance, and see if you would STILL think that all that speculation is garbage, or if you think that maybe there’s a reason why erotic romance authors are feeling kind of jumpy and paranoid.

Brenda: But I’m not a bigot, either.

Didn’t say that you were.

Becca: I guess I haven’t read all the unfounded accusation rants that Brenda read.

Me, neither. I’ve read *some* speculation, but given the totality of what’s been happening, it didn’t seem too out-of-line to me.

FerfeLaBat: It can’t possibly be one genre pitting themselves against another.  Nothing is ever that simple.

I doubt it’s that, either. Personally, I think it’s driven mostly by good old-fashioned moral outrage: THAT SMUT ISN’T ROMANCE! I have learned never to underestimate the power of moral outrage. It’s pretty powerful fuel.

Lee: There shouldn’t be an Ad-Hoc Committee on Graphic Standards. There shouldn’t be any “graphical standards” at all.

Can’t help but agree with Lee there. The whole idea is pretty damn retarded.

Lee: There shouldn’t be an Ad-Hoc Committee on Graphic Standards. There shouldn’t be any “graphical standards” at all.

Actually, I will say there probably should be SOME graphical standards. I have seen some erotica covers that have raised MY eyebrows as to what is protrayed, and I AM an erotica publisher. When I go out to do public promotion, I know what covers and books to show to what venue.

But the emphasis should not be picking apart certain details and saying, “You show too much boobie, it won’t fly.” The bar should be set pretty high, but I don’t completely disagree that it shouldn’t be set.

I can understand RWA’s situation a bit, because I’ve been there. Since we sell a wide range of heat levels, we had to make many changes to make sure that all the different levels were appropriately represented. It’s a royal pain in the ass, but it had to be done.

RWA just has to stop fussing so much about it and make the changes needed instead of coming up with generalized solutions that piss people off.

Wondered what you were going to do with { darlin’ }.  And now ... with { honeychile } ... I have to go brush my teeth.  >: ppthfft :< Southern endearments are worse than freak’n furballs.  And.  I am a Southerner.

Sighs...I’ve reached the point where I’m just sitting back with a raspberry kamikaze and waiting for the dust to settle. Anyone else want one?

I agree with Lee.  RWA is supposed to be for and about writers.  The very idea of a writers’ group enacting a list of restrictions and guidelines about what books can say, what they can look like and what they can be is repugnant.  Or, it should be.  It smacks of internal censorship because it is.  We don’t need a committee, months of study and a report to tell us something that is obvious to every other writing group. 

That the RWA Board had this idea in the first place then, when pressed, tried to defend it with a bogus “we have to protect our non-profit status” argument - one later rescinded when the RWA President stated that wasn’t the issue - suggests that something else is driving this debate.  Something like fear of the growing acceptance of, and desire for, hotter books.  It is hard to imagine anything that should mobilize, frustrate and anger writers more than a group of folks trying to dictate what we read and sell.  The fact the push came from inside RWA is all the more disturbing.

As you can tell, this issue gets me a little hot (and not the good kind).  The idea this is even up for debate in RWA makes me crazed (and, again, not in a good way).  Why is this even a question?

Candy, you GO, girl!  Your reverse example is just the thing.  Good thinkin’, you smart Being In Total Control of Herself, you!

Anna

Editing and censoring book covers isn’t going to change what readers want.  If they’re buying smut with a couple of nekkid, sweating, madly boinking people on the front (or 3 or 4 or 27), they’ll buy it in a paper bag, too.  They like the story.  The cover’s just icing on the cake.

Stopping a couple of covers from appearing on a couple of websites isn’t going to change the market demand.  If this is about erotica/erotic romance getting a bigger market share, they’re going about it all wrong.

Can you picture a reader going to the store, finding out that RWA thinks that the cover to the book they’ve been waiting to read for weeks doesn’t meet the GS, and saying, Oh, gee.  Guess I won’t buy it, then. 

