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

Shape shifter romances fit this category for me.
P.C.Casts centaur books OMG!
kinda weird having a human in love with a horse. wonderful stories and I have all her books on my keeper shelf but I kinda squirmed at some of the dialouge. in one the goddess offers to “take care” of her centaur husband while he’s in horse form. kinda kissin the beastiality stone there but it was turned into a humorous passage and my sensibilities were not too bruised.

Some other shape shifter novels kind of blur the line worse than that but hey..its fiction and taken with a grain of salt (followed by tequila and lime)

(on an unrelated note.. the confirmation word thingy below is anti69, I hope that doesnt mean I have to BE anti 69)

Dude. You can’t do a footman falling in love with his master. Romance is strictly hetero, didn’t you know that? And bestiality with shape-shifters is right out.

(JOKE!!! SARCASAM!! I SWEAR! Read whatever ya want!)

There was something slighly squicky about Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ Ain’t She Sweet? about a woman who falls for her former high school teacher after she accused him of coming on to her when she was his student and got him fired. 

OK, it was more than slightly squicky, but dang if SEP didn’t pull it off!

I don’t know what it says that I am already imagining that card stuck in the middle of my next paperback - Order from Slightly Squicky today - Stories of forbidden love.

Oh, oh, oh, I love this topic.

There’s a small thread on AAR right now dealing with the revelation in the new Charlaine Harris grave-whatever book that there’s some feelings between the step-siblings.  Personally, I adore it when Harris pushes on various taboos because she’s built a lot of trust in me.  Ditto Gaffney in a book like To Have and To Hold.  In Romance, outside the particular character of the relationship, it’s all about the trust I can or cannot have in an author.  More than anything, I have to feel that the author is aware of the power relations, that she’s sensitive to the most provocative issues, and that, at some very fundamental, she wishes the characters (and the readers, I guess) well.

In general, as someone who has spent literally years researching captivity narratives, I can tell you that for me, most of the fun is in spotting moments of subversion of the expected power differential.  Those moments that command shifts, or that understanding and comprehension occurs, or that the power differential actually flips.  And in narrative form, I find it virtually impossible NOT to find some moment of subversion (much more so, for example, than in what might actually take place in a real-life captivity experience, as a POW, for example).  Those moments of subversion can comfort me, give me a sense of power as more fluid than it might otherwise seem, and reaffirm my faith in the primacy of individual experience over so-called statistical realities.  And maybe that’s one of the reasons I like Romance—by it’s very nature, the idea of a relationship that beats the odds happily is subversive, and I just can’t resist that.

This is why I love fan fic so much...You watch certain movies and you can’t help but wonder…

*cough*

*X-Men*

*cough*

*runs and hides*

I have a thing for the jailor/jailee (is that even a word). He’s the stoical, unmovable rock of Gibraltar, you know the type. He’s above weak physical needs, he just stands there and does his job. But then, the heroine does something he’ll think is either unbelievingly heroic/brave/dumb/enticing and BAM! He falls! MWA HA HAA!!

I know it’s been done to death, but I like me a good Stockholm Syndrome any day of the week!

Nora Robert’s Honest Illusions was always my favorite slightly squicky stepsibling romance. Geez, that one is so damn old I feel like I dug it out of the rubble of Pompeii.

I don’t want to read any of these books. *insert disturbed face here* I guess my squick factor is easily triggered (which I find strange, since I’m such a pro-sex slut). I just shy away from anything that smacks (reeks?) of coercion, or where the power is strongly in one player’s hands. I just don’t find it sexy (I think this is why so much “romantica” just doesn’t not work for me; I find it neither romantic nor erotic, let alone both).

On the other hand I loved the first story in Somebody’s Lover by Jasmine Haynes, about the guy in love with his brother’ widow. Forbidden, big time, but it didn’t have that power-imbalance issue that turns me off.

I thought of a couple more with a certain “squick” factor.  Pamela Morsi’s Simple Jess is a historical about a man who’s mentally disabled and the woman who falls for him.  Colleen McCullough’s Tim handles a similar theme in a contemporary setting.

Anne Rice’s Belinda is a teen having an affair with a much older man.  I thought I’d hate it, and I enjoyed it very much.

