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

How many kittens DID you kill last week?

anyway..

she said “all these women seeking an unattainable ideal based on reading too much romance with rugged, sensitive heroes. “

blows my dreams to bits, here i thought there was some rich, horny, world traveling super sensitive vampire, super stud, crime fighter out there somewhere just waiting for me… and now i’m told he’s UNATTAINABLE? damn

As I said in email, it’s hard for me to get too pissed when it’s so very laughably (pitiably?) clear where Feldhahn is coming from.  That book she recommended?  The full title is

Finding the Hero in Your Husband: Surrendering the Way God Intended

and skimming the description on Amazon gave me shudders of association with the creepy-sad “surrendered wife” movement.

So what are us old bats supposed to aspire to?  Someone with his own teeth and only 3 daily meds?

I am so sick of this BS!  What year is it? It sure sounds like it’s 1807 (“Novels are dangerous for impressionable young ladies!”) and not 2007 based on this ridiculous screed about dumb women too stupid to be able to separate reality from fiction. 

This is possibly my favorite line:

“In fact, some marriage therapists caution that women can become as dangerously unbalanced by these books’ entrancing but distorted messages”

If Your Mother Says She Loves You, Check it Out! is my mantra, and I want to see proof of this statement, and one lameass marriage therapist with a couple out of control delusional clients does not make for proof.

I hope the SBs address this issue in their book.  The operative word in this discussion is “smart”, and my money’s on you two.

hey, my friend recommended this site to me and i was not let down!  are you ever gonna review carrie pilby?  or fashionista?  they’re my favorite harlequin-published but actually SMART books even with chick lit covers.  you should totally do it!

Speaking personally, when I am reading romance (traditional, erotic, whatever) I have WAY more sex with my husband. Just puts me in the mood.

If a husband is being totally ignored in favour of romance novels, chances are there is some reason over and above the lady’s love of the genre.

I hate surrender-harpies.  They should all be forced to read “The Handmaiden’s Tale” and see what happens to surrender-harpies when men really take over.  No, those women don’t believe in surrendering authority to their husbands anymore than I believe in Creationism.  Or they’d be home, pregnant and barefoot, scrubbing floors on their knees and too busy and TOO HUMBLE to write books and article telling others what to do.  Attention whores.

On the other hand, there is a serious lack of good female porn these days for a girl who isn’t into threesomes and demands freaking good writing even if she’s killing two kittens a pop while at it.

I love it.  The only way that women are going to develop unrealistic expectations is if they have no idea the difference between real life and fiction.  Bah.

Considering the slang term for femme genitalia, and the French term for orgasm, female orgasm can completely be seen as killign the kitten…

As a high schoo English teacher, I’ve been given a raised eyebrow and asked if having romance novels in my classroom library is “appropriate” because of the sex. One: I vet my books, and don’t allow erotica or explicit manga. Two: Are you kidding? If I wouldn’t get in trouble, I’d brig in all sex, all the time if it got my students to read more! Whatever hooks kids into a book is great. I grew up on romance and AFAIK, I am neither unbalance or delusional.

And “surrended wife” makes me want to poke my own eyeballs out with a sprok and eat them. Yarg. Where are the surrendered husband guides, huh?

I just wrote a response.

Two stupid twits writing two stupid columns insulting all women by implying we’re all too delicate and impressionable to tell fact from fiction.

CHIT!

The number of fuckwitted douchebags with newspaper columns never ceases to amaze me.

Romance books are the strawman of the left and the right. From the right - the mere lighting of your eyes upon this book will pry your knees open to every ham handed dullard who wants your goodies. Don’t be a slut and read NASCAR romance!

From the left - well, it’s not real literature but at least those housewives are reading and as long as it’s not porn, they’ll be all right. We know those housewives are so stupid they can’t tell the difference between real life and a book, but well, it’s not that bad for them.

Whatever. You know what, I’ll bet nether one of those women has read an entire romance novel. But why should they when they can be self righteous about people they don’t know and books they’ve never read?

And I will laugh, because I apparently try to convert my sisters to lesbianism and eat kittens in puff pastry, that my code is usually69 and it made me laugh.

The thing that gets to me is the complete lack of general public knowledge of the statistic that with increase in internet access, there has been a decrease in rapes.  Not a direct correspondence, of course, but a very compelling correlation.  See here (PDF, be warned) and here (Slate article).

So porn is good for you!

