Quiz: Which of the following warning labels is offensive?
(a) Warning: this title contains the following: graphic language, explicit sex, and sexual relations between men and women of different races
(b) Warning: this title contains the following: explicit male/male sex, graphic language, and mild Dominant/submissive action.
(c) Warning: this title contains the following: graphic sex, anal sex, and scenes of women reaching orgasm via masturbation
(d) Publisher’s Note: This book contains explicit sexual content, graphic language, and situations that some readers may find objectionable: Anal play/intercourse, male/male sexual practices, masturbation, menage (m/m/f with homoerotic interaction).
Answer: All of them, but only (b) (Samhain) and (d) (Loose-I.D.) are real.
Why do publishers of erotica feel a need to “warn” customers about same sex interactions? I do understand that it may be important to let readers know what is in a text, so they can make informed decisions about what to buy. But when sexual orientation is included in the list of things that might offend customers, social prejudice against the GLBT community is being legitimized, the same way a warning about black-white sex would legitimize the idea that interracial sex is morally problematic.
I am an e-pub customer, too, and what offends me is the assumption that it’s ok to be offended by someone’s sexual orientation, or that sexual orientation is worthy, in itself, of being warned about. I expect that attitude from Pat Roberston. I don’t expect it from so-called “cutting edge”, “envelope pushing” e-publishers of erotica.
Am I missing something here? Am I misunderstanding this? Please enlighten me, if so.
Thank you! OMG, thank you. You’ve articulated something that’s always bugged me, but I’ve never really understood why.
That Samhain warning is unusual, isn’t it? They’re usually a lot more humorous: “Warning: This book contains a woman fulfilling her sexual fantasies—including two men who are happy to tie her up, and be tied up, while using graphic language and floggers” (although that title’s pretty damned offensive
. They’re warning about the same thing, but the humor makes it somehow less offensive. IMO.
Jessica, thanks for pointing this out! Ebooks are so sort of new to me, I might not have really considered this that deeply, I’m embarrassed to say, and seen clear to what it implies. You rock!
Maybe it’s also there to let people that want to read same-sex relations know that that’s what they’re getting.
When I look at it the way you do, I see how it can be offensive. I truly think they’re just trying to be informative though. Maybe if they went back to the more humorous descriptions, as Sarah highlighted, it would be better. The way described in your post is emotionally detached, making it sound colder.
Me, I would like it if I went to a Borders and saw some straight up explanation of what I’d be able to find in the book. Some friends are dying to see me dip into the M/M genre, and since I’m not well versed in that genre at all yet, I’d be one of the ones benefiting from that label. And I agonize sometimes anyway when it comes to choosing a new author or within a new genre. Again, help is appreciated, so a label like the ones above might do the trick.
KMont wrote:
Yes, but you can inform people without warning them, and without suggesting that a sexual orientation is offensive.
I actually think it is overkill: in most cases, a customer FINDS the m/m by clicking on the “gay/lesbian” button.
An example of what I would like to see is Amber Quill, which has this:
Genres: Gay / Fantasy / Superheroes / Series
Heat Level: 3
Length: Novella (24k words)
I want some kind of warning, or whatever you want to call it. Mostly because there are some combinations I’m just not interested in. f/f comes to mind. It doesn’t offend me, it just doesn’t interest me, and if I bought a book that turned out to be largely f/f, then I’d be pissed.
Jessica, I do get what you were saying. I’m sorry to say that I think what I try to say here in comments always comes across wrong. I’ll just stick to lurking from now on.
Lynne Connolly wrote:
I agree that it’s good to know what’s in a book, specially since this is erotica, read for a very specific purpose (in part), i.e. sexual titillation,
But if it’s just about informing the reader, explain why we don’t see this:
“Warning: this book may contain m/f sexual situations”. Isn’t that also informative?
KMont — I always appreciate your visits and comments.
Yes, you’re point is terrific and much needed, warning has an implicit negative connotation, pointing out something that might be harmful to us.
However, I think there is benefit to capsule size, mainly sexual, info about the book. Just picked up a fantasy book that can’t go four pages without some serious boinking. Don’t know exactly how I would encapsulate this one (Genre: fantasy erotica featuring egregious sexual content; often silly, involving penile juices that cause orgasm upon consumption) but I, for the first time, feel a bit taken. I picked this up at the grocery store romance section so I wasn’t expecting quite this much action. How you would do this subtly in print, another quandary. But there are a lot of creative people out there, surely this is not an unsolvable problem.
I think I’ve seen warnings like that.
Publishers want readers to buy books. They don’t want them grossed out or reading something that bores them. The warning is something that has been in place from the start of ebooks, and it’s not something that I think is intended to insult or deride any sector of the reading public. So if you want a rephrase, maybe suggest something suitable to Samhain and LI?
This is the second time I’ve visited this site, and I find that both sides of the argument hold merit. I don’t have that much experience with both publishers: that is, I have never shopped at Samhain, but I usually buy ebooks monthly from Loose-Id. However, for my money, I’d like to see the warning labels with the books, and I agree with KMont that I’d buy more print books if they were as comprehensively labeled. I use said labels to tell me if I want to buy a book.
Jessica, your example of ““Warning: this book may contain m/f sexual situations”. Isn’t that also informative?” Honestly, no, that isn’t nearly descriptive enough for my needs. Yes, there are m/f, but are they bdsm? Then I won’t buy it. Is there voyuerism, which some people won’t be comfortable with? Is there… well, you get the picture. Which is why your Amber Quill label example would not help me to determine if I’d buy the book.