OK, I guess I’m the only one who’s going to comment on the TV reference… at least I’m assuming the math prof is Charlie from Numbers. I can’t say this one bothers me; they’re about the same age, and there’s never really seemed to be any imbalance in intelligence or power.

I agree with Darlene about Ain’t She Sweet, although I had a hard time getting why the guy was willing to give the girl a chance… I just remember the basset hound!

Ack; missed closing the italics on that comment. Sorry!

I can see that my lack of a cousins-squick thing is really causing me to miss out here!

Brenda Joyce’s latest, _The Stolen Bride_, really laid the squick factor on with a trowel. Perhaps she was deliberately trying to entice this demographic!

KTG: *X-Men*

Now, would that be Logan and Scott, or Logan and Rogue?  :)

But I refuse to see any romantic subtext between Simon and River (Firefly) - they’re brother and sister, and that is it.

Laurie R King’s Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes series has a bit of an ick factor - he’s was 50ish when they met, and she was 15 or 16 at the time, but the romance in the books is more on the peripheral side.  I think that happened in The Time Traveler’s Wife too, kind of, except that one is about their romantic relationship.

I also agree about SEP’s Ain’t She Sweet?.  I thought the relationship worked out quite well, even with their history.

Yes! Charlaine was good for me...totally anticipating the next installment...soon please!

Squick...humm...definately, but it can be good squick if the plot expresses a growing relationship and emotional growth vs. impulsive and slutty bed hopping.  As usual, quality writing does it for me.  Examples...Kinsale’s The Dream Hunter & Shadowheart squicked some readers, but I enjoy her writing. Or, Champagne Rules begins with interacial sex with a stranger, which could be squicky, but author Susan Lyons develops it into a wonderful story.  The new Charlaine Harris started to get squicky when the step sibling attraction appears in the plot, but Charlaine handles it well and now I’m eagerly anticipating more!

Not good squick...rape, incest, D/S, S/M, and really bad writing (ie Jaid Black’s sex licking night creatures). 

Did I see Tonda’s book for pre-sale on Borders?  Looks like a challenging plot…

BTW, recent failures for me: The Witchling didn’t pass the 10 page test, does it get better?  Dressed to Kill by Harper Allen (Bombshell) is so awful that after thousands of books over decades of reading...a virgin moment.  I’m going to find my receipt and return this one.  It’s a first, I’ve never returned a book but this one is complete middle school soap opera tripe.  By page 70 I can’t stand it any more, and so insulted by the poor writing it’s going back...beyond bad.

PS Why is EC ad art so much better than their cover art?

Cassie,

I ship Rogan (Wolverine/Rogue) but I’m a sucker for any good X-men movieverse fic...Surprisingly I’m not alone in my obsession with a love that is illegal in 35 states..

KTG

Jane Feather crosses that squick a lot for me with the thirty yo men and the seventeen yo girls.  But I loves them so bad!  The cousin thing doesn’t bother me.  D/s is wonderful when done right, SM even better.  I love the sex in LKH--yes, I’m as slutty as Anita.

I think the only thing that squicks me is bad writing.

Rebyj...Ditto on PC Cast and the horse thing.  I enjoyed the prequil, others love her, I have contemplated purchasing several times, but...I squick on the horse thing.

Maybe because a recent local scandal involved a sex ring, VIP’s, a heart attack during sex, and yes a horse.  Yes...really, the VIP and a horse.  The visualization is...well, squicky.

The Charlaine Harris relationship doesn’t bother me but my best friend is totally squicked out about the idea.  However, that does not stop her from borrowing my copies.  Course I also cheered when she killed off that character that upset so many other people in one of her other series (sort of a spoiler cover although I should think it’s been enough years since she did it that it shouldn’t be a spoiler. )

Over the top shapeshifter squick for me was Mallory Rush’s Kiss of the Beast.  And while wildly popular at one time but left me cringing, Lisanne Norman’s series.  When I finally left off the heroine and the alien cat hero were somehow meeting in the middle dnawise so they could have a baby.  Insert eyeroll there.