And I’m with Chrissy.  DH gets WAY more nooky and more experimental, interesting nooky when I’m reading romances.  Especially those erotica stories that are so bad for me.

And as an 18thC scholar, these arguments have been around for 300 years (and probably more, but I only go back to 1700) when it comes to women and their reading habits.  It’s ridiculous that they haven’t gone away yet.

An awful lot of public discourse is based on faulty logic. “Compare and contrast” requires genuine parallels, for instance, not straw dogs and false conclusions. But that’s what we get all the time. 

Yes, romance gets picked on. Not only is anything that women like an easy target (since woman are a despised second class in most cultures, not excluding our own), but—oh, this is so ironic—everything about women is SEXY and thus by definition interesting. So self-righteous critics (men or women, women can be haters, too) can get a double hit, the virtue of seeming upright, and the vice of appealing to prurient interest just to be heard. And it works, it works.

Fighting back is important because otherwise, all people hear are the lies.

From the Amazon blurb on that mentally retarded surrender book:

Dr. Slattery advocates that the key to a successful Christian marriage is a wife’s ability to encourage her husband to develop his leadership role in the marriage and her ability to avoid boredom in the bedroom.

So… if the marriage is in trouble, it’s the woman’s job to make it all better by telling her hubby to become a controlling asshole? Don’t men have any responsibility at all in human relationships?

I mean, we all know if a woman is raped, it’s got to be her fault (after all, men don’t rape non-slutty women) so now a bad marriage is her fault for being insecure, too.

Sweet Jesus on a cracker, isn’t there bad on earth that women aren’t directly responsible for?

No wonder I’m single. As a female, it’s just too much damn work—I have to be demure enough he doesn’t rape me, slutty enough he doesn’t leave me, and I have to make the marriage work by encouraging him. I get more out of killing kittens.

OK, you two are doing exactly what I said the AJC wanted.  Slow news day?  Set off the romance-porn-politics bunch.

I’d almost be sorry I disseminated this, except Jacquie D’Alessandro & other authors are making some great comments on the AJC site.

Seriously guys, how is it condescending to say it’s a good thing that people read?  I have NO problem with that statement.

“Neither writer can tell the difference between erotica and romance”... well, one can, clearly, and the other is trying to make a rather provocative point, if you’ll give it a reasonable read.  One thinks romance is bad and erotica is Teh Evil; the other doesn’t really care except to say erotica isn’t Teh Evil, and even if it’s chick porn that’s OK.  This disagrees with your point, how, exactly?

Sheesh.  My bitch-meter is pegged today.  I’m going to lie on the fainting couch with a cold compress and a romance novel….

What’s condescending is “well at least women are reading” which is not “wow, it’s great people are reading” The difference between the two is pretty glaring and yes, condescending.

If women want to read romance, why do we have to pat them on the head and tell them it’s okay? If women want to read sex why do we have to rush to tell them it’s okay as long as it’s not porn?

What’s condescending is “well at least women are reading”

Considering that women were being attacked for reading, I thought it was an appropriate response.

If women want to read sex why do we have to rush to tell them it’s okay as long as it’s not porn?

I didn’t see anything like that in the article.  One wasn’t OK with any of it.  The other said her concern was over violent, dehumanizing porn.  And the reason she brought it up, again, was that the first commentary made no distinctions of the sort.

while either writer may know the difference between romance and erotica, neither cared to notice or pay attention to the fact that they are decidedly different.

Why should they?  (For that matter, why should they know it?  Why should anyone?)  Those definitions are a blurry mess of historic usage and industry jargon.  I think the public thinks about erotica as a subset of “romance novels”, “romance novels” being an enormous variety of character-driven, relationship-oriented fiction.  And I think that’s a valid perspective.

Just because people aren’t specialists in the field, doesn’t mean everything they say is without merit.

they point the finger of societal doom at erotica before they condemn me for reading it

Fine, so you and I read the article very differently.  It directly attacked you; it gave me some interesting new reading.

I was annoyed when it was clear they were using dated imagery (Fabio!?!  PLEASE) that they hadn’t even walked past a romance book much less read one.

That to me is a dead give away that they were both ignorant and prejudiced before they wrote the columns.

If they’d used current authors or publishing houses, or the whole ‘netrotica phenomenon, I would have believed them.

But they both came off as ignorant of their subject.  Just being lazy and writing something they thought was a Monday am slam dunk.

Right-  PR0n is bad.
Left- Romance is stOOpid.