I honestly don’t think the publishers put the labels up because they thought same-sex relations were offensive (otherwise, why sell them?), or that it would be okay to be offended by that. I feel it’s more of a line of defense, business-wise. If they
put labels on their ebooks, they can avoid customers wanting their money back because they were not happy with the item. Not because the customers are offended, but because they are just not interested in it.
Wow, I used a lot of “because’s”…
@ Heloise:
What was the name of that book?
Jessica, your example of ““Warning: this book may contain m/f sexual situations”. Isn’t that also informative?” Honestly, no, that isn’t nearly descriptive enough for my needs.
I see what you mean, but I think Jessica’s general objection isn’t to long, descriptive labels. Rather it seems to me that she’s suggesting that if there’s
“Warning: this title contains the following: explicit male/male sex, graphic language, and mild Dominant/submissive action.”
then there should also be an equivalent like this (where applicable, of course):
“Warning: this title contains the following: explicit male/female sex, graphic language, and mild Dominant/submissive action.”
And if there’s this:
“Publisher’s Note: This book contains explicit sexual content, graphic language, and situations that some readers may find objectionable: Anal play/intercourse, male/male sexual practices, masturbation, menage (m/m/f with homoerotic interaction).”
there should also sometimes be, where appropriate,
“Publisher’s Note: This book contains explicit sexual content, graphic language, and situations that some readers may find objectionable: Anal play/intercourse, female/male sexual practices, masturbation, menage (m/m/f with heterosexual and homoerotic interaction).”
The point is that the existing warnings, if they exist in a context which does not include equivalent warnings about male/female interactions, give the impression that male/female sex is the norm and non-offensive and that anything else is abnormal and offensive. Obviously in some senses heterosex is the norm because, as far as we know, there are many more heterosexual couples than homosexual ones. Also obviously, it’s well known that homophobia exists. However, as Jessica points out, some people find inter-racial relationships offensive, but although most relationships aren’t inter-racial epubs wouldn’t consider those two facts to be good enough reasons to include inter-racial sex on a list of “situations that some readers may find objectionable.”
If they did wouldn’t it be read as an indication that the epub was tiptoeing round the sensitivities of racist readers?
So yes, there’s a place for descriptive labels, but either phrase them in a humorous way which suggests that the “warning” is more of a “look, this book contains really interesting material you’ll want to read about!” or make sure all books are labelled equally (so label for m/f as well as m/m and f/f) and label for white/white as well as inter-racial or AA.
But you see there are labels for everything:
BBW (big, beautiful woman), IR/MC inter-racial/multi-cultural, m/f/m, etc., etc.
Companies like LI and Samhain publish all sorts of genres and heat levels (though primarilly erotic). They publish just about every combination out there and every genre and subgenre.
I sincerely doubt that these delineations are meant to be offensive, merely descriptive.
And perhaps one should check with the groups mentioned before you assume that these descriptions are offensive.
Frankly, if I dived into a story with a strong BDSM element, I wouldn’t enjoy the story quite as much.
OTOH, what if I want to expand my reading? How else would I know what the story contains (in an ebook) w/o some info?
Blurbs can be midleading.
It would be one thing if a publisher was someone like ManLoveRomance Press. Obviously the relationships will be m/m. Here we’re looking at the additional info re., say, BDSM.
Am I supposed to be offended if given that info?
What if I’m in the life?
Sometimes a label is just a list of ingredients
Sigh. This is a no-win situation.
If the publishers post the warning, people who don’t feel the need for them get upset that they do. I agree that, on the surface, it’s legitimizing many things we wish didn’t exist in today’s world, prejudice-wise.
But that’s the trick. Much as we wish they didn’t, they do. If you’ve ever gotten hate mail from someone who didn’t like what was in the book, you’ll understand WHY publishers (and sometimes authors) bow to the demands of the easily squicked/prejudiced readers to have labels and warnings.
Conversely, there are people who look for I/R or for anal play or whatever, because they like the content. Now, as much as I dislike having to “label” books I/R, it HELPS readers who like I/R find them, as well as keeping people who don’t away from them, much as labeling my books fantasy cross-genre helps fantasy lovers find them. Unless you want a book category for anal play, cruising the warnings may be the only way to find them. I know…that probably sounds weird, but…
Personally, my site has levels for several key elements (I mean a simple N/A, mild, moderate, extreme scale): sexual content, language, violence, HEA or not…and the only book that has a further warning is my single GLBT, because it’s not in line with the rest of what I write and MAY offend readers who read my M/F work. Then again, people familiar with my work know to expect a certain amount of dark content. I don’t have to warn about specifics.
For those that want the warnings, it saves a lot of headaches to have warnings. For those that don’t, like myself…I don’t bother reading them. That’s just my answer to the entire problem.
Brenna
I think the publisher note vs. the warning is a CYA legal thing, more than anything. There are words we LOOK for, that we FOCUS on. WARNING is one ingrained since childhood. Note is not. Stupid? Maybe, but the bottom line is, I get to deal with people every day who claim they didn’t see a warning posted three places, because it wasn’t in the forth. Rolling eyes at that. It’s an eye-catcher, more than anything else.
Brenna
“I expect that attitude from Pat Roberston. I don’t expect it from so-called “cutting edge”, “envelope pushing” e-publishers of erotica.”
Publishing is a business dependent upon it’s customers. One should not assume that because a person reads “erotica,” that they read all forms of what is becoming a very broad genre having many sub-genres. So yeah, from a business standpoint, if you want to keep your customers happy (which is what business is all about), you’d better post warnings. And make no doubt, be as liberally as you want to be, those are warnings — whether the tone is serious (ominuous if you prefer) or humorous, as in the case of Samhain.
