On Bisexuality

There have been some pretty heated discussions going on lately at the Romantic Times Readers’ Roundtable Messageboard and at the AAR Potpourri Messageboard about Anne Stuart’s new book, Cold as Ice. Apparently, Stuart had the audacity to write about…oh, steel yourselves and be sure to have your hartshorn ready, ladies…a man who’s had them homosexual encounters.

The threads are huge, and I admit, time and my blood pressure aren’t allowing me to read through all of them. Some of the old standard canards have been brought up, from “OMG IT’LL RUIN ROMANCE BECAUSE IT’S VIOLATING THE ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN RULE!” to “OMG IT’LL RUIN ROMANCE BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION!” Sigh.

The kerfuffling began with this report from LLB on the 2006 RWA conference included this snippet about Stuart’s upcoming book:

…the hero, a spy who slept with a man in Black Ice, has total control over his body, which allows him to have sex with men or women, whatever the job entails, without any emotional feelings whatsoever. At one point in the upcoming release, the hero informs the heroine that he kissed her to distract her in order to knock her out. When she asks what he would do if he needed to distract a man, he answers, “I would do the same thing.” Cold as Ice will be released in November. Given Harlequin’s sometimes old-fashioned reputation, I asked what the editors at MIRA thought about this. Stuart indicated hers loved it and that other editors who heard about it thought it was “cool.”

I noticed this bit of information when I first read the conference report last week, and it raised a brow, sure—but probably not for the usual reasons why anyone would raise their brow at the idea of a bisexual hero for a mainstream romance novel.

Why can’t a guy in a romance novel just enjoy cock because he enjoys cock, and not be a freak, emotionally cut-off to the point of pathology or a sociopathic villain who’s looking to shag anything that moves and a great deal that doesn’t? Not that Romancelandia is populated by the healthiest of heroes, but c’mon, now. A guy can like cock or cock AND pussy without being a sociopathic freak, you know. No, trust me, I know this, if you know what I mean, and I think you do..

I’m here to explode some myths about bisexuals. Hold on to your panties, people, because they are ground-shaking revelations of the first order.

1. Not all of them are polyamorous.

2. Not all of them are into group sex. Just because they’re omnivorous doesn’t mean they want all of it, all of the time.

3. Not all of them are indiscriminately slutty. Liking both sets of bits doesn’t mean they’re sex fiends, or that they don’t care who’s attached to those bits. That’s like saying omnivores don’t care about the quantity or quality of their food, simply because they enjoy both meat and vegetables.

4. Being bisexual doesn’t mean they’re wishy-washy or unable to make up their minds about what they want sexually. That’s like saying an omnivore is somebody who can’t make up their minds whether they like meat or vegetables, so they must be confused vegetarians or carnivores.

Furthermore, having a sexual encounter with the same sex doesn’t, in my opinion, immediately make somebody gay or bi. A lot depends on context of the encounters. Would a man who was raped by another man be considered gay, or bi? What about a man who had sex with other men strictly for the money? What about a man who was in a confined situation in which women were scarce for extended periods of time (as in jail or a ship)? What about a guy who was curious about what it would feel like to sleep with another man, but otherwise felt no real attraction to them?

And to flip this around: would a person who self-identifies as gay but married and slept with somebody of the opposite gender so the person could serve as a beard be considered bisexual?

People have this tendency to immediately go “AHHHH TEH GAY GERMS!” and label somebody bisexual or homosexual based on a few encounters, when to me, the true test boils down to: are you able to fall in love with a person of that gender? Does your interest immediately perk up when you see an attractive specimen? In short, are you attracted at a primal level to people of that gender? By that standard, I’m not sure that the hero of Cold as Ice is, as described, bisexual—he just happens to be willing to take on the cock for king and country.

But back to the debate. Of all the objections I’ve read, the one about “OMG IT VIOLATES THE MAN/WOMAN COVENANT OF ROMANCE” to be the most puzzling, because dude: it’s romance about a man and a woman. Just because it makes you go “EW, he touched peener in the past!” doesn’t make the hero any less monogamous or any less in love with the heroine by the end of the book.

And I won’t even begin to address all the “you can write it, but don’t call it romance—it’s actually EROTICA!” claims I keep stumbling over in the discussions.  I’ve ranted plenty over that issue already.

