Sex is Natural, Sex is Fun...

and sex has been getting writers into trouble for a very long time.

Did you know that 25-30 years ago, romance writers faced the exact same challenges and prejudices that erotic romance authors face today?

In 1988, Duke University Press published a book by Jan Cohn titled "Romance and the Erotics of Property: Mass-Market Fiction."
In this book, Ms. Cohn wrote that reading romance provides a complex set of gratifications for a multitude of women in our society and claimed that romance responds to the conflicting demands of desire and authority in its mix of social conservatism and social aggression. That it creates a structure where readers can identify with the heroine, experience her emotions (emotions that might be negatively sanctioned) or the play out tabooed rules. In short, the reader can enjoy the vicarious experience of the forbidden.

Later in the book Cohn says that publishers of romance have found sexuality to be not only a popular but a profitable subject. They have taken what popular literature for women at one time treated in an artfully coded system of evasions and allusions and have turned it into the essential material of the literature. Sexuality, she wrote, has become the discourse of popular romance.

She goes on to write that sexuality is "the stuff out of which the story is made," and that if you eliminate the sexual material, the story line that remains is rudimentary.

Interestingly, during the 80's Harlequin romances came under attack by many. In one such attack ("Soft-Porn Culture," The New Republic [30 August 1980];25-29) they were labeled as "soft porn" and called an example of mass culture specializing in dominance, games and fantasies. The author of this article, Ann Douglas stated that Harlequin novels were "porn softened to fit the needs of the female emotionality."

In 1983 Ann Barr Snitow wrote the Harlequin romances were indeed pornographic but that they had developed a type of pornography that was keyed to the needs of women living in late capitalism and they appealed to an infantile narcissism. ("Mass Market Romance Pornography for Women is Different",Powers of Desire,ed. Ann Barr Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson [New York: New Feminist Library, Monthly Review Press, 1982, pp 345-63)

When I think about it I can't help but laugh. It's all too familiar. Since the birth of erotic romance as a sub-genre of romance, its writers have come under attack by members of the "mother" of their genre, romance itself. How it is that a parent who has suffered the stings and arrows of such prejudice as what I mentioned above, can now turn to its offspring and accuse it of being it pornographic or cast a negative light on it.

Why are we not collectively reminding those who would snub their nose at the genre of Romance at large, that while we may be writing stories that appeal to the sexual nature of women, we're still crafting stories. Stories with plot and character development, stories with danger or intrigue, joy and grief and humor.

We're not just writing sex people. Let's face it, that would be B O R I N G. Women want tales with some meat (no pun intended). Tales that stir their senses on a variety of levels. We want to be frightened, puzzled, intrigued, tempted, seduced, bewitched and bemused.

When I first heard that we erotic romance writers were being condemned for what we write by some in our parent genre, it made me stop and take a close look at my own books. Do I craft tales that depend upon sex to carry the story, or is sex simply part of the natural course of the tale, something that enables readers to get a more intimate look at what's going on in the hearts and minds of the characters?

Naturally, I'd like to think so. But an artist is never the best judge of his own work. So I went back through reviews. Was sex mentioned more than the plot or the characters? Thankfully no.

Truthfully, I don't think readers would put up with "Sex for the sake of sex alone." Readers are far more intelligent and demanding than that. They want a story that pulls them in, takes them on a ride and pays off with an ending that either satisfies, shocks or astounds them.

But that's my opinion and hey, everyone has one. There are two things I'd really like:

(1) To say to anyone in the romance industry who has a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to erotic romance... Please remember that writing is an artistic expression. And art comes in a wide array of color, shape, form and material. Why would any artist want to deny another the freedom of artistic expression? What makes the writers of any genre superior to another? Are we all not just artists, painting our visions in words rather than paint? Isn't there room for all of us? Certainly other genres have found their homes and readers. Science fiction and mystery and fantasy all have their place in the market.

And so does erotic romance. It's found a loyal following, as did romance, despite the negative light it was cast in at one time. There are bestselling authors who emerged from erotic romance. Jaid Black, Cheyenne McCray and Kate Douglas just to name a few. Best sellers on lists such as USA Today and the New York Times.

I'd like to propose a peace treaty. We're here and not likely to disappear. Wouldn't it be easier to be friends than enemies? You don't have to read us. Just don't throw rocks.

(2) And I'd like to hear from readers. Exactly what is it about erotic romance that appeals to you, and do you feel that writers in the genre are doing justice to the romance aspect? Do we deserve to be flogged for "leaving the bedroom door open" or applauded for progressing the genre in accord with the times and the independence and strength of today's woman?

My inquiring mind would love to hear your thoughts.

Have a glorious Sunday!

Ci