THE END

OK, this probably isn’t in the “Bitches” comfort zone (LOL!) but I thought you might like to read a “pro-romance novel” sermon I preached a couple Sundays ago (yup, in an actual church, and I held up some actual mantitty covers too!)  Thought it might be a nice counterpoint for the snarky ignorant AJS article. . . here’s the link. . .

http://tworevs.blogspot.com/2007/06/do-you-love-me.html

And another thing… romance give women ‘unrealistic’ expectations?  You know, the kind were men are attractive, attentive, and motivated to maintain the heroine’s attention?  Sheesh… lord knows we wouldn’t want women to expect that from men. 

Let me tell who has unrealistic expectations - I’ve met men who expect their future wife (it’s almost always unmarried men who harbor the following delusion) to keep house like Martha Stewart, screw like a porn star, raise children like Mary Poppins, and cook like Julia Child.  Where are the authors decrying men’s unrealistic expectations?  They are all too busy writing articles in women’s magazines about how to ‘turn your man on’ by DOING ALL THE DAMN WORK IN THE HOUSE AND IN BED!  On top of keeping your mouth shut about making more money than he does so his ego won’t get bruised. 

Superficially, articles like this are about some failing in women, but at the core, they are about how men are weak, and cannot be expected to live up to our dreams/desires/expectations of how reasonable ADULTS should behave.

Well shit, if these women are so into being dominated by their manly men then I highly recommend Screw the Roses, Send Me the Thorns which is far more into Domination/submission than some dried up old Sunday school teacher spouting out bromides for the terminally braindead.

I mean if you are going to promote sadomasochism to get your church going honey hot then do it right damn it!
Buncha wannabee submissive amateurs!

I just had two reactions when I read the AJC articles:
1. I learned more about sex from romance novels than from my health class or my mom—even how to put on a condom. Since most American women are painfully ignorant about sex—at least this is what my friends who work in public health tell me—I’m glad I was able to get knowledge from somewhere.(Mom’s sum total of sex advice: “Don’t get VD.)I wonder about these “surrendered wives”—where are they supposed to get these ideas to keep boredom out of the bedroom? Hmm?

2. I’m one of those romance readers who loves alpha males, and I would never want to be with one in real life—they’d drive me batshit, and possibly require a restraining order. It’s a lot safer to read about “bad boys” than to actually date “bad boys.”

My word is later37, seems like a sign.

Ack!  Well, I glad I’m not a “marriage” counselor, but just a lowly psychotherapist or I would have realized long ago that I’m secretly deranged by all the romances I’ve read.

I started reading romances at age twelve, in the mid-eighties - and a lot of the books I read were older than that, because I usually swapped them with a friend at school whose mom had a stash.  So they were very old school books where all the sex was either forced seduction or the most dreamy, over-the-top, flowery thing EVER.  I read so much, and so many things, that my parents didn’t censor my reading, but my mom was a little uncomfortable with the level of sex.  One day, she started an awkward conversation: “Honey, I just think you should know that sex isn’t really how it is in those books.” And she tried to explain how sex could be good or awkward or funny without getting too explicit.  I rolled my eyes at her and was like, Mom, I KNOW, because you’d have to be stupid not to know, even if (like me at the time) you’d never had sex in your life.  I also do not expect to be kidnapped by an attractive pirate who manages to bathe, shave, and work out on a regular basis.  Such are the disappointments of life.

Seriously, as if women’s brains aren’t well- developed enough to discriminate between   fact and fiction, and between degrees of fiction?  We can’t judge reasonable expectations?  I’m disgusted by the idea that a segment of society feels threatened by women who might read about caring, devoted husbands and aspire to such a thing.  Maybe these people would be comforted by women reading the kind of romances I read in my teens, where the heroes bullied the heroines and threw them around and tore their clothes off every thirty pages.  Then again, I was raised on those books and am not hanging around waiting for my dominator to show up, so I guess “indoctrination by romance novel” is a failure.

Hey, what’s with their cut off for comments at 5:00 p.m. I had something else to say! Does their interweb go home for a hot supper cooked by the delicate little woman, or what?

I’m sorry I can’t read those two women, they make me nauseous.

Quoth our right-leaning columnist:
“There is a neurochemical element with men and porn, but an emotional element with women and these novels.”  (emphasis mine)

Wow, that really makes me feel sorry for all the guys, having to fight these hardwired, biological drives toward TEH BADNESS.