On the other hand I loved loved loved the relationship between Jani Kilian and Lucian Pascal in Kristine Smith’s SF series.  Pascal is such a psychopath but Jani is a strong enough character and going into whatever it is they have with open eyes.

word to submit:  long69

:exclaim:

I usually have a fairly high tolerance for most aspects of the ‘squick factor’. The only thing that makes me really go “eewwwww!” is anything to do with lusting after/sleeping with your brother/sister/father/mother and that includes steps as well. Just can’t handle it.

I got creeped out reading Anne Stuart’s To Love A Dark Lord and he was only pretending that she was his sister! Aaack! The scene when he is kissing her face and fondling her while a crowded room looks on just made me feel kinda icky.

I don’t think I’ll read Charlaine’s new one then!

DS...Lisanne Norman squicked herself so bad she hasn’t written in years.

One book in particular with the squick factor that I love is Anne Bishop’s Black Jewel Trilogy wherein the hero falls in love the heroine when she’s just a kid, and he much older, becomes her teacher/ friend and waits around for her to grow up. I’m a big fan of guardian/ward romances wherein the hero fights himself for control. Another great guardian/ward with the romance toned down (it’s YA), but still there are Mairelon the Magician and The Magician’s Ward.

God, even though the Stockholm Syndrome set-up is responsible for 99.9% of the asshattery in the Phantom of the Opera fandom and fanfiction, damned if I don’t jump on it every time like a debutante on laxitives.

Hey, I thought Pamela Morsi’s “Simple Jess” was remarkable for the fact that she managed to write a full length historical romance between a typical woman and a man with mental challenges *with no squick factor at all*. 

She got into the hero’s head so well, demonstrating his inherent dignity and humanity (as well as his manliness) and allowed us to see how a smart woman could discern those same qualities to fall truly in love with him, disability and all.

But hey for the squick factor in Anita Mills’ ancient tome “Lady of Fire”...a pulsing medieval knight’s tale where the heroine thinks the hero is her half-brother (though he isn’t) and is halfway through a love scene with him before she realizes “I’m awake and I’m sucking face with my brother”.  Mills worked it and she worked it well!  If you can find it, read it!

Anne Stuart’s books for Onyx-- especially the one where the hero is head of a cult.  The hero in that particular book is pretty squicky as he essentially takes advantage of the heroine’s mental illness. And the heroine is such a psychological mess!  But it’s still in my keeper box.

Speaking of old squick, I’ve got to mention Violet Winspear’s “The Devil’s Darling.” Heroine is married off to repay dad’s debt to a rich and fiery Latin who is 30 plus, she’s a virginal 17 and he rapes her on their wedding night. All ends well (sort of) with them going off to the bedroom to make a baby, with his grandma’s blessing. The macho thing irritated me but the idea of grandma’s knowing look as she closed the door--SQUICK! 

I’m light21. I’m OK with that

So, Candy, if the math professor reference wasn’t about Charlie on Numbers, is there a book out there that I should be reading? :)

Holy bugger, Darlene, I’d completely forgotten about Simple Jess. I think I read it 3 times before I finally passed it on, I enjoyed it that much and I didn’t get any icky feelings from it. It was different, that’s for sure (not to mention it was set in hillbilly territory, which is pretty rare.)

I recently reread Jane Feather’s Vixen and I was fairly taken aback by the fact that the heroine was 17 and very childish, which translated into her dynamic with the hero, her guardian. The first love scene reminded me of something out of V.C. Andrews. I like the book, but I couldn’t shake the little fits of discomfort that would come over me every once in a while.

I seem to have a low squick tolerance: don’t like cousins mating (must have been the numerous revisions of that genetics textbook I typed while working as a secretary for two bio professors) or big age differences, especially if either H/H is quite young—because in the end I can’t believe the power is ever equal in ways I find romantic.  Note, this didn’t bother me in Bishop’s Black Jewels Trilogy because Daemon was hundreds of years old and Janelle human, so a huge age difference was inevitable.  Besides, there’s always one exception that provides the rule, or so I tell myself when trying to explain why I can’t read books with 15 year differences but loved these books where the age differences was measured in centuries, not decades—perhaps because it was so patently a fantasy instead of the kind of trophy wife thing one reads about in the style section of the newspaper all the time.  On the other hand, I don’t mind footmen with their masters/mistresses or shapeshifters or centaurs or were-whatevers.  And some other automatic squicks for others, such as adultery, very much depend on the situation (at least in romance novels).