Something else I keep stumbling over: people keep vigorously complaining about their right to be asshats without being called out on their asshattedness. “Stop judging the judgmental” etc. etc. etc. And true, people have their right to their opinions—but we also have a right to call you on your bigoted reactions. Look at it this way: if the hero to Stuart’s book, instead of shagging men in the past, had shagged black women in the past, and some people railed against the book in disgust, what would you think of those people? In that context, let’s look at some of the comments I’ve culled from various messages:

“…it [sic] warped , dysfuntional and abnormal …”

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

“Either way, it sounds gross”

“No thanks, I had trouble with this with Laurell K Hamilton and Anne Rice, but got past it because the men in question were not human.”

Mmmm-hmmmm.

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

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. Robin says:

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

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

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

  2. bam says:

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

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

  3. Candy says:

    …I just want to point out that I’ve yet to read anything that indicates exactly what Stuart’s going to do with Jensen’s experiences; that is, whether she will have Jensen characterize them as pleasurable or traumatic or what.

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

  4. celeste says:

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

  5. Julie Leto says:

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

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

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

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

  6. Tonda/Kalen says:

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

  7. Anonymous says:

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

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

  8. Robin says:

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

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

  9. Candy says:

    Candy, this quote surprised me…in that, I’m surprised that you took it out and highlighted it.  I don’t think there’s anything bigoted about that comment.  It’s fair.  It’s outside my comfort zone, so I won’t read it.  There’s lots of stuff I don’t want to read about because it’s outside my comfort zone…like children being abused.

    Think about the statement in the context of an inter-racial romance. Would your statement remain the same, i.e. it’s not indicative of bigotry?

    The examples you gave were of something unpleasant. Some things are outside my comfort zone, too, and I choose not to read them—romance novels with rapist heroes, for example.

    Some people have a problem with man-man sex.  Doesn’t mean they hate gays or bisexuals or that they are right-wing conservatives.

    “Hate” is a strong word—I think “bigoted” or “prejudiced” would be more accurate. and one doesn’t need to be right-wing or conservative to be a bigot—I know some lefties who are plenty bigoted. And I think having a problem with man-man sex is the foundation of bigotry against gay people.

  10. Candy says:

    Oops, I didn’t complete my thought before mashing the Submit button. Specifically, this bit here: “The examples you gave were of something unpleasant. Some things are outside my comfort zone, too, and I choose not to read them—romance novels with rapist heroes, for example.”

    I was going to say something along the lines of how there’s a difference between something not being to your taste, and something being outside your comfort zone. Inter-generational family sagas, for example, are not to my taste, but they don’t violate my comfort zone. Saying something violates your comfort zone places a sort of moral judgment on the enterprise. It’s no accident that you picked child abuse and I picked rapist heroes, instead of, say, Western romances and self-help books.

  11. Julie Leto says:

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

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

  12. Julie Leto says:

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

  13. Robin says:

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

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

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

  14. Candy says:

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

  15. Candy says:

    Robin: I shot that statement out off-the-cuff, and now I’m trying to unpack all its implications. Your example of S/M erotica is a good one for me, because that’s an example of a sub-genre that has some aspects that lie outside my comfort zone (bloodplay, scatplay), and some aspects that just don’t interest me all that much (spanking, intensive role-playing), and some aspects that interest me a whole lot (light bondage). And while I don’t hold a negative moral judgment against S/M as a whole, I’ll have to examine my attitudes towards those who choose to engage in, say, intense genital torture, or those who do things like bifurcate their penis. I’d certainly be lying if I didn’t say that I think people who engage in the more extreme ends of S/M aren’t, well, kind of a little bit nuts. And I’m well aware that probably makes me a judgmental asshole to those people.

  16. Carrie Lofty says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  18. Michelle says:

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

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

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

    Good job Candy.

  19. Candy says:

    Thanks for the points you’ve made, lovelysalome, but there’s a lot of conflation between “not to my taste” and “outside my comfort zone,” I think. There’s a substantive difference between “not being a turn-on” and “actively disgusting me.” In other words, there’s a difference between saying, say, “I’m not attracted to overweight men” and “Overweight men violate my comfort zone.”

  20. Some Woman says:

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

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

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

    And why do we have to feel badly about it?