I guess I better put down my latest volume of girly-porn—with which I have been trying to emotionally prop myself up to face my pointless, soul-less life as a bitter feminist—and ask my husband for the checkbook long enough to go to the grocery store.  But wait, if he’s supposed to be in charge of all purchases, does that mean grocery shopping too?  Oh well, it will be a test of my submission to not mention to him that he got some of the wrong items ... even if it means I have to use one-ply toilet paper for the rest of my life.  *sob*

Instead of warning women that reading romance novels will give them “unrealistic expectations” of what a relationship should be like, why not encourage more MEN to read romance novels so they’ll actually be clued in to what women might want in a relationship?

Obviously, not all romance novels are good models for men to follow, but many are excellent examples of what I would consider to be good “manuals” for men.

Nora—They heard you were coming and ran in fear:

“WWND?” 

“She’d rip you a new one.”

iffygenia, to address the “they don’t have to be experts to have something valid to say”

I agree—but wouldn’t you say that having at least a passing acquaintance with the subject would lend some credibility to their assertions?

I just read the whole thing again, and can’t get over the fact that—apparently—only Harlequins are romances. Huh?

Doesn’t seem to me that either of the two have READ an actual romance in decades—if they ever did, that is.

And yes, the whole “at least women are reading” seems awfully condescending to me. It’s not Maya Angelou, but there are some VERY well written romances out there, explicit sex or not, so lets drop the lit snobbery, shall we?

Hmmm, given that I read a bunch of heterosexual romances and I’m still a lesbian… I don’t think that romances are having much of an effect besides entertainment purposes.

I agree with Kate. These sort of articles are demeaning to both men and women, but I can’t help thinking that they are worse for men because people just accept that men need to be wrapped in cotton by these surrender wives because they can’t handle an adult relationship. Its sort of sad. I read this book on gypsies about how the women do all the the house work and bartering and the like in a way that made it seem like that didn’t think that men could handle the responsibility. I think that might be a wide spread thing because I can’t see anything mature in a man who can’t hear a disagreeing voice or anyone be better than him (especially someone that he sees as inferior).

LOL Nora. And holy SHIT. Reading the title for that ‘surrendering’ book actually got me so scared for a sec my hand went off the mouse. *shudder*

Well I hate to admit it guys. As a gay man who reads romance…

After seeing him on so many covers I want to see Fabio violently raped by Barbara Cartland in a strap on.

It that so wrong?

Hah, forget the kittens. Every time a woman masturbates, an angel’s wings fall off.

I’ll be honest and say I find this whole erotic romance vs. porn thing kind of silly. When you read guidelines for authors, you often see things like: If the story would be fine without a sex scene, the sex scene shouldn’t be there. Well, why the hell not? Don’t women like sex? I don’t think women are buying books from places like Samhain or Ellora’s Cave so they can read books without sex scenes in them. So what if it’s gratuitous? Does that mean it’s too dirty for us innocent ladies?

Porn. There, I said it. Porn, porn, porn. And you know what? I don’t even feel like I need a shower now. Fact is, some of what I write could very easily be classified as porn. And the fact that my own mother can read some of it without even blushing, well, that makes me proud as hell, of both of us.

And hey, at least we’re reading, right?

I had a “concerned” relative try to counsel me a couple of times on my “excessive escapes into fantasy” (read: RED PAPERBACK NOVEL THAT IS OBVIOUSLY PORN SUCKING HER DOWN INTO THE FIERY PITS). I was told that I needed to separate fantasy from reality. My response was along the lines of “I like the hero in this book better than the boys with the fart jokes in high school. And anyway, that’s why it’s in the FICTION section. I KNOW it’s not real!” She left me alone for a goodly number of years after that….

*snort* TeddyPig… omg man, you are just wrong. :shakes head:

That debate was way too inept to get upset about. Or maybe I’m just in a really good mood from all the chick porn I’ve been reading. Or maybe I’m still laughing about the “Romance novel” short over on YouTube. Sorry - way too computer illiterate to post a link, but I’m trying at least (pats self on head).

Teddy pig - That was a very vivid picture you painted of Ms Cartland and Fabio in the throes of passion. I see it as a romance cover. Wonder what the blurb would be.

guh, how unbelievably stupid ...