My sister-in-law’s brother married his stepniece. He was 37 & she was 19 at the time.  Seeing it in real life killed my taste for slightly squicky romance.  I’ve always wondered if the kids should be calling him Uncle Daddy?

I can’t read or watching anything about mathematicians or Julianas, as I come from a family of mathematicians and my name is Juliana.  I don’t know how women named Sarah or Jessica do it.  Plus, the writers always get the math wrong.  How hard is it to check the math with a local starving math grad student?

Or boss/underling romances, or anything where the heroine admires the hero’s greying hair and/or “life lines on his face” sort of thing, especially if she’s young.  It’s not a turn-off if she’s in the same age range as the Hero.

D’oh.  I’m so used to using the name Lily online, I wrote “My name is Juliana” and signed the post Lily.  Obviously my poor grasp of modern-day social skills makes me perfectly suited to be a mathematician :)

One of my big squick factors is when the Hero or Heroine have the name of a parent or friend. Especially my father, that is sketchy beyond belief and tends to ruin the novel for me.
Haha, my word is right 32. Damn straight.

I have to second that.  Anytime I’m reading a romance novel, and the heroine starts crying out, “Oh (Dad’s name), oh God (Dad’s name),” it just kills the story for me.

Don’t think I’ve ever read a book featuring my fathers name (Dennis).  Read one last week with my daughters name, that was a little sqicky.

One that I found to be, possibly not outright squicky, but it kicked me out of the story.  The male lead was a minister, and after feeling severe lust toward the female lead, he would occasionally pray something to the effect of ‘If you approve of me seducing her, then give me no sign.  Thy will be done.” He slept with her less than two weeks after they first met, and by the end of the book there was no sign he was even planning to propose.

Shapeshifter romances don’t really squick me.  If they’re in the same form, whatever form that might be, it’s a lot easier to handle.

. . . oh, another that creeped me out: The heroine had a narrow escape from a rapist right before meeting the. . . I’m just going with ‘male lead’, as he didn’t strike me as any sort of hero.  She was shaken by this, and he decides that the way to help her is by heavily pressuring her to have sex.  But since it’s GOOD sex, that makes it all right.  Even when she repeatedly told him she really didn’t want to rush things.

I’ve read several harlequins that fall into this category.  I don’t remember the name, but there was one in which the parents of the leads were cousins.  I couldn’t deal with that and had to put the book down.

Funny...we were just discussing a similar topic at ye olde watering hole yesterday.

My squirm button is definintely pushed by hardcore BDSM in which women are thoroughly dominated and humiliated.  Why?  Simple.  Any female who’s been in an abusive relationship finds nothing--and I mean absolutely NOTHING--erotic or romantic about such treatment.  In fact, we find it repugnant.  This doesn’t require any analysis.  The end.

And why is it that so many publishers refuse to put out fem-dom (female dominant) books?  I suppose it’s because their readers don’t want to see women dominating men...yet slaver over men reducing women.  Assuming most readers are female, that is a sad, sad commentary on where their heads are at.

I truly don’t get it.  Assholes of any stripe just don’t turn me on.  I’ve known too many to find them titillating.

Judith McNaught’s Whitney, My Love was one of the first romances I read as a young and impressionable teen and still occupies a special place in my heart.  I’ve got to say, though, that when I read (in a dedication to a later book, I think) that Ms McNaught’s children are called Clayton and Whitney, like the hero and heroine, I was a bit squicked out.  Reading a romance whose hero and heroine had the same names as my brother and me would be enough to do what no amount of tycoon-marrying-his-secretary-who-is-also-his-ward-and-his-cousin-and-the-mother-of-his-secret-baby books could do: put me off romance for EVER.

We have funny names though, so I think I’m safe.

Shapeshifters freak me the hell out.  Bestiality at it’s “approved” level.  Bleah.

Names don’t bother me very much, unless they’re super crappy like Rod Steele or something like that.

My squirm button is definintely pushed by hardcore BDSM in which women are thoroughly dominated and humiliated.