While M/M, F/F, BSDM etc, is becoming more popular, it’s still not as “mainstream” as some would like to see. M/F is still the preferred, which is why they still dominate sales if you look across romance publishing as a whole, not just the little nitches that erotic romance publishers are trying to carve.
If people didn’t want to be informed of what the content of books were, there’d be no need for bookstores like Books-a-Million to divide them up by section. I personally would like to see print publishers put content warnings on their books.
There’s two ways to look at it. The negative one being that they are saying the content is somehow offensive and wrong and you should stay away from this. Which is crazy, but accurate. If you do find that type of content offense (and millions of people do), then the warnings are necessary if you want to stay in business.
Then there’s the positive view which says you’re informing readers looking for a particular genre that this book contains what they’re looking for.
As a customer who has bought an ebook from a new epublsher by a favored author that containted material I DID NOT want to read and gave no warning about it, I was quick to email them and let them know. Bottom line, warnings are necessary if you want to make money.
Jeanne Barrack wrote:
I never said it was intentional. I don’t think they function as “merely descriptive” when the words “warning” and “offense” are used — we disagree on that point. I was pointing out the logical implication of singling out one sexual orientation for warning.
Um. I’m offended. Personally. I am not allowed to say that? On my own blog?
This is a great question, and I was thinking about it. I have an attempt at an answer, but I only have a minute to type here. Damn my smart commenters! I was hoping no one would think of this for a few more hours at least.
If that’s all it is, then get rid of the words “warning” and “offense” and you’ve got one more happy customer!
“But you see there are labels for everything:
BBW (big, beautiful woman), IR/MC inter-racial/multi-cultural, m/f/m, etc., etc.”
But as far as I’m aware there aren’t labels for everything. How often do you see labels for heroines whose body mass index is within the medically approved range, white/white, and m/f?
perhaps one should check with the groups mentioned before you assume that these descriptions are offensive.
In the Loose-I.D. example Jessica gave, it was explicitly stated that “situations that some readers may find objectionable” include male/male sexual practices.” That means they’re making assumptions about their readers. As a member of their group of readers/potential readers, Jessica seems to be explaining why she finds that offensive.
[Not that I can speak for Jessica, of course. I'm merely putting forward my interpretation of what Jessica wrote.]
I think Brenna has a point. I work at a restaurant and we have a list of warnings with our ingredients because our products are made on the same equipment peanut products are made.
This warning doesn’t mean in any way that eating peanuts is wrong or bad. All it is doing is warning people that peanuts might be in the mix.
To me, not only is that good business, it is also the right thing to do.
JMHO.
It seems to me that the biggest problem is with the word “warning”, which has negative connotations all over the place. Is there a way to describe and label a book’s content without necessarily making it into a warning?
that being said, I alo take your point. When I shop for ebooks, I read blurbs. I always figure that if the book is shelved in GLBT, and I don’t see a woman’s name in the blurb, then telling me that the book contains M/M sex seems a little silly. Um, really? The story is about two men and it’s an erotic romance? I sure hope there’s M/M sex in them thar pages. But maybe I credit some shoppers with more intelligence than they deserve?
Okay, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. I do NOT find “Warning” to be offensive or negative, in any way. A warning is a caution or an attention-getting word. A warning that the floor is wet does not ASSUME you’re klutz enough to slip on that wet floor (though I would probably do so), but rather a caution that it’s possible you might be that klutz or that your balance might be compromised with ten books, and therefore you might slip.
In fact, in some languages, “warning” is literally translated as “attention.” Look up non-English signs, and see what I mean. Taking a negative connotation to the word is a personal choice not a universal determinant.
OTOH, saying that SOME readers will find the content offensive isn’t assuming anything except that someone in the world will find EVERYTHING offensive. Publishers simply choose what to warn about, based on complaints logged in the past.
If I was going to personally choose things to warn about, they would include things like “Rape between H&H,” “Rape NOT between H&H,” “Attempted rape”… Now, WHY that list? Because I’ve had complaints about the second and third AND have had them compared to the first. But, every publisher/author’s experience is different.
Brenna
This warning doesn’t mean in any way that eating peanuts is wrong or bad. All it is doing is warning people that peanuts might be in the mix.
Correct, but peanuts can cause fatal allergic reactions.
I do NOT find “Warning” to be offensive or negative, in any way. A warning is a caution or an attention-getting word. A warning that the floor is wet does not ASSUME you’re klutz enough to slip on that wet floor (though I would probably do so), but rather a caution that it’s possible you might be that klutz or that your balance might be compromised with ten books, and therefore you might slip.
So according to this analogy gay people are slippy floors on which people might slip, whereas straight people are non-slippy, safe floors. Carrying on with the analogy, one would reach the conclusion that
A warning that the book contains gay protagonists does not ASSUME you’re heterosexist enough to be offended by the gayness of those characters [...], but rather a caution that it’s possible you might be that heterosexist reader or that your balance might be compromised when reading about certain scenarios containing gay people, and therefore you might slip into heterosexism.
Is it offensive and/or negative to compare someone to a potentially fatal substance or a trip hazard? Do people generally call attention to something assumed to be safe and normal?
I just assumed there was a legal reason behind the warning. I think “erotic” speaks for itself and the blurb should do the rest with the specifics of the book.
“situations that some readers may find objectionable” include male/male sexual practices.”