No wonder women are so confused in society today if these are the two viewpoints with which we need to contend.  I can stay home and tell my husband he is perfect and not even have the satisfaction of whacking off to a romance porno when he fails to satisfy me in bed because it is my fault that I’m not sexually responsive enough because I’m not supposed to read any suggestive porn erotica romance deceptive male dehumanizing emasculating books to help get me in the mood or know what the hell the mood is because if my marriage was working and he was sexually satisfied I wouldn’t need these sexual aids and if I weren’t rotting my brain with something less than inspirational poetry designed to make me conquor the world and throw off all those old female stereotypes perpetuated by Harlequin because I am not literate enough to be entertained by anything more intellectually challenging than man dick suck fuck but hey, at least I can spell.

Dammit, I need to go kill some kittens.

[shaking head sadly]

I’d always suspected that—despite all the bravado and the chest-thumping—that a huge chunk of the human populace just can’t handle the suggestion that they may be less than perfect.  For a man to be so insecure that he feels threatened by fictious characters, mere figments of the imaginations of writers, is pathetic.  That isn’t a man,... that’s a spoiled child.

But the most tragic of it is that any woman would be expected to surrender her dignity and her right to be self-determining in order to preserve the illusion of peace within a relationship that possibly isn’t healthy for her, or worthy of her.

And I wondered why my hometown newspaper’s web site was so horribly slow today! Someone turned on the SmartBitch Signal. I should’ve known!

They just repackage that feminine = submissive crap new for each generation. I remember rolling my eyes over the Total[ed] Woman by Marabel Morgan in the 70’s.  I just googled to see if she was still promoting this view point but couldn’t find anything recently. 

The last mention of her I could find was in 1987 she developed some sort of cancer and went to work for a health aid company that had Magnetic in its title. 

She was the wrap yourself in plastic wrap and greet your husband at the door advisor—oh, and pray he doesn’t have his co-worker, boss, or best friend with him. 

my spamkiller word was need87.  Is this somehow significant?

Duh, I know Fabio isn’t coming for me on his white horse.

It’s a black horse, silly.

Come on Fabby, I’m waiting to leave my less than perfect husband, child, & life to go live in a castle with you.

I’ve been reading porn…err romance since I was a teen. I managed to get married to someone who is not a pirate or a Lord of Something or Other in England. How, oh how did I accomplish this with my unrealistic expectations?!

Romance= marital aid

When I read things like this I wonder - why doesn’t anybody ever go after novels primarily read by men and discuss how these novels have a negative effect on men - make them think they can live lives free of combovers and beerbellies.

Seriously, do these women honestly believe that I will read a paranormal vampire romance then walk out into the world (at night) looking for one to fall for?

Yeah, how is it that romance readers are accused of believing the rugged, sensitive man is out there, whereas fantasy readers are never in danger of believing unicorns exist?

No one’s raised a hue and cry over mystery readers being too naive about the justice system - or sci-fi readers being confused that aliens exist (oh, wait…)

My Mum brought up the Romance-Porn connection with me when I started reading romance. The basic idea for her was: “If the sex is part of the story, and contributes to the story - then it’s romance. If it’s just there to arouse the reader, and if the reader is READING the book just to be aroused, then it’s porn.”

Kindof like if in the French New Wave Film Le Pizzaboy, he has to have a threesome with the lesbian cheerleaders in order to fully explore the surreal depths of his existential angst, then it’s romance - but if he’s just bangin’ the broads so that more sweaty dudes will buy the tapes, than it’s porn.

Needless to say, it’s not that simple. I read romances for the dialogue, and the build-up, and the obstacles the couples overcome and how they emerge as THE couple at the end. Honestly, Catholic virgin that I am, I find I’m a bit turned off by graphic sex scenes and find I flip through them if they’re present just for the “look how much FUN the heroine’s having nudgenudgewinkwink” factor.

Heck, even in Jennifer Crusie’s “Anyone But You,” I did that. Yay! ER doc and editor are together - wait, now they’re…*flipflipflip* Yay! Fred and Oreos!

I don’t think the romance-porn connection is as solid as the naysayers may think, but I also believe it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. If you read romances FOR THE SEX (as opposed to the stories which may happen to include sex) - wouldn’t that be using the novel as porn? Not that porn is bad/good - I’m more against porn for the “stop watching TV and get some fresh air and use your IMAGINATION” argument. *lol*

“Exasperating idiosyncracies” ain’t all that fuckin’ “wonderful”.

And, by the way, it isn’t “surrendering the way God intended,” it’s surrendering the way St. Paul intended.

So if I read a Tom Clancy novel that will somehow make me want to date Sean Connery ? or will I betray the Russians and seek to give the US their most top secret sub?