For me it’s the humiliation that I can’t handle, particularly in a public setting.  Whatever gets your butter melting is fine, as long as you aren’t forcing the rest of the world into your little fantasy.  (Within limits.  I mean, kids, dogs, and werecods are NOT allowed ever ever ever.)

I read Master/Slave and it had some pretty damn kick ass stories that were certainly added to the rolodex o’ rubbin’, but there were some that I was reading and thinking, “Huh?  How the mother hell is this supposed to be hot?” I still can’t bring myself to read the short story titled “Fisting”.

Wry Hag,

BDSM isn’t about politics. If you’re into it, it’s got nothing to do with what is politically correct.  It’s all about what turns you on and that’s why so many people ignore that part of their sexuality:  they’re ashamed of what turns them on because their politics tells them that SHOULDN’T turn them on and yet it does.

Trust me.  I know.  But I’m on the femdom end of the scale. 

I don’t know how this translates to readers who read BDSM but don’t practice.

But it still comes down to the fact that what turns you on has nothing to do with politics.  And I know you were expressing a personal opinion.  I just wanted to put this out there anyway.

If you’re looking for a great--and I mean brilliant--femdom book, Joey Hill’s “Natural Law” is absolutely stunning.  Stephanie Vaughan’s “Cruel to be Kind” is also pretty good.  Both of them are e-books, but are also real-paper published.

Rosemary,

Fisting, with the right person, is incredibly hot.

-Roseread

I published a short story about two step siblings falling in love-- but they never lived in the same house.  The parents married when he was already in college. (There were five years between them-- and the story takes place later.) The story was romantic and sweet and dealt with the issues involved-- but they weren’t blood related, so I didn’t see a problem. 

But the editors gave it a squicky title.

I grew up on all those Harlequin Presents novels that had the older man/younger woman, guardian/ward, stepbrother/stepsister.  They were wonderfully, melodramatically romantic to the young girl I was and sometimes, I’ll admit to taking a trip down memory lane. 

Now, having said all that--the blood related siblings thing icks me all out.

I remember a Jayne Anne Krentz that squicked me out big time.  Don’t recall the name, but the hero’s father married the hero’s ex-wife, his daughter-in-law.

But the cousins marrying thing doesn’t bother me.  ‘Course, that could be ‘cause I live in North Florida where that kind of marriage used to be pretty darn common.  And marriage between first cousins is still legal in this state.

What are these Charlaine Harris books you are all talking about?  The vampire books?  Honestly, the covers of those have kept me from picking them up.  They look like the Harry Potter covers only vampires instead of wizards.  Which makes the fact that there might be squick in them even more squicky.  Eee.

Does setting make the difference in age gaps between hero and heroine for anybody else?  I can’t imagine thinking a romance between an eighteen y/o heroine and a thirty-eight y/o hero would be a good idea in a modern setting, but it’s perfectly acceptable in Jane Eyre.

For most of history, women have first married at a younger age than men.  It wouldn’t even occur to me to be squicked by a fifteen or twenty year age difference in a Romance set in a time when that was the standard.

Funny you should mention the squick factor.  I read _On Fire’s Wings_ a few weeks ago and it was squicky, squicky, squicky.  Half (not step) brother and sister just turns me off, throws me out of the story, and makes me want to forget the book was published.

Also, today I started reading _Nauti Buoy_ and it’s about step-brother and sister who lived together at one point and were encouraged to see each other as siblings...way too V.C. Andrews for me.  V.C. scarred me as a child, I swear.

There were two books recently that squicked me out and I had to put them down. Lady of Conquest by Teresa Medeiros—it was a ward/guardian thing, plus there was all this betrayal and lying, and I just didn’t feel the relationship. The other was The Fatal Crown by Ellen Jones, about a supposed relationship between Princess Maud and Stephen of Blois. Cousin as lovers? No thanks.

Did I see Tonda’s book for pre-sale on Borders? Looks like a challenging plot…

My book (Lord Sin)is up for presale. But it looks like WHAT?  Please tell me you’re joking?

Wow, I’m a total freak.  None of these relationships squick me in the least (and, depending on the background/storyline, I can totally see incest), I’ve never had a problem separating a hero with my dad’s/brother’s name from them (My husband has the same name as my oldest brother, so just imagine THAT one, why don’t you), and I write slash fanfiction from a popular children’s series… and one of my favourite characters there shares the same name as my dad. 