What about people who don’t find them objectionable, just not entertaining, and so don’t want to waste time reading them? Personally, I would like a “warning”, so I know not to waste my time with the book.
Laura… It’s clear you simply WANT to take offense, so feel free. It’s not worth it to argue with someone who just wants to be offended and listens to NOTHING that makes sense, if it doesn’t agree with her mindset.
The fact is, to follow my own analogy out… Being a klutz is MY problem, not yours. The caution that I may well slip on a wet floor is valid. Someone who is homophobic…well, that’s their problem, not mine, but like the business that gets sued if the klutz slips, the publisher that doesn’t have a caution of content gets nasty…even threatening e-mails and sometimes even personal attacks. Ask me about Terri and Sam Pray losing their bid on a house, because they PUBLISHED a single M/M anthology in their catalog of more than 100 items their business sells. And they HAD warnings.
Is it RIGHT? Of course not, but it’s the sad fact of life. A business protects itself or it pays the price.
In this case, the publisher pays the price either way, because some people will always take offense to the fact that they do these things to protect themselves. If it’s not your business that’s at risk, if you’re not the one answering angry e-mails and personal attacks in the “real world environment,” it seems to me you have no say in what risks said entities should ultimately take or not. They do what they feel is necessary to protect themselves, and that’s all they can do.
Brenna
It’s clear you simply WANT to take offense, so feel free. It’s not worth it to argue with someone who just wants to be offended and listens to NOTHING that makes sense, if it doesn’t agree with her mindset.
Brenna, I’m not saying that the m/m label shouldn’t be used, because as others have pointed out, it can be useful to a range of readers who have valid, non-prejudiced reasons for wanting to know a bit about the sexual orientation of the characters, including readers who want to read m/m romances and readers who want to avoid m/m romances simply because m/m sex scenes are not ones those readers find arousing.
However, I do think that there are different ways of framing the labels, some of which can make them come across as value neutral while others read as slightly offensive and others as more offensive.
So no, I’m not seeking to be offended. I’m trying to think through the options so that labelling could continue to be available (since it serves a useful purpose both for protecting epublishers and helping non-heterosexist readers) but written in a more value neutral way.
One way would be to use humour, perhaps. Another might be to call these paragraphs “sexual content summaries,” perhaps, or some other turn of phrase which doesn’t “warn” of potentially “objectionable” material.
I also think it could be very helpful to include a m/f label in such descriptions. That would help some readers identify books that interest them and it would challenge any hetero-normative assumptions that might exist. If publishers used a m/f label (and sometimes f/m, since one doesn’t want to be sexist and always put men first!) alongside the m/m label on other books, it wouldn’t single out homosexual relationships as being particularly problematic.
Sorry. Your tone was rather bracing in your last post. It seems I misread your intent.
As for other ways to handle it… Have you seen what Phaze does? Instead of the “content warning,” they have a collection of icons they place on the sale page. Take a look at the explanation page…
http://www.phaze.com/sizerating1.htm
I have nothing against “content notes.” I will repeat that they won’t catch the eye as well as icons or warnings do. Then again. I LOVE the icons.
Actually…have you seen Charlotte Boyett-Compo’s rating system?
http://www.windlegends.org/authorrated.htm
Brenna
BTW, Phaze DOES have a M/F icon, as well as the GLBT and multiple/group sex ones. Just thought I’d note it.
Brenna
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of Phaze’s page, Brenna. I do like that it’s got, as you say, “a M/F icon, as well as the GLBT and multiple/group sex ones.” It makes the whole thing descriptive in a way which applies to all protagonists equally.
The symbol for the level 5 books is amusingly phallic.
Boyett-Compo’s system is also inclusive, I think. Although she was asked to pick out items that people would find “distasteful” she’s gone down the route of trying to be descriptive and so gives ratings for a variety of different possibilities, not just the ones that might most often be considered “distasteful.”
I understand the content clarification, but I don’t appreciate the “warning” or the implication that there’s something “offensive” about homosexuality or kink.
I like Samhain’s more humorous warnings, but I like the way Amber Quill does it best. Just tell me what’s in the book and let ME decide how to feel about it. Seems pretty obvious when you’re selling to adults.
I like Samhain’s more humorous warnings, but I like the way Amber Quill does it best. Just tell me what’s in the book and let ME decide how to feel about it. Seems pretty obvious when you’re selling to adults.
I agree completely, Jen. Put it in a list, not in a warning. What’s the big deal then? Then you would include M/M, M/F, BDSM, etc.
Laura Vivanco wrote:
I appreciate it Laura. I learned a valuable lesson with this post: never post something potentially controversial when you can’t get to your computer to follow up!
Brenna Lyons wrote:
That’s a good point about the word warning. I’m thinking of “achtung”, in German which has the connotation of “take note”, or “pay attention” , like “attention” in French or Spanish.
But I don’t think we can choose to read it descriptively when a word like “offense” is used, and when the other things warned about are not innocuous things like “heroine may wear purple”, but sexual practices that are coded potentially deviant and morally questionable.
Laura Vivanco wrote:
Well put, Laura. This is exactly my position.
Brenna Lyons wrote:
Thanks for the link Brenna. Yes, this is the sort of thing I think would identify without any negative connotation.
I think publishers can protect themselves legally without using language that suggests that homosexuality is mmorally deviant.
JenB wrote:
Amen.
Ok, now on to the question asked way up above by Jeanne Barrack … about whether it’s ok to “warn” about BDSM. My post only takes issue with warnings about the sexual orientations of the characters. I implied that it’s ok to keep warning about specific sexual practices, such as BDSM.