Is it wrong, while doing the deed, and things are taking a long time, to imagine you are in Scotland, with that favorite laird, and the big conclusion is accomplished to everyone’s satisfaction, and he can get on with his end of it, and we can all go to sleep happy?

I’m just asking, am I going to hell for that?

Yes, it is dangerous to read romance, BECAUSE ................................it makes you a smart bitch/bastard who knows what she/he likes, has their own opinions and does not agree with crap from people like Diane Glass and Shaunti Feldhahn.

MWAHAHA, I’m burning in hell with all the rest baby! 

Is that deep enough for you?

My word is deep16

So here’s my question after sputtering through that AJC mess (comments were fun, though_:  Who’s more afraid of female sexuality, men or women? 

I’m so glad I finished my Reader’s Gab piece before I read that.

Wow, I’m late on this one - look what happens when I go to sleep??

I read the article and it was just laughable - old arguments repackaged for a new day. The rebuttal was particularly weak since she didn’t make any fresh arguments of her own, just reacted to the commentary. As has already been stated in many ways, neither of these people knows anything first hand about romance novels (or probably romance in real life)

Now I’m off to destroy some more marriages…er…do some writing…

I love you guys. Seriously heart you *hard*.

As an erotic romance writer, I hope I’ve somehow contributed to the high kitten mortality rate.

I like getting turned on.  Sue me.  Orgasms are fun and I like those, too.  I’m going to hell.  If books assist me in feeling good, I’m going to read them.  Simple equation, to me.

However, for me, in order to get invested enough to be turned on, I have to know something about the characters.  Have to care one way or the other whether or not they get their happies.  This is why I’ve never yet found a porn movie that worked for me—scene 1, hump, come.  Scene change, hump, come.  Scene 3, hump, come.  Whatever, why should I care if Interchangable Blonde #73 gets her jollies with Ugly Yet Well Hung Dude #47?  I don’t give a shit about either if them, and the in-out-in-out closeups don’t do it for me either.  As Robin Williams once said, it’s rather like an industrial film covered in fur.

So, yeah, books.  At least I’m reading before I snuff those poor little kittens.

“Yeah, how is it that romance readers are accused of believing the rugged, sensitive man is out there, whereas fantasy readers are never in danger of believing unicorns exist?

No one’s raised a hue and cry over mystery readers being too naive about the justice system - or sci-fi readers being confused that aliens exist (oh, wait…)”

Trust me. They are accused of just that.

Fantasy readers are accused of immaturity, naiveté, superstition, dangerous gullibility and being only loosely in touch with reality.

Mystery novels have been vivisected by critics who think that such novels began and ended with Agatha Christie and Mickey Spillane, and who don’t realise that a) mysteries cover a wide range of genres and b) yes, mysteries CAN say something serious about the world around us.

Sci-fi—well, it’s practically impossible to get a non-genre-oriented critic to take it seriously. Most reviewers seem to think that science fiction is entirely the province of socially maladjusted, immature Star Trek and Star Wars geeks, and confuse the style of the genre—spaceships, planetary exploration, aliens—with its substance.  Somehow, they manage to miss the fact that science fiction can be used to say things that matter, and that couldn’t be said any other way.

I don’t know much about romance novels—at least not good ones, though I’ve read more than enough bad tales of romance. But I assume, based on that article, that it is much the same way with the romance genre as well.

Romance novels have filled in the gaps in my sexual education that grade ten and general lack of experience failed to cover.
I have sexually-active friends coming to Virginal Moi for advice on how to Do It and Do It well and safely (when in doubt, just suck it up and go to a frickin’ gyno!) and what kind of variations and options there are: because I’ve read a wide range of romance/erotica and am a pretty fair judge of what might work for some couples I know and what might not.
If that’s not irony, (esp. in the face of this article’s POVs,) I don’t know what is.
I also watch a lot of nature specials and have no sex drive. At this point, boning is all one and the same. Lord Muchwangst and Lady Ophelia Klitt are on par with those elk humping each other in the marshland with the same deadpan voice-over for everything.
National Geographic = pr0n?
David Suzuki = pimp?

Oh, come on. I’m sure the skyrocketing divorce rate correlates precisely with the number of romance novels flooding the market, which proves romance ruins marriages.

Wow, talk about being demeaning towards women and their supposed lack of intelligence.  You mean Fabio isn’t coming for me on his horse anytime soon to ravish me??!!  Those bitches just shattered all of my dreams.

sensitive, patient and utterly unselfish listeners

My SO laughed his head off when I read the above to him.  According to him, I would make mincemeat of such a male paragon in real life so I would never be able to stand writing about one—or reading about one.

