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.