I enjoy reading well-written dark themed stories (non-con, torture, violent character death, etc) and quite a few of those in my chosen fandom include the relationships mentioned above. 

Yep, I’m a sicko.  *g*

Pie...it’s in Charlaine’s recent “Grave” release, and hasn’t yet developed beyond awareness.  Her vampire books are better than the covers.

1/2 siblings is squicky, squicky, squicky.

Large age differences are a turn off for me. Really, what do they have in common?  Visualize their relationship in 10 or 20 years, when he is ancient and she a generation younger.  In some historical times and settings this was ok because married couples were not necessarily close anyway.  Otherwise, I have a difficult time mentally connecting these two people, much less happily ever after.

And there ya go, squicky for one is a total turn on for another!!

Eey, if you are a sicko, then I’m joining the club!

I have the Black Jewels Trilogy, but I’ve never gotten around to reading it.

Any other tv or mvie fanfic fans out there? I keep hearing about this show “Supernatural"…

KTG

KTG,

I haven’t seen “Supernatural” (because of the horror - scary monsters), but from what I’ve seen on various blogs, apparently shipping the two brothers is not uncommon. 

I didn’t think Logan/Rogue was all that surprising.  I thought it was rather evident on screen ;-) .

But it still comes down to the fact that what turns you on has nothing to do with politics.

That wasn’t what she was saying. Wryhag was saying that if you’re beaten/abused/degraded in a non-consensual fashion by a mate/spouse/interested party, sado-masochism isn’t a turn on for you ever after. She was talking *personal experience*, not politics. (sorry, don’t know how to do italics on this g’khested board!) Personally, I don’t find it a turn on either, but that’s because I am constantly aware of the power dynamics of the office, of my family life, of society in general, and I find it (dominance/submission and themes of power) rather tiresome. If you want to get my engines humming, damn, try some *respect* and treating me like an equal. I’ll lap that up like ice cream.

On the other hand, I’m not bothered at all by shape shifters (which always seemed a metaphor for the mutability of personality) or step siblings. Blood relatives would gross me out. Age differences don’t bother me, either.

I am bothered by asshole heroes, though. I always wonder what’s wrong with the heroine that she puts up with such bad treatment. He may be good in bed, but puhleease! You can buy vibrators and other assorted sex toys legally in all 50 states!

Wow, I’m a total freak.  None of these relationships squick me in the least

For me, it’s about context.  I read erotic stories on a site called Literotica.com and there I can tolerate (and even enjoy) a much darker story line.  In romance, however, where everything needs to end up happy-ever-after, I have some squick buttons.  Though not that many.

My problem with Stockholm Syndrome, whether it’s the male or female in power, is that it’s another version of the bodice-ripper, i.e., the prisoner has no responsibility for their lust because they have no freedom.  Therefore, they can’t feel guilty or ‘dirty,’ because they had no choice.

It’s just a slightly more palatable form of rape, and, IMO, inherently conservative and anti-sex.  Same goes for the forced marriage stories, too.

Without freedom, there can be no love.

When I was doing research for a paper in one of my classes, I came across a book about twin studies, in particular, twins that were separated at birth.

There was this one instance of (fraternal) twin boys separated at birth who were also gay.  They happened to meet and fell in love & became partners.

Talk about a freakin’ squick factor.

Roseread- I’m just gonna have to take your word on that.

“What about a stepbrother falling in love with his stepsister?”
That one works for me, ala “Clueless.” So much so that I have a half-finished novel written on the premise. Please start your Squicky Publishing Company soon so I have a place to send it!

A stepbrother falling in love with a stepsister gets me thinking of Greg & Marcia engaged in a torrid clinch with “If Loving You Is Wrong, I Don’t Wanna Be Right” playing on the soundtrack. Damned if “The Brady Bunch” wasn’t trading majorly on a very titillating squick factor during prime time. I mean, why else would there be an exact, age-appropriate match for each child in the family?