He knows me so bloody well.  Probably too well.

And why are so many people still uncomfortable with women and sexuality?  Well, just my unsubstantiated, unscientific, wild-assed opinion, but it’s because of the whole Madonna (no, not the singer, the Mother of Christ) figure.  Women are caregivers, nurturers, etc., and it’s difficult to reconcile the two images.  Apparently, you cannot be a mother/caregiver/nuturer and be a sexual creature at the same time.  Which is total BS!

But there you have it.

And, I will be honest and admit that I have a difficult time picturing my mother as a sexual creature.  As far as I’m concerned, she had sex four times to conceive my half-siblings and me—and that’s it.  NO MORE.

Even though I know there was more—and I can’t think about it without cringing.

On a lighter note, later tonight I’ll be watching Transformers and telling myself every five minutes that I will not rush out after the movie to buy a yellow Camaro because it will not transforms into a sentient robot from outer space.

It won’t, right?

Hollywood so confuses me!

We should ban all Sci/Fi flicks for confusing their viewers and creating unrealistic expectations.

Why should we pay attention to news sources these days, anyway? I barely come across any article thats not pure trash or ignorant sophistry. I want stuff that’s well researched. If they’re going to talk about the romance genre, then let them interview romance readers, publishers and romance authors. Let them write a bit more than a few opinionated words, and let them quote more research and statistics. Let them use a writing style that’s actually intelligent and talk to more people who know what they’re on about. Let them actually cover the argument in a well rounded way, talking about well written and badly written romances. Put some actual effort into it, rather than write something that looks like it was reeled off in 20 minutes.

Their opinion is absolutely useless to me, and ramblings of pure silliness.

I’m sick and tired of seeing articles that are just regurgutating the same fruitless tripe over and over, instead of actually contributing information and balanced arguments. A lot of journalism is absolute crap these days. If there’s anyone who’s negatively influencing people en masse, it’s the press.

“RPGs will make your children Satan-worshipping elf-wannabes who will STAB YOU IN YOUR SLEEP”

Actually, we don’t wait for you to fall asleep naturally. We drug you first. Then we make with the stabbing and Satan worshiping.

I love RPGs, lots of videogames, science fiction AND romance. I must be well effed up in the head, y’all.

I’m tired of romance being derided. I don’t see how on earth any other genre of literature is more superior. I suggest Smart Bitches compare approaches in romance to the texts in English Lit curriculum in schools. Shakespeare, particularly, had crazy views of relationships sometimes. (e.g. ROMEO AND JULIET?)

If romance were to be used in schools, what books would YOU put on the syllabus?

(P.S. Thats frickin scary… I’m typing here about schools and my word is school76. SMARTBITCHES are influencing my subconscious mind with the hot pinkness, mantittyness and suggestive verification words. HALP)

And why are so many people still uncomfortable with women and sexuality?  ..............Women are caregivers, nurturers, etc., and it’s difficult to reconcile the two images.  Apparently, you cannot be a mother/caregiver/nuturer and be a sexual creature at the same time.  Which is total BS!

Want to play with someone’s head (expecially a guy who thinks his elderly Nana is a saint?)

Remind him that everything he’s doing with his wife, Grandpa was doing with Grandma!  And she seemed to like it (Cuz they had 7 kids).  It’s funny how many folks (men especially) are freaked out at the idea that their mothers/grandmothers etc were/are just as wild in the sack as their hot lovers of today.

Sex and writing about sex isn’t new.

I wonder what those lovely ladies would make of me: published romance author, published erotica author, enjoys porn, happily married for 17 years.

Obviously, I’m an aberration.  A statistical anomaly.
A sex-crazed bundle of confused and angry hormones just waiting to Bobbittize her husband while he sleeps for not doing the dishes…

Nadia asked:
“Is it wrong, while doing the deed, and things are taking a long time, to imagine you are in Scotland, with that favorite laird, and the big conclusion is accomplished to everyone’s satisfaction, and he can get on with his end of it, and we can all go to sleep happy?

I’m just asking, am I going to hell for that?”

Yes, Nadia.  you are.  But heaven is ankle deep in dead kittens and none of the angels have wings.  Do you really want to go there?