But what if BDSM is “the life” for someone? What if they don’t see BDSM as a sexual practice, but as a part of their identity … just like heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, or asexuality (although an erotic romance about an asexual character would be a hell of a challenge to write, I’m guessing)?
The easy way out of this is to say “no ‘warnings’ about any of it … just use a list of icons and less us adults decide.” And that is in fact my position.
But I want to take a minute to explain why I do think the warnings about homosexuality are different.
I kind of look at it the way the US Supreme Court looks at race.
Our culture (and here I am referring to the US and Europe, where I am guessing the vast majority of these books are sold — let me know if that’s off base) has a clear history of discrimination against gays and lesbians (and Ts and Qs). Given that history, and, unfortunately, present (where in many states it is still legal to fire someone just because s/he is gay), we need to be especially careful about things we do that might (inadvertently or not) legitimize the prejudices that shore up the discrimination.
A major source of prejudice against non-heterosexuals is the idea that they are morally deviant.
Gay people are a clear social group in this sense, while the BDSM crowd, and participants in the other sexual practices listed under the warnings, are not.
In my mind, epubs could do what they need to do legally (let readers know what is in a book) without using words that imply agreement (whether they do in fact agree is irrelevant) with the idea that being gay is morally deviant.
I wrote the post after reading the really enjoyable Death of a Pirate King by Josh Lanyon. I went to Loose-I.D. to get some more info on the book, and was really surprised by the way the content was labeled. So I wrote the post.
But I didn’t mean to single anyone out — I could have picked a dozen others, but Samhain and Loose-I.D are the two I have purchased from in the past.
I can see we’re sort of heading towards a resolution, so I was kind of hesitant to bring up something I noticed which relates to the BDSM label. However, since it’s been brought up again, I suppose I might as well mention it.
I should probably add here that I’m discussing the issue of ebook labelling as someone who has only ever bought a couple of ebooks (and I got those from Harlequin, not from any of the epubs under discussion in this thread). I’m looking at all of this purely in terms of it being intellectually interesting for me to analyse the connotations and assumptions which are associated with particular words and ways of phrasing things. It’s not an attack on anyone, and given that I read hardly any ebooks (unlike Jessica), my opinions are not backed up by any financial clout at all.
OK, so with those disclaimers out of the way, one thing I’m still mulling over is what possible assumptions there might be behind “heat” ratings. If the “hotness” means “this is a hot potato politically” then that’s quite a different matter from using it to imply that “these books are more of a turn-on.”
If the “hottest” books are labelled this way because they’re politically “hot” i.e. controversial, then that’s a fairly objective thing to measure (i.e. it can be judged on the basis of whether a publisher has received complaints about particular types of activity, levels of explicitness etc.)
If the “hottest” books are labelled that way because they have more sex scenes, are more explicit in their descriptions of sex and/or use words which are considered taboo or not “polite” that’s a fairly objective judgment too. Language has different registers, after all, (e.g. a slang term for genitalia tends to have a very different effect on the hearer from the medical term for the same part of the anatomy, and a purple prose metaphor has yet another effect/connotations) and it’s easy enough to work out whether a novel is “kisses only” or whether it has many sex scenes.
However, if the “hottest” books are labelled “hottest” because a publisher thinks, or wants to make the readers think, that these books contain the most exciting and arousing forms of sexuality, and the “hottest” books are never the ones featuring heterosexual people in monogamous relationships, having vanilla sex, doesn’t that imply that these kinds of people are rather boring sexually and that their sex lives aren’t much of a turn-on to anyone (themselves included)? That wouldn’t be value neutral.
It may not be particularly nice to imply that heterosexual vanilla sexuality is boring, but, given the fact that heterosexual people having vanilla sex aren’t a persecuted, minority, I wouldn’t want to start a big controversy about it.
However, there is quite a long tradition of sexual stereotyping of groups considered to be “Other.” I’m thinking of the stereotype of the exotic, sexualised Arab potentate with his penchant for keeping a vast harem of scantily clad harem-girls, the sexual stereotypes about black women and black men, and working-class women were also thought of as more coarse and sexual. In that context, it’s a bit troubling to me to see any implication that the sexuality of any group is automatically “hotter” than that of any other group.
So to give an example, I think it’s fair enough to label a book “hot” because it’s more explicit about sexual activity. However, I would be concerned if two books of similar levels of explicitness were given different hotness ratings just because the protagonists in one book were gay and the protagonists in the other book were heterosexual, or because one book included descriptions of BDSM and the other didn’t.
Another thing about this is that the groups that have historically been seen as hyper-sexual have been considered a threat precisely because of their “hot” and tempting sexuality. There seemed to be a fear that straight, white upper/middle class gentlemen and ladies would be led astray by the hypersexual “Other.” Even today some people seem to fear that gay people will somehow teach or tempt youngsters into becoming gay, presumably because gay sex is somehow assumed to be “hotter” and therefore more tempting than heterosexual sex.
So associating gayness with increased “hotness” (in the sense of more intensely arousing sexuality) does seem problematic to me, and I’d say the same about BDSM.
Laura Vivanco wrote:
This does take us off topic, but I am on good terms with the blog owner, and I think she will allow it.
I agree with you on this point – having just read Lanyon’s Death of a Pirate King, I was expecting erotica. I checked the press — known as a “publisher of erotica”, and the designation.
Then I read the book.