Yeah, right.  Snort.

Personally, I’m a fan of hot humpty-sex in all its moaning, thrusting, gyrating glory, and I ain’t buying sweet romance just because RWA doesn’t like that tight, gorgeous male ass on the cover.  Or that hand-covered tit.  Come on, we all have nipples, we’ve all seen ‘em before.  Unwind a little, RWA.  Jump in the erotica end of the pool. Get a little wet.  You might like it.

Love your reverse example, Candy—especially because, in some ways, it’s truer than you know.

Back in the 90s, when Inspirationals started becoming a noticeable part of the market and the application was submitted to form the Inspiration chapter, there was tremendous opposition to it by a small, but vocal section of the group.  RWA was a secular organization; Inspirationals weren’t “inspirational” for everyone—they were for Evangelical Christians, thinly disguised sermons meant to prosletyze.  Inspirationals should not be accepted because they offended this section’s sensibilities. 

Statements were made at Board meetings, on loops, in the RWR.  There was one woman who received groans every time she came to the mike because we knew what she was going to say: these people shouldn’t be allowed a place at the table because their books “aren’t romance.” They didn’t want Inspirationals to have a chapter, they didn’t want Inspirationals to have a category in the Ritas.

Sound familiar?

In the end, the Inspirationals got their chapter because that section of the market was exploding and it was—offended by calls to “stand if you love Jesus” or not—definitely a part of the market.  A decade later, we’re going through the same thing again, with certain elements saying erotica writers don’t deserve a place at the table.

Candy -

I think you will probably find many of the inspirational readers and authors would:

1. Not be readers or wanna be writers of erotica, and

2. Would not want to see RWA’s graphical standards remain in tact as is.

Seem like you couldn’t have #1 and #2 exist in the same person’s mind?

Remember that Christians, and their symbols and images, and even their voices, have been under attack in this country for a long time, and in the last few years it’s begun to seem like downright persecution.

There’s constantly something in the news about the ACLU wanting to strip every Christian religious symbol from society (this doesn’t seem to happen as much with Jewish or Muslim or Buddist symbols). Not only the 10 commandments (that our legal system was founded on) from courthouses, but nativities from Christmas displays, a Christian symbol from a state flag, and the words “under God” from our pledge (even though, in truth, our nation was founded under that particular God, as proven in the founding fathers’ notes and the very documents that outline our freedoms, liberties and rights).

Politicians have been condemned because they openly profess their belief, Christians have been condememned when they openly cite what they believe to be the Word of God when making choices for their personal lives or the way their vote is cast.

When organizations like the ACLU and when individuals who are atheist activists are pounding Christians on a daily basis in an attempt to strip any Christian symbolism or words from every aspect of the public and political worlds, when these same groups and individuals totally misrepresent the founding fathers’ meaning of what they intended when they said there would be a separation of church and state*, why would a Christian support something as poorly thought out as the graphical standards, when, the fact is, they may be next on the RWA list of offensive materials (because, let’s face it, there are a number of people who ARE offended by a cross, the image of Jesus, or an individual’s open confession of being a Christian)?

There may well be a lot of Christians who cringe when they see the racy covers. And they may not want to personally link to the covers or the graphic text, and they may not be able to balance erotica books with their religious sensibilities.

HOWEVER, I think you will find the vast majority of Christians would absolutely be FOR allowing the erotica authors to display their own covers and text, without interference.

Just like Christians would like to display their Christianity without interference.

It should be noted that I included erotica romance excerpts and authors at The Romance Club (http://www.theromanceclub.com) long before I created Erotica Romance (http://www.eroticaromance.com), and NEVER once had any of the traditional romance authors or traditional romance readers complain.

* Separation of church and state meant only that there would be no “official” American church, and that that official church would not have the control over the people and the government that the church in England had. It was never intended as a means to block religious symbols or prayer from schools, courthouses or politics.