When it comes to writing, and how much sex, and where to put it? ;)

The guidelines never tell us that less is more, because women don’t want to have all that sex cluttering up their ertoic novel.  But from the writing standpoint, it’s all supposed to be about writing the best book possible.  And really good books don’t take a detour down a dead end street for a blowjob, just because nothing hot has happened lately and the reader is getting bored.

However:  if we happen to a story, where a large part of the main conflict occurs on a dead end street, and a lot of hot things are happening there?

Then it is our job to tell that story to the best of our abilities.  It’s a dirty job, but someone has to do it.  And what the readers are doing, once they get the story is none of our business. We deal in fiction, not on the spot reporting.

Although I am going to go and check on the health of our cats.

“Actually, we don’t wait for you to fall asleep naturally. We drug you first. Then we make with the stabbing and Satan worshiping.”

*snort* love it.

I wonder when Laura Mallory is going to weigh in on this?

Hey I am a right-leaning Christian and totally disagree with the premise that romance reading is harmful, and with the notion women are too gullible to differentiate between fiction and real life. Sheesh.

“Most right-leaning douchebags eventually gave up on the whole “RPGs will make your children Satan-worshipping elf-wannabes who will STAB YOU IN YOUR SLEEP” scenario…”
—Um, no, they didn’t. They still believe RPGs are evil. They’ve just expanded their definition of evil to everything they don’t like or understand, from romance novels to Goth trends to emerging non-Christian religions (Satanism) and old non-Christian religions (Satanism) to Christian religions like Catholicism (Satanism and the anti-Christ).

RE: the Mirabel Morgan greet-your-husband-in-plastic-wrap adjuration idea

I was the office co-worker who went home with him one evening and his wife (a good friend of mine) greeted him at the door in a flaming orange negligee outfit that I would never in a million years have imagined her wearing—or him enjoying. Needless to say, there were a couple of disappointed people that evening.

Glass’s response is actually an interesting lesson in the value of framing

Candy, yep, I squawked about that excuse for an article.  And you’re right: absolutely, Glass let Feldhahn frame the debate.  I wish she hadn’t, because “Reading is good” is a better way to state “At least women read.”  I just don’t think failure to re-frame makes her the evil C-word (condescending).  I can see why people take it that way, but I feel like we sound unnecessarily defensive when we jump all over stylistic points when there’s bigger stuff in the article to worry about.  But that’s just my preference.  And that’s why I invoked the Bitchsignal, then yelled “Don’t throw the bathtub out with the baby!”  Silly iffy, that’s what the Bitch does: it Bitches.  And very productively, at that.

Feldhahn and Glass are longtime sparring partners, and some of their columns sound like they’ve lost sight of the bigger audience (and the possibility of re-framing), because they’re so focused on their ongoing familiar argument.  Of course, that makes for a more obvious “left vs right” piece, which stirs up the readership, which is what passes for “news”.

(Not that I agree with this approach: the point-counterpoint format is too often lazy journalism and shit-stirring for its own sake, rather than really probing the issues.  It’s even more lazy when it’s couched as right-vs-left and there’s no attempt at synthesis.)

Grandpa was doing with Grandma!  And she seemed to like it (Cuz they had 7 kids).

My grandma apparently liked it a lot.  She has 10 kids (and no multiples)...and there would’ve been more but Grandpa died in his early 40s.

And, yes, we’re Roman Catholic.

Funny enough, if Mom and Grandma knew I’m writing trashy books on the side, I think they’d approve.

My mom’s been making remarks that make me do double takes even before I was old enough to know boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.

Ah, Teddy, I’m so sorry your romance cover fantasy can never happen.
Babs kicked the bucket a while back.  Hard to get a strap-on around a dead chick.
Unless this was a paranormal….

Hmm.

Okay, so maybe your fantasy cover COULD happen.  Fabio and Zombie Barbara Cartland with a strap-on.  Righteous!

So THAT’s why I’m single—maybe I’ll get lucky and find a man when I finish my TBR stack.

Sarah and I took this offline, and I think came to a sort of agreement on one reason that we read Glass differently.

I think statements like “At least X reads!” are predicated on a fear that people no longer read.  I see that all the time, and there are some stats to support it… but also some stats that contradict it. I’ve collected a bunch of stats on reading - anyone here have better sources, or alternate interpretations?

I think I’d give Diane Glass a pass on this one.  She died of cancer on July 30.  She was diagnosed on July 6th.  I’m guessing she wasn’t up to her usual stuff when she wrote this column.

http://www.leifwells.com/index.cfm/2007/7/30/My-Best-Friend-Diane-Glass-1964—2007