If this is erotica, then I don’t know what “erotica” means. There are exactly two sex scenes in this book, the first of which doesn’t occur until the 155th page. The first sex scene does use explicit words like “cock”, but is not particularly graphic or long. The second sex scene is a nonexplicit one which you could find in any regency or historical romance (just switch the genders).
I found myself asking whether this book was labeled “erotica” primarily because of the fact that the sex was between two men. I know that if I had purchased this book with the intention of arousal, I would have been disappointed at the lack of sex in it.
So yes, I agree there is a connection between how “taboo” a sexual practice is, and its designation as “erotica”, regardless of how explicitly the sex is described.
But I am supposed to be preparing to teach my course on Jewish ethics this morning. All of this talk about cocks is not helping!
Brenna Lyons wrote:
That’s it in one. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I find much of it helpful as I can avoid those books that focus on relationships or relationship types (D/s) that I have no interest in.
In many ways, I wish more mainstream fiction came with similar labels. I recall reading Thomas Harris’ Silence of the Lambs and then having trouble sleeping for a LONG time.
I don’t find warnings in the least offensive. I often find they help me make a choice on what to buy based on personal preferences. Perhaps the negative connotation of the word warning could be moderated by publishers using a “Reader Alert”.
I do enjoy some of Samhain’s warnings – though I sometimes find them more amusing than the book itself.
If I have any real complaint about epubs it’s the lousy editing and proofreading. The glaring mistakes should be caught and corrected – especially in electronic format. It is epidemic in this genre and a growing problem in mainstream fiction as well. Now that’s a very real quality publishing issue!
So…are we just arguing semantics here? If “Warning” were changed to “Yo!” or “Heads up!” or “FYI” or “List of Ingredients” or “Hey, pull your head out of your ass,” then it would be okay?
WTF?
I write m/m fiction for Loose Id, and I don’t give a rip how they alert potential buyers. I just know there are plenty of readers who, if not explicity WARNED about certain kinds of content, would squawk about it all over the damned Internet!
“So…are we just arguing semantics here?”
We’re discussing the meanings and connotations of various words, how these can reinforce or challenge particular societal attitudes, and how one aspect of the marketing of books can create particular expectations in the minds of readers. Do you, as an author, consider these things to be unimportant?
“WTF?”
More like “if homosexual Fs get specially labelled, wouldn’t it be equitable to also label heterosexual Fs?”
K. Z. Snow wrote:
Yes, and no.
Laura has given you a good summary of what we’ve been discussing, which is more about the power and meaning of words and less about which words are used. So if “this is just sematics” is a way of saying the concern is trivial, unimportant, or ridiculous, then, no, I don’t agree.
To repeat the basic point: some epubs feel a need to warn about homosexual content per se, regardless of whether it is explicit or envelope pushing in any other way, while they do not feel the need to warn about heterosexual content per se. I personally wish that e-pubs, which have done wonderful things on this front, would treat m/f, f/f/ and m/m the same way. If you are going to warn or alert or list one, list them all.
Sure, it’s “no win”, if you mean “we cannot make everybody happy”. That’s a concern for authors and sellers, who want as many people as possible to be happy with their products. That’s not my concern as a customer, although I personally think my suggestion would keep the conservative or whatever folks happy, and keep the egalitarians like me happy, too.
And as a business enterprise, epubs are going to minimize risk. I get that. I am sure some customers have written to complain when they were not warned about m/m/ content. But then, isn’t it my right to post on my blog what I personally find unfortunate about the labels? Or is that only reserved for people who take offense at sexual orientations different from their own?
Sure, Loose ID and Samhain and all the rest know they’ve got folks ready to complain if they don’t set out homosexuality as something to “watch out for” in their books. Well, I’m trying to add a teeny counterweight to say, “hey, my core belief is that all sexual orientations are equally valid, and I don’t appreciate the assumption that I need to be ‘warned’ that there may be m/m content, but not m/f content”. I’m pretty sure I’m within my rights to voice my opinion here.
On the other hand, you are right in the sense that I do think there is a much larger issue lurking here, which Jeanne Barrack raised and which I responded to above, and which ReacherFan also just raised, which is … how do we decide what to “alert” or “warn” about (whatever we choose to call it) at all? I personally would MUCH rather have warnings about gory violence than sex, actually.
But that’s an issue I’m not trying to deal with here.
@ Mary:
I’m a lesbian, not a peanut or rat poison!
Being exposed to me is not going to cause a rash or kill anyone. Labeling gay content with a “Warning” makes it seem that way and is offensive.
I’m much more in favor of a Publishers note of content than a “Warning”.
Jessica wrote:
In some (most?) states, because of domestic violence laws, it’s illegal to hit anyone with anything. So if I’m in the privacy of my bedroom, and I’m caning or flogging or padding my very willing submissive, and, for some reason, an officer of the law enters (as happened to the men of Lawrence vs. Texas, after all), I can be arrested. Or if you’re into edge play with knives, say, you can be arrested for assault with a deadly weapon, consent be damned. I understand why this is necessary for domestic violence purposes, but it still makes it problematic for those in the “lifestyle.”
And, FWIW, there are those in the “lifestyle” for whom BDSM is no more a “lifestyle choice” (I despise that phrase) than being gay is a choice. If some people want to enjoy sex, it *needs* to happen with BDSM, just as gay people could have sex with members of the opposite sex, but to enjoy it, it *needs* to be with members of the same sex. And while that makes gay relationships much more publicly obvious than a monogamous heterosexual relationship that might be heavily BDSM, it does not mean that those who consider themselves BDSM-identified aren’t discriminated against. Yes, it’s much worse and much more deadly and more common for gay people, but that’s doesn’t negate the discrimination we undergo as well. If you’ve seen any of the brouhaha around the submissive identification a character in Brockmann’s “Dark of Night,” you’ve seen the type of discrimination and ridicule BDSM-identified people undergo when they’re out.