As a writer who writes romantic suspense along with a lot of other things, and who DID speculate on the RWA censorship issue—in decidedly unflattering terms—but who is not a member of the RWA or inside the loop, I’ll assume that I’m one of the people (or at least one of the sort of people) whose speculation upset everyone.

I’m not feeling particularly apologetic.  Or even a little apologetic, frankly.

The RWA benefits from attracting and serving well qualified professional writers.  They give the organization legitimacy—if it were made up only of unpublished writers, the RWA wouldn’t have any clout with anyone.

So loud, pissed-off criticism from a qualified professional writer who has looked at the organization and passed on membership because of the way the RWA treats its members, both published and unpublished—AS SEEN FROM THE OUTSIDE—is a criticism RWA needs to be looking at carefully. 

Those of us who don’t belong but could are telling you something by not joining, RWA.

I’m someone who could join at the coveted pro level.  I didn’t, and it isn’t because I didn’t think about it.  When I qualified, I checked out the RWA site and various subgroups, researched the organization, listened to what members and non-members were saying.  And then I said, “No way.  I won’t attach my name to that.”

For people who are on the outside of the organization, speculation and rumors are most of what we have to go on.  If your public face is so ugly that we turn away, doesn’t matter how sweet you are on the inside.  And, honestly, the stuff seeping out from the inside is ugly, too.  Watching an organization leap at the opportunity to censor its members does not make this an attractive organization. 

Food for thought for the RWA board.

Very well stated, Holly.

Seem like you couldn’t have #1 and #2 exist in the same person’s mind?

This statement in my article seems to bear repeating:

“(...) I’d like to note that I’m doing this solely because Brenda’s a writer of inspirationals, and I’m trying to come with an example that’ll hit home. If she was a chick lit writer, I would’ve use chick lit as an example, or romantic suspense, paranormal romance, or whatever other sub-sub-sub-sub genre she happened to be writing.”

Remember that Christians, and their symbols and images, and even their voices, have been under attack in this country for a long time, and in the last few years it’s begun to seem like downright persecution.

Ummm, I’ve heard lots of Christians say this, and I’ve yet to be convinced. Is Christmas still a federal holiday? Check. Do Christian coalitions still have big, influential voices on what medications are acceptable to provide over the counter (I’m thinking specifically of the morning-after pill debacle, but there are many other examples)? Check. Have religious lobbyists successfully made attempts to introduce religious theories in science class (Intelligent Design Theory and other creationist theories) while mis-representing scientific theories like evolution? Check. And don’t certain states start sessions of their senate with Christian prayer, still? Hmmmm.

There’s constantly something in the news about the ACLU wanting to strip every Christian religious symbol from society (this doesn’t seem to happen as much with Jewish or Muslim or Buddist symbols).

I have yet to see large groups of Buddhists trying to lobby to have the Eightfold Path or the Four Noble Truths be displayed at public courthouses and the like; nor do I see many Muslims actively lobbying for displays of the Five Pillars of Islam, the Shahada or Quran verses in public spaces. That may be why.

When organizations like the ACLU and when individuals who are atheist activists are pounding Christians on a daily basis in an attempt to strip any Christian symbolism or words from every aspect of the public and political worlds, when these same groups and individuals totally misrepresent the founding fathers’ meaning of what they intended when they said there would be a separation of church and state* (...)

Uhhhh, I’m afraid that’s generally the conservative Christian interpretation of that. Secular interpretations differ quite significantly. If you can’t see why not having religious symbols pushed in the faces of the non-religious is a GOOD thing, especially in public spaces, then I’m afraid we’ll be talking at cross-purposes all day.

Politicians have been condemned because they openly profess their belief, Christians have been condememned when they openly cite what they believe to be the Word of God when making choices for their personal lives or the way their vote is cast.

Politicians have been condemned when they create legislation according to their religious beliefs--religious beliefs not shared by other parts of their population.

Not only the 10 commandments (that our legal system was founded on) from courthouses (...)