For me, as long as the writer’s good enough, my squick-o-meter settings are pretty broad, although I can occasionally surprise myself. I’ve also noticed that the further removed from my own reality, the greater my squick tolerance. The Greek Tycoon’s Blackmailed Stenographer Bride makes me wince, but Taming Her Savage Alien Love Slave would at least get a glance at the back cover. Although probably not if it involved salmon. And there was that one about aprodisiac bees and giants that blazed me right through squickiness and into fits of very undignified hysterical laughter.

Having cut my teeth on second-hand M&Bs, I don’t give married relations a second thought unless a parent-child relationship is involved. But blood kin relationships are a road I travel warily. Really need a good writer to persuade me on this one, since I’m another one traumatised by early exposure to VC Andrews.

Same goes for big age gaps and guardian/ward situations. Guess it’s the trust/choice factor. But I’m a sucker for a good loving from afar story, and these scenarios can provide (to my mind) pretty believable reasons for all that tormented longing and give hope for a believable HEA. But again, with reservations…

One of Christine Feehan’s books (Dark Destiny?) has the Mysterious Brooding wampyre, sorry, Carpathian do his magic woowoo to make the heroine his destined lifemate while she’s still in the womb. Talk about foetal attraction. Or frankendesign-a-girlfriend. Anyhow, I couldn’t get past the heebie-jeebies this gave me to believe the explanations, and it soured me on the whole “lifemates” concept entirely.

I can’t do the shape shifter stories… That is a major squick for me.  It just seems wrong on so many levels, however, I have always had some trouble reading most SF.  I have issues suspending belief that far maybe?  Not sure.
I agree that Pamela Morisi’s Simple Jess was a great read.  I didn’t have any trouble with that one.  The first in that series was The Marrying Stone and the character of Jess was a main character and after reading about him, I really wanted him to have his own story.  I even wrote to the author and told her how laugh out loud funny The Marrying Stone was.  She wrote me back.  Those are two of my favorite all time keepers. 
It might also help that I have a “slow” neice.  She functions at a teenage level although she is 26.  She has had many “normal” IQ boyfriends over the years and I have hopes that she will marry and live a “normal” as possible life.  So that may have helped with my great love of the story.
My verification word was never86?!

Actually, Kaite, some states do have legal restrictions on sex toys… Hard to believe in this day and age, no?

Actually, Kaite, some states do have legal restrictions on sex toys… Hard to believe in this day and age, no?

Uh-oh. Perhaps we need a list, so I don’t inadvertently move to one and break all sorts of common decency laws.

Ha! As if my moving there wouldn’t just break them before my ‘friends’ arrived in the U-Haul....  :lol:

Don’t worry, Kaite--I think the restrictions are on sales of sex toys, not the usage thereof. 

Oh, awesome, my word is “church24.”

Last I heard, the use of toys was illegal in Massachusetts. People were raising money for the defense fund for a case in the Boston area a few years ago.

I haven’t seen “Supernatural” (because of the horror - scary monsters), but from what I’ve seen on various blogs, apparently shipping the two brothers is not uncommon.

Ah, yes. Shipping the Brothers Winchester, otherwise known in the fandom as “Wincest.”

Supernatural rocks—Pretty Boys, good writing, decent f/x, and did I mention The Pretty?—whether you dig the Wincest vibe or not. But what I find interesting is how the creators seem to play to the fangirls’ fantasies in this area by occasionally having secondary characters assume the boys are lovers rather than brothers. Hilarity then ensues. And much squeeing from the Wincest contingent.

Of which I’m not one. Much.

Ahem.

*shrug* It’s fiction, folks. The boys don’t REALLY kill demons and vampires, either.

Hey! Anybody remember The Love Talker, by Elizabeth Peters? The heroine thinks, right up to the end, that the hero is her brother, only to find out--with a certain amount of relief--that he was adopted!

Squicky, maybe, but fooled me: when there are only two guys in the story and one is the heroine’s brother, the other HAS to be the love interest, right?

I was just reminded - not a book - but “High School Musical” - I keep asking the teens I work with and they’ve all fanwanked it away.  In the movie, the two characters who keep getting cast as the leads in the school play are brother and sister.  I can’t believe that no one noticed that potential squick in a Disney movie.

Oh, man, sherryfair!  Now I’ve got Brady Bunch plot bunnies hopping gaily through my head!