And the idea that BDSM-identified people, as opposed to those who might occassionally play with some kinky practices in the bedroom, aren’t seen as morally deviant is breathtaking, to me. Trust me, when dominants and submissives come out (or are forced out) to family members, they experience scorn, derision, discrimination, hate, and all the other things that gay people get. Ditto those actually in triad or poly relationships. All these people will get fired if they’re public school teachers, say, and their sex life becomes public. People have lost all child custody because of it, just as gay men or lesbians. So while gays and lesbians are more obvious, and I get your underlying point because their relationships are, by their very nature, obvious and undeniable, please be careful of saying that BDSM-identified people have it easy.
I have always found Loose ID’s warnings gratuitously offensive and unjustifiable.
However, warning for explicit m/m sex in a Samhain GLBT romance is not redundant. There is no requirement for explicit sexual content, so it doesn’t follow that there will be. And some people, strangely enough, prefer their gay romance without explicit smut. I’ve written plenty of it too.
“Warning” for BDSM comes under what you don’t necessarily expect in a romance story, or even erotica. It can be triggering. Changing the word ‘warning’ to ‘Note this’ or something neutral would mean it could be used both to find and to avoid content one might like, without making an implicit value judgement.
Even mentioned BBW or interracial content makes me heave. Interracial romance should not be a ‘kink’ and pandering to those who think it is, is disgraceful.
I don’t know why epubs don’t include truly useful warnings like ‘author can’t write to save her life’ or ‘sexual content in this story has only the slightest connection with reality or eroticism’. Now those labels I could get behind.
Ginn wrote:
Thank you for the comment, Ginn, and thank you for expressing this point humorously. I appreciate the fact that the tone of our discussion has been positive. No one’s the bad guy here – for my part, I’m just trying to think of a way presses can protect their legitimate interests in not getting sued, without at the same time giving in to some social norming that I find offensive.
@ Sarah Frantz:
Sarah, I was expecting and hoping that you would provide me with a compelling argument against my distinction between BDSM, which I do not think of as a lifestyle choice, much less a gender or a sexuality in itself, and something like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
I’m not in agreement with you yet, and I am open to the possibility that I am completely wrong. This is something I have to think more about.
@ Ann Somerville:
Well, I’m glad at least one author agrees with me. I actually don;t know who is who among my commenters, but I was starting to fear this was boiling down to an author v. reader dispute.
I want to reiterate that I mentioned the two presses I have read. I am sure I could go through the list and find many more warnings of this type across epublishing. I just didn’t have time.
I am not trying to single out any one press, but merely pointing out that this particular practice of many e-publishers of erotica is in some tension with all of the good things they are doing to give positive voice and recognition to a wide array of sexual orientations.
One final point: Some folks have claimed that the warnings are there only as a response to reader complaints. I have my doubts about that, factually, but I really don’t know. However, even if that’s how it works, the press probably gets LOTS of complaints, and it has to decide which complaints are worth editing the webpage or the cover of the book to include a warning about something.
So, for example, I might have a dislike, on moral grounds, of condoms. Perhaps I hate latex for environmental reasons, or perhaps I belong to a fringe movement called “Overpopulators Anonymous”, which seeks to hasten overpopulation of the earth so we can relocate to our home planet, Myriadia.
If I write a letter to Samhaim or Loose-I.D. or any of the many other presses to complain about birth control because I find it offensive, do you think I’ll get that warning put on there? How about if me and all 100 members of my group do?
Nope. Because the intelligent folks at these presses, will see, correctly, that my claim is not legitimate.
And when they do warn about homosexuality, they are in effect communicating the message (even if they personally think it is false) that it’s legitimately warn-worthy.
So I don’t think we can blame to customers for the warnings, at least not entirely.
Obviously, I am also not blaming e-publishers for the fact that a rejection of non-heterosexuality on moral grounds is still considered a legitimate moral stance in the US in 2009 (as opposed to, say, racism, which, while still widely practiced, has been delegitimized.). My contemporary moral problems textbook has a chapter on sexual orientation which has articles that claim that homosexuality is a moral abomination. I can’t do much about that (although I have written letters, talked to my sales rep, switched texts, etc.) But I personally have a choice as to whether and how I teach those articles.
So, I’m saying that while e-pubs find themselves in this vanguard position in a country which is still somewhat divided on this question, I think they have a choice as to how they handle it. I suggest that warning about all kinds of sexual orientations equally would be kind of amusing, it would send a more positive egalitarian message, and it would take care of those complainers.
Work is kicking my ass, so I won’t be back here for another 12 hours, but I want to thank everyone again for chiming in, and for doing so in a really positive and constructive manner.
See, BDSM’s weird. Statistically speaking, way less than 20% of the population will ever experiment with homosexuality and even fewer with any sort of “group” (more than two) sex. But most of us out there (numbers are staggeringly huge but I’m too lazy to hunt them down) have done SOMETHING vaguely experimental in the bedroom–blindfold, sensation play (feather), food play, gently tied down, a few spanks here and there. In suggesting things to spice up your sex life, books like 101 Night of Grrreat Sex and its many many peers suggest practices that if performed in a sustained way, would be considered BDSM-identified. But they’re suggesting it as “spice,” as condiment, not as the whole meal. But there are those for whom it’s the meal. It comes down, once again, to how you conjugate the verb “to have sex”: “I’m sexy, you’re kinky, they’re perverted.”