The first FOUR commandments have to do with worshipping the Christian God properly. Until you show me that 40% of the legal system the Founding Fathers implemented was concerned with worshipping God properly (with the keeping of the Sabbath, etc.), I’m going to remain pretty skeptical on this end, thanks.

(...) and the words “under God” from our pledge (even though, in truth, our nation was founded under that particular God, as proven in the founding fathers’ notes and the very documents that outline our freedoms, liberties and rights).

The words “under God” weren’t introduced until the 50s. And DO NOT make me bust out those quotes about how America is not a Christian nation from the founding fathers. ‘Cause I will.

Anyway, if you want to continue this political debate about poor, oppressed Christians, I invite you to join the Heated Debate Tribe and take me on there. This is a forum for bitching about romance novels.

Love your reverse example, Candy—especially because, in some ways, it’s truer than you know.

Caro: Isn’t it very, very sad how people don’t learn from past mistakes? Gah.

Caro thanks for mentioning the hard time inspirationals used to have. My jaw just about dropped on the floor as I’ve read quite a few inspirationals myself and they were so obviously romance, I find it hard to believe what the big deal was in the first place.

I also find it odd that this was the first time I’ve read about, during this whole skuffle (that’s a word, right?), but I don’t read a lot of author’s blogs…

I’m with Holly Lisle on many points, but primarily this: I could join at the pro level, but I keep waiting because I can’t figure out how I’d fit in, or how my membership would help me or complement the organization.

I would like something LIKE the RWA, but the RWA? They’d hate me; I’d be miserable.

Candy—you go girl. Thanks for saving me the trouble of responding to that post on the status of christians in this country.

I know I am sticking my foot in my mouth here as far as some others might be concerned, but I gotta say it…

This isn’t a Christianity/Athiestic issue to me. There are many many Christians out there (myself included) who are not prudes or antagonistic towards beliefs that aren’t Christian. And I think it’s safe to say that there are Athiests and other type of beliefs that are rather prudish in the way they view sex and anything else.

I’ve taken the religion out of this issue, because when you put a faith (any faith or lack thereof) into an arguement such as this you take away personal responsibility.

I know people who have never atteneded church, have never uttered a dirty word or seen a porn flick in their life (man they were boring people). Just as I know more than a few Bible Belt Baptists who go to church on Sunday and the Casino right after. I know of liberals who are devout Catholics and Concervatives who don’t believe in God. Big freaking deal. It has nothing to do with the RWA acting like a bunch of stupidheads.

I’d love it if people would just call a spade a spade instead of looking for the deeper meaning, and when all esle fails, blame a religion. If someone doesn’t like a suggestive cover, it just means they don’t like a suggestive cover. They don’t necessarily believe that God will strike them down for looking at it. I also don’t believe that the RWA made up the stupid rules to please the Christians, as it would seem some believe (from what I have seen on other MB’s).

I think they do what they do for money...which isn’t exactly exclusive to any belief system except the Church of Greed.

Is the RWA a non profit by the way? If so, then I guess disregard all of the above.lol. yea right, you know someones gotta be gettn’ somthn’.

I haven’t read a lot of threads on this topic but as far as I can remember of the ones I have read, I have yet to see where anyone mentions what “event” triggered RWA to come up with the graphics standards idea in the first place . . .

Some may believe that’s not important; that it would be like finding the pebble that started an avalanche. And they could be right, but after working with many groups over the years I’ve learned one extremely important lesson - people don’t do something this strange and intense without a reason, good, bad or completely unexplainable.

Something always triggers it.

And you can’t really fight the problem until you understand the truth of that one thing is.

You know something else? It’s never the obvious that begins the out-of-control snowball effect either. It’s usually something simple that no one paid attention to at the time. And then wham. Deep doo-doo.

Never fails. (G)

Beverly: I have yet to see where anyone mentions what “event” triggered RWA to come up with the graphics standards idea in the first place . . .