Gives “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha” a whole new vision…

How about doctor-patient? In most if not all states, the doctor can lose his license over something like that. And if you really want to up the squick factor, make him an ob-gyn. Or a pediatrician.

(But she swore she was fourteen!—From Tender Awakenings, Ozark Books.)

Oops. Sorry. I just italicized everything with my sloppy HTML—all for a crappy, tasteless joke.

So I guess Flowers in the Attic is up there on the squickometer?

Heh.

KTG (the above icons made by luarel_tx on Live Journal..)

I love Supernatural. I’m watching the new one tonight. Yay! However, the “Wincest” factor had never occurred to me, not even once. I’m astonished but not revolted, though, and here’s why:

(nice segue to my thoughts on the squick factor)

The only thing that squicks me out is imbalance of power, which usually comes from a big age gap, occasionally the captor/captive thing. It’s possible for me to get into a story where the heroine has been kidnapped by the hero, but it turns out he’s saving her some threat she didn’t know existed. Elizabeth Lowell has managed to sell me a few scenarios like that, if memory serves.

Beyond that, I don’t mind anything, even incest, unless there’s an imbalance of power. For that reason, parent / child stuff is out of bounds for me, even once the kid has grown up because you never outgrew the desire to please the person who raised you. It’s sort of hard to tie that into a sexual relationship. But cousins don’t bother me so much. The only risk there is genetic (and that for reproduction).

Fact: Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk.

For siblings, well, it’s not something that gets my motor running, but it doesn’t bother me either, unless it comes from an abusive situation a la Flowers in the Attic. But if an adult brother and sister fall in love, who does it hurt? Most likely, it would be unwise for them to reproduce, but otherwise…

Bottom line, I can deal with anything that doesn’t result from coercion, force or inappropriate influence. As long as both parties came by their feelings honestly and are mature enough to make the decision, then I’m okay with it.

I love Supernatural. I’m watching the new one tonight. Yay!

Yay, indeed. Best ep of the season so far. I’m betting you’ll love it.

However, the “Wincest” factor had never occurred to me, not even once. I’m astonished but not revolted, though, and here’s why...The only thing that squicks me out is imbalance of power...Beyond that, I don’t mind anything, even incest, unless there’s an imbalance of power. (please pardon my snippage of your comments)

Exactly. This is why Wincest of the brother-on-brother variety doesn’t bother me, but the stuff about John and the boys? Squicks me to the core. It’s all about the power differential.

Plus, it’s not like Dean and Sam are getting up to any baby-making in the near future. (Although if you look, you’ll find plenty of MPREG/Wincest fanfic. Which I ignore. Because I have my standards, dammit.)

And as I said before: FICTIONAL. CHARACTERS.

As for Supernatural: I liked that show so much when I first caught it, I posted about it on this blog. It is tremendous fun, and I can’t wait to get my mitts on the Season 1 DVD set (helloooo, Christmas present!).

You won’t regret it, Candy. Nothing like Jensen Ackles’ lips and eyes in DVD-quality close-up.

What? You say you watch it for the PLOT? :p

See if you can’t get your hands on the DVD set that includes the Paley Institute round-table discussion with Kripke (the creator), Ackles, Padalecki and Kim Manners, among other writers and directors. Fascinating and funny as hell. But the “Day in the Life of Jared and Jensen” and the gag reel together are worth the price.

And The Pretty. I did mention The Pretty, yes?

*paddles back to the shallow end of the pool*

I totally agree with what most of y’all are saying, but I have to say that the visual enactment of the taboo in movies and even in graphic novels/manga doesn’t seem to wig me out as much as the printed one. Maybe because I know that at the end of the day the characters are actors and not actually related.

What really gets my grey matter twirling are the romances where the ancient and oh-for-the-love-of-all-that-is-wrong-and-yet-so-right, HOT vampire who comes to claim for his own the woman who would actually be his great-great-greeeaat granddaughter?!! It should squick me out more than it does, but somehow I always work through it—much as I do for the guardian/ward romances that I, too, have a special place for in my...uh ...heart

Selah, I blogrolled you on the strength of our mutual love of Supernatural. The episode I’m watching tonight is only the second one of the new season, though. I’m in Mexico and our TV “seasons” run a little bit behind those in the states.