So, this makes “identifying” as a BDSM-oriented person much more difficult, and it makes seeing that there is a BDSM orientation, rather than just practices, much more difficult from the outside. Kinsey was remarkably radical for his time with his single sexual continuum, but as Ivo Dominguez has shown in his Beneath the Skins (and as I will elaborate in an article to be published [hopefully] this year), there are many more continua than just the gay/straight. There’s top/bottom, sadist/masochist (although I think they should each have a continuum to themselves, actually), femme/butch, dominant/submissive, etc., etc. And you can be a complete heterosexual, non-sadist, non-masochist, and be completely femme-y and mostly submissive. That doesn’t mean you’re willing to run around in a dog collar and be completely “perverted”. It just means you prefer to be passive in bed and let your partner do unto you and follow his lead, like most Old Skool romance heroines.
But there are those for whom causing or feeling pain is the ultimate turn-on. There are those for whom ordering their partner around or being ordered is the ultimate turn-on. In fact, they’re not just the ultimate turn-on, but the only turn-on. Do they have any less right to “practice” their sexuality–and I firmly believe that it’s as much a sexuality as homo- or hetero-sexuality is–than you do? As long as everyone is a consenting adult, they should be able to do what they like. But we should also realize that it’s no more a choice to them than vanilla heterosexuality is to most of the population.
But sadism and masochism are both still sexual paraphilia so they’re seen as being sick and “treated,” rather than accepted as a sexuality.
“Everything just made sense suddenly”: this is what I’ve heard people say who have had to come out of the closet to themselves before they do to anyone else. “My life made sense, my experiences made sense, things finally fit.” And I’ve heard this from gays and lesbians, from dominants and submissives, from sadists and masochists. When you suddenly get the sex that makes you feel good, it changes your whole world view and things just fit for the first time. And when you’re among friends with whom you can express this side of yourself (either other BDSM-identified types or understanding “vanilla”-type people), it’s like you can breathe freely for the first time in your life.
I’ll stop now, but please feel free to ask questions in New Orleans. Or here, for that matter!
That oddly had never occurred to me before. I agree and it needs different wording although I do understand why the publishers go to such lengths. They’re trying to cover every eventually so no reader has something to complain about and you can scream erotic romance in someone’s face and even state that it’s a same-sex relationship and there will be someone who claims they are shocked. It’s sex. What’s so shocking? Why read a genre you’re not comfortable with? Even so, I think a new look at how to present these warnings would be good. For me ‘adult content’ is all I need to know for a warning but I know many others want more info as to the book’s content but if I ever self-publish anything I’ll be wording my warnings very carefully.
“I want to reiterate that I mentioned the two presses I have read.”
I only have close knowledge of those two publishers too. I’ve read stuff from other presses but it’s only LI and Samhain I’ve paid any attention to. So not singling them out either. LI’s unfortunately stuck in my mind *because* of the phrasing.
Might be worth asking Treva Harte and Crissy Brashear why they do it. The humorous warnings on Samhain’s books, however, are written by the authors. No one tells you what to put. So I think a lot of authors are just copying what they’ve seen other people do, and those people may have borrowed the system used in fanfiction (which is my only other experience of the warning system, and there, people expect you to warn for condoms, haircuts, and who is doing the inserting. No, not exaggerating!)
I very much doubt Samhain is working on behalf of the moral majority. I have no idea what Loose ID’s reasoning is.
“They’re trying to cover every eventually so no reader has something to complain about”
Maybe. But some of us are boasting too
And when I warned for ‘airplanes’ on my last release, I wasn’t actually worried I might upset an aeronausiphobic reader. I was trying to be funny.
I know in fandom warnings are seen as advertising as much as anything else. But Jessica has raised a serious issue about how we tell people about content in a way that doesn’t legitimize prejudice. The answer is so very simple, I can’t see why it hasn’t already been implemented. Don’t use judgemental language, and don’t make kinks or snigger at what should not be kinky or sniggered at. It’s just plain manners.
Sarah — Thank you for that helpful post. You’ve given me a lot think about.
Ann– I never for a minute thought the warnings reflected prejudice on the part of the publishers. The title of my post does imply, I admit, that I thought they might lack courage, although I now realize it’s probably not reflective of anything but tradition or legal counsel or thoughtlessness (although I still hope the warnings are changed in the ways I and others have suggested here).
Thanks for letting me know authors in many cases choose their own warnings. I had no idea.
Boy, with several hundred hits and some very deep disagreements, it’s my first kerfuffle! Ok, maybe a kerfufflette. But still. It’s exciting.
“prejudice on the part of the publishers”
No, I meant assumed prejudice among their readership, and thereby probably unfairly underestimating them. I think it’s good to challenge lazy thinking, wherever it originates.
“it’s my first kerfuffle”
[tangent] Why is the Romance community so upset by, indeed so fearful of deep disagreements? Just looking over a huge blow up in fandom about race and cultural appropriation, I don’t see the same fear of arguing and dispute that you get with Romance people. It’s really not going to kill you if someone disagrees with you. Disputes, disagreements, vigorous discussions are how things are changed, and how people are shaken out of their comfort zone. How many people, for instance, had seen the warnings at various publishers and not even questioned the implications before?
Making people confront the default settings is often going to cause them transitory discomfort, but if the result is to remove more profound and long-lasting pain, I think that’s a price worth paying. [/tangent]