I haven’t either and I would like to know.  Graphical Standards for Service Marks are not unusual for organizations; I’d just like to know what triggered everything else.

Arethusa: Caro thanks for mentioning the hard time inspirationals used to have.

You’re welcome.  As I said, it was about a decade ago, but the situation was a rather tense one, complete with people acting badly on both sides.  Once they were in, things generally settled down with only a few flurries.  However, since I know a number of people writing erotica are feeling like they’re not particularly welcome at the moment not just because of the graphical standards hoo-hah, but because of comments by loops and board, the flack over the Ritas, and RWA losing EC’s paperwork for editor appointments for the second time in a row, I thought it’d be good to remind people of another group that certain groups were reluctant to have around.

Candy: Ummm, I’ve heard lots of Christians say this, and I’ve yet to be convinced.

Actually, I’ve been in situtations where people have reacted badly when they learn that I’m an active, believing Christian (I’m a Lay Eucharistic Minister at my church) and have taken any mention of church as trying to shove my religion down their throat.  I’m talking about “No, I can’t make a meeting that early; I have church on Sundays.” Now, these people are not persecuting me because I’m a Christian; they’re just being assholes and I’ve seen them attack other people in other ways.

The people who yell the loudest about being persecuted because they are Christians are often the people who do want to shove their religion in other people’s faces and people have shoved back, telling them it’s not acceptable behavior.  Tying back into romance novels, it’s like the reactions I saw one year when three categories were dropped from that round of the Golden Heart because not enought entries were received: Regencies, Young Adult, and Inspirationals.  The first two groups whined about not having enough people and started making plans to make certain they had enouogh the next year.  Most of the third group did as well, but there were some I saw who actually claimed the category was dropped because the RWA was “anti-Christian.”

In other words, there are assholes everywhere, no matter what they profess to believe in, just as there are good people who live what I would consider a godly life who call themselves aethist.

Btw, my mother-in-law who I would not lump with the fundamentalists under any circumstances (her stated beliefs are far too liberal) is very much of the “OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN” mentality and would would probably agree with the idea of romances in general off the shelves—unless they supported what she thought were appropriate values and political ideas. Censorship takes all kinds.

Now, these people are not persecuting me because I’m a Christian; they’re just being assholes and I’ve seen them attack other people in other ways.

Well, yeah. Look, some people are assholes and they will grab any excuse to be assholes, from people who give me dirty looks and attempt to give me a hard time because I refused to take my husband’s last name when I married, to the wacky old dude who called one of my brothers all sorts of racist epithets because he refused to give up his place in line at the Greyhound station. Anyone who calls this kind of treatment “persecution” is pretty fucking retarded. You want persecution? Here’s persecution. And here. And here. Me? I’m still not convinced that Christians have it so rough here in America because the ten commandments can’t be displayed in courthouses and school-sponsored prayer isn’t allowed, wah wah wah. Talk a radical black Muslim activist. Or talk to Matthew Shepard’s parents. I bet they’d have some stories about real persecution here in America.

Censorship takes all kinds.

Glad we agree on this. Did you see my comment up above? I’ll quote it again just in case people were too busy skimming and getting their panties in a bunch to take note and are now thinking “ZOMG CANDY HATES ALL CHRISTIANS.”

But personally, I do think a lot of this was fueled by moral outrage, a sort of “OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN” mentality, and this can hit anyone, regardless or religion (or lack thereof).

(Emphasis added to highlight the super-duper pertinent bits.)

Ha, just noticed that I highlighted a gorgeous typo too.

*shakes fist at sky*

And my captcha is “believe45.” How very apropos.

This statement in my article seems to bear repeating: “(...) I’d like to note that I’m doing this solely because Brenda’s a writer of inspirationals, and I’m trying to come with an example that’ll hit home. If she was a chick lit writer, I would’ve use chick lit as an example, or romantic suspense, paranormal romance, or whatever other sub-sub-sub-sub genre she happened to be writing.”

