*DISGUSTED*

[erastes]

Romantic Times have denied the application for a M/M discussion panel.

Obviously MEN don't have the right to be romantic. I bet if Sarah Waters was a guest speaker they'd allow her to talk.

I'm furious. I'm going to email www.romentics.com and have a moan.

ETA: GO HERE AND VOTE FOR M/M romance being a Big Turn On.

Comments

[rwday.livejournal.com]

You've got to be joking. It's just a discussion panel, it's not like a live action anal sex demo or something. How incredibly narrowminded.

Is there an email for the convention? I want to complain.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Don't know if you've seen this, but on their website, Romantic Times has a discussion thread on M/M romances.

[maidenform.livejournal.com]

OMG

You definitely should email them.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

http://www.rtconvention.com/Contact.html

What pisses me off is that the organisers assume it's an erotica panel.

I'd like to get a petition but I don't have a bit enough flist

[erastes.livejournal.com]

*dives in*

[erastes.livejournal.com]

romentics aren't anything to do with the romantic times. They are two gay guys called Scott and Scott who started the first romantic line of gay books (had to finance it themselves) I just wondered if they had any plans on going to the convention.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'll contact them when I get home and let them know (politely) of course, how stupid this decision is.

Romance is romance, in my opinion.

[schmoo999.livejournal.com]

An Erotica panel and no M/M pairing discussion???? Ok.

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link! I joined, voted in their poll, posted and pimped in my LJ.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Good for you! I saw your comment, we really need everyone from Torquere, ERWA and everything else to go, not only to vote, but to make a comment.

I was planning to add myself as an author once I got my ISBN number for Standish, but as things stand right now, I'd probably be rejected.

I can't believe that level of prejudice.

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

It's deeply sad but I think it comes down to the fact that they see romances as being for women and women as into het romance only.

Odd, as Judith Krantz books, written in the 70s to 90s and HUGE bestsellers, generally have a strong f/f themed relationship and quite often a m/m one, too, running alongisde the admittedly mainly-focused on m/f relationship.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

grrr.

And I had prejudice entering a historical writers critique group recently because of my subject matter, when the best (imo) historical writers have already dealt with it far better than I can do, O'Neill, Renault, Plaidy, etc etc.

*fumes*

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

I think it's a knee jerk reaction; or maybe they missed the hugely slashy subtext in a lot of the older romances? Heyer, for instance?

[themostepotente.livejournal.com]

I commented, I voted, and then you fuckered off, doll :P

[mysid.livejournal.com]

I tried to vote, but it looks like the poll is closed. (AND it went our way!) Your comment on the discussion thread was wonderful, btw.