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

  21. Candy says:

    Laura: excellent examples of items that violate comfort zones without negative moral judgment. I concede my point: going outside somebody’s comfort zone doesn’t necessarily entail a negative moral judgment. However, there’s something different between saying “Inter-racial romances violate my comfort zone” and “Bisexual heroes violate my comfort zone” vs. “Imagining my parents gettin’ it on violates my comfort zone.” I can’t quite put my finger on it, though. I’ll ponder this some more.

  22. Rosemary says:

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

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

  23. Candy says:

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

    I agree that not wanting to read about gay sex doesn’t make somebody homophobic or what-have-you. Some of the moral judgments I’ve seen being passed on bisexuality and homosexuality, however, do. And that’s what I’ve (by and large) tried to address.

    But people have a right to their own opinions on this topic. If someone is skeeved out by it, they are allowed to be skeeved out.

    And why do we have to feel badly about it?

    You definitely have a right to your opinion on this topic. And just as somebody has the right to feel skeeved out about something, I have a right to an opinion on their skeeved-out feelings, especially in the way they express said skeeved-outedness.

    You don’t have to feel badly about being skeeved out by Teh Gay, but other people are trying to make ME feel bad for NOT being skeeved out. Odd how that works, eh?

  24. Candy says:

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

    Y’know, this has brought up another interesting aspect to the comfort zone thing that I wasn’t able to express concretely before, namely, that most people’s comfort zones are violated by situations that involve pain, or what we perceive would be painful to experience, especially if it violates body integrity. Many of the common non-negative-judgment comfort zone violations fall into this category: surgery, fisting, extreme S/M, and let’s not forget good ole anal sex.

    Other violations occur in the presence of breaches of privacy and/or aesthetics: picturing parents, friends, old people, etc. having sex

    Some comfort zones are violated because the situations portray circumstances that we don’t consider romantic in their everyday, unromantic grossness: morning breath, farting, etc.

    Others things violate our comfort zones because we view them as just plain morally wrong: homosexuality, inter-racial sex, child abuse, bestiality, rape.

    (One throwaway remark, and all of a sudden I’m trying to analyze and categorize what constitutes “comfort zone” violations. That’ll larn me to shoot off at the mouth!)

    (No, no it won’t.)

  25. Tonda/Kalen says:

    Are we having a semantical argument here?

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

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

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

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

  26. thera says:

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

  27. Carrie Lofty says:

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

  28. Julie Leto says:

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

    Fascinating discussion.

  29. Carrie Lofty says:

    Morgan Hawke, eh?  Hmmmm….  😉

  30. Some Woman says:

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

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

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

  31. Ann Aguirre says:

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

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

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

  32. Roseread says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  33. Robin says:

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

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

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

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

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

  34. Ann Aguirre says:

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

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

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

  35. Candy says:

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

    But I find argument and debate so stimulating. And the issue is very, very important to me—as it is to many other people, because they feel strongly enough to post about it, and post about it at length.

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

    Nobody who reads this site is required to agree with any of my assessments. Reasoned, intelligent dissent is interesting and invigorating. Bitchfights are interesting and occasionally kinda fun, too. Anyway, if you found your opinions validated in the comments, or if you were able to read them without stroking out, then good on you. I’d disagree about the “intelligent way” bit—even the most eloquent responses regarding why homogaiety in romance is just wrong, wrong, wrong are logically untenable, in my opinion—but you’re certainly free to feel differently.

  36. Robin says:

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

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

  37. Ann Aguirre says:

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

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

  38. Candy says:

    Roseread: I apologize for being a judgmental asshole. For what it’s worth, I’m the kind of asshole who certainly doesn’t believe what consenting adults do with each other is any business of anybody else’s, and if anyone tried to pass legislation that outlawed BDSM, or even if somebody tried to argue that BDSM romance wasn’t, well, romance, my dissent would be very loud and very cranky.

    And Robin:

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

    Yes, my statement was pretty damn silly, the more I think about it. Given the context, however, I think quite a few people who’ve mentioned their comfort zones being violated have that discomfort stem from moral objections.

    I don’t know where I’m going with this except to say that I’d rather someone say that gay sex in Romance is outside their comfort zone than to say that it doesn’t belong in Romance.

    I agree with this. I didn’t see too many people willing to say “this discomforts me, but I’m willing to accept this as a valid form of romance.” There were a few, but most people allow their discomfort to dictate more than their personal preference and go into the realm of prescriptive action.

  39. kardis says:

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

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

  40. Roseread says:

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

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

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

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

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

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