-------

Candy -

First, sorry if it seemed I was ragging on you or implying you’re anti-Christian. I was NOT. Nor was I trying to turn your site into a Christianity debate (note that I my post was both pro-Christianity and pro-Erotica Romance).

You played a game of “What if...?”

I was simply making a point that Inspirational authors - and Christian readers - are perhaps, for obvious reasons, already living that game to a certain degree (just not at RWA’s hand). The things you listed as the hypothetical GS for Inspirational authors are rather similar to the “standards” some groups would like to impose on Christians (just not limited to books or websites).

And my point was that Inspirational authors could relate because of their own experiences, and they are probably LESS accepting of RWA’s graphical standards than many as a result.

Morality-based notions of what’s appropriate come from all directions, not just Christians (or even the ever-dreaded Conservatives). I’ve yet to hear any of the Conservative authors I know back the GS, nor have I heard anyone cheer for the GS on religious grounds.

I don’t know Brenda, but I think her “distance” was not so much a result of it not being her subgenre that was impacted, but because she didn’t know the details/facts and therefore wasn’t forming an opinion that could only be based on speculation (as to the REASON RWA came up with the GS to begin with).

I didn’t care for the GS, but I wasn’t ready to outright condemn the PEOPLE who created the GS, either. Not because my books wouldn’t be hit by the GS (because they WERE), but because I didn’t know for sure the motivation behind the formation of the GS - was it to make certain books disappear? Or was it something that had nothing to do with my books at all, but a larger issue? IF I knew the motivation/reasoning behind the GS, and if it were absolutely a result of censorship or discrimination, I would have been as vocal against it as I was against RWA’s initial stand (and to some degree, continuing stand) on e-books (which at the time, I had no personal stake in at all).

As for the whole SEEMINGLY taken-out-of-context persecution statement, I wrote: “it’s begun to SEEM like downright persecution.” (in regard to what feels like a constant hailstorm of late to minimize or delete entirely any public Chistian symbolism or Chistian religion-based POV or Christian verbiage by certain groups - NOT YOU). Again, it was just an example of how a Christian author or reader might have experienced a certain level of contempt or asshole-ishness as a result of their faith, and so might be more inclined to stand on the side of Erotica authors in this mess, especially IF it is found to be a result of discrimination as some suspect.

Yes, Christians still have symbolism, politics and a voice. That doesn’t mean there aren’t those out there who wish it wasn’t so. And Erotica Romance authors are still writing books and making more money than other e-book authors, and in many instances, more than most authors published by NY houses. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t those out there who wish it wasn’t so. I would think both sides would empathize with the other, because both sides know what it’s like to have others who don’t share their views criticize and try to minimize. Therefore, the “What if...?” game wouldn’t necessarily have to be played in order for the Inspirational authors to “get it”.

THAT was my point.

Candy,
you said
Personally, I don’t subscribe to that idea either. Let me make that very, very clear: I seriously, seriously doubt the inspirational authors are the ones who came up with the idea of the language and graphical standards, nor do I in any way believe that they’ve put undue pressure on the BOD to implement the assheaded measures.

just so ya know, I wasn’t disagreeing with your posts or examples. I got your point right away, though I may not have agreed with all of it, I didn’t disagree with it enough to make any points out of it. My post was more from looking at other posts (not just here) that seem to be pointing at “those dang Christians are at it again”...so simply put, I don’t think morality is consigned to Christianity or any religion. I think you can me moral an non religious too...and a bad speller. Like Me (though I’m Christian and a bad speller)

thanks for the response

“I have no doubt SOME inspirational authors get it without having to play the what-if game. Robin (Robyn?) certainly got it.”

Yep, I got it, and haven’t changed my mind. I am following all these discussions wondering if RWA isn’t just trying to keep both inspy and erotica writers busy posting and not writing so they will have less controversy in the future. *insert “humph* smilie here.*