(no subject)

[erastes]

Here's a LOVELY submission call - NOT. From “Whispers” – part of Scarlet publishing.

-------------------------------------------

“Entries that include m/m, f/f, bondage, rape, or bestiality will not be considered and will be returned to the author. All genres of romance will be accepted”

-------------------------------------------

Erastes looks gobsmacked.

Interpretation: -

1. m/m or f/f cannot be romance, not even any kind of genre romance under any circumstances.

2. Everyone knows that m/m and f/f is synonymous with bondage rape and bestiality.

3. Which means that all gays and lesbians are perverts, sexual predators and completely sick.

4. ICK!

I can’t tell you how sick I am of this attitude. I note that their submissions page is slightly more “explanatory” “We are not seeking m/m or f/f romances at this time”

I wonder if they amended that page to read that AFTER the yahoo group where the call I’ve quoted from was posted, exploded? All I know is that I will not be advertising their site on _literotica_!

*stumps off disgusted*

Comments

[alankria.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they could have worded that A LOT better. Ugh.

Just look at it this way: They must have pretty damn boring sex lives if they consider bondage on a par with rape or bestiality.

[kethlenda.livejournal.com]

yes, exactly! Ugh.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

and OMG gay bondage? Get outta here you sick fuck!!!

[kethlenda.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, and don't forget, "bondage between consenting adults is a sick perversion as disgusting as rape and bestiality."

Fucking idiots. Pardon my French.

[catsintheattic.livejournal.com]

Thank you! You just put my thoughts into words.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

And don't you forget it.

*G*

[julesjones]

Erastes has been kind and not mentioned this morning's apology from the idiot promo company that cross-posted the ad to homopromo -- the apology in which they said that no offence was intended, but it wasn't offensive anyway and how could anyone read offence into that wording?

[naurael.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah... The way to hell is paved with "apologies" like that. Idiots. The "how" is not the issue here; it's already too late to ask for a "how" - a lot of people already took offence. But if they cannot unstick their heads from their asses long enough to realize that although they meant well (ha!) they screwed it, well... Upon reflection, that's pretty kinky too, isn't it? I mean, heading... But, to each their own.

To me the equation bondage = rape/bestiality is more bothersome. I find it disturbing that people without basic knowledge in sexual issues are allowed to post calls... Methinks they thought that the connection between those three is the underlying coercion in such acts, ergo the complete absence of romance. Sick. Completely sick. Or am I a freak for associating bondage with security and the offer of letting go?

Love,
Naurael

[julesjones]

As I suggested in my own rant, I don't have a problem with publishers not wanting to handle some types of material; but there are *polite* ways to say that you don't want them.

I suspect that what happened here is that in order to get a short ad with all the necessary info, they edited down the "we don't want..." on their website, which is worded in a much better way. And it didn't occur to anyone that editing it down into a nice compact two sentence paragraph resulted in a wording that equated non-vanilla and non-het with rape and bestiality, and said that non het and non-vanilla could not be romance. But possibly it didn't occur to them because the nice compact version reflects what they really think.

A better apology...

[julesjones]

Since I was pretty harsh about the cross-posted form "I'm sorry if you were offended" over the offensive ad, I'll note that I have since received an individual reply to the note I sent to the promo person. I'd be better pleased if it was a completely unambigious "I fucked up and the posting was offensive", but it's a *lot* closer to "I fucked up and the posting was offensive" than "I'm sorry if you were offended".

[erastes.livejournal.com]

What would have made it more believable, I have to say, is that Martin posted it BEFORE we had the long discussion about "if it aint m/m or f/f please don't post here if you don't mind"

To post it (quite soon) AFTER that was a real red rag to a bull.

[elisa-rolle.livejournal.com]

Oh really? M/M and F/F aren't romance? So I, as always, don't understand nothing about romance... I really believe M/M and F/F "romances" are romance: basically romance is a love story about two person... Where is the problem if this two person are of the same sex? And for the fact that "all gays and lesbians are perverts, sexual predators and completely sick" you can also add the readers of M/M and F/F in the category, cause this is what thinks one person to ten I say I read M/M romance. ciao, elisa

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It's a real soap box of mine at the moment - the fact that so much peception is that gay fiction is about the sex. I've been pulled into that a lot, I guess, but I'm trying to write less porn and more emotional responses

[elisa-rolle.livejournal.com]

But even if you want to write porn, still I don't see where is the problem! Maybe I will not buy it (I like better the "emotional responses") but you have the right to write them. I just say that my motto is: "I may don't believe in what you say, but I will die to allow you to say it". I don't remember who says it (unfortunately they aren't my words) but I make them mine. ciao, elisa

[naurael.livejournal.com]

It's still the old problem with public opinion, I think. We are one step up from the times gehayi describes, but being out of the closet alas doesn't equal "normal". Most people even now think of homosexual relationships as a rather squicky, not really real, or even kinky thing. They simply aren't able to grasp that love is love, in whatever form, between any two people.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of the attitude toward homosexuality I saw at my high schools and college in the 1970s and early 1980s. Gays couldn't actually LOVE, because, well, they were gays. They were just in it for the sex.

(There were no comments about the ability of lesbians to love, because lesbians, we were firmly told, did not exist. The concept of lesbianism was just a twisted and perverse notion that detractors of talented women had used to malign them.)

Sad to see that this publisher has the same caught-in-a-1950s-time-warp mentality as the administration of the high school from which I graduated. I would have liked to think that knowledge, understanding and tolerance had progressed somewhat since those days. Apparently not.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I really can't blame gay men for seeming like they were shag bunnies because - really? - all that repression suddenly let loose? But I hate the fact that everyone immediately things gay=sex. Yes, there are gay clubs where everyone has sex with everyone (if they want) but hells bells there are (and have been) het clubs like that for donkey's years, its just that they've never been interesting enough to catch anyone's eye. "clearly" as Capn Jack says "you've never been to Singapore"

[flowrs4ophelia.livejournal.com]

How nauseating. I just lost my appetite for lunch, seriously.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That's exactly how I felt. And angry. Very very angry.

It's a very different thing to say "we are not seeking gay fiction at this time" (as irritating as that is, that's their perogative) to this incendiary statement.

And Hello!!!

[tharain.livejournal.com]

So...did this group hire former US Senator Rick Santorum, who once equated homosexuality with bestiality and adultery in a speech?

Of course, he was canned in the last election, so maybe it was just as well he did say stuff like this.

And...yeah. Their initial posting indicates that M/M and F/F somehow don't fall under "all forms of romance."

Frankly, I thinks there is far too *little* M/M F/F romance novels.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Heh! That made me smile! It's like the arguments I've seen on some groups that "gay" = pedophilia because priests molest boys.

*beats head against wall*

i agree. I wouldn't want everyone to jump on the bandwagon - obviously, but I am fascinated with the gay historical novel, simply because there is so much to explore that hasn't been explored yet. Text books, yes, but not fiction.

[nagasvoice.livejournal.com]

By that same association of facts, one could truly state,
"religiousity = pedophilia", and be far more accurate, couldn't one?

On another note, in my not-so-humble-opinion, romance of any kind is so often about the subtleties, or lack of them. The protagonist is agonizing over evidence of character and potential, looking at hints that suggest fine distinctions among shades of choice. A lot of books are actually about the tricky degrees in the evidence that prove out, in years to come, to be nearly-right, just-never-was-right-and-never-will-be, and Mr. Right.
They practically shout out with all kinds of negative evidence about the smart person avoiding any partner who reeks of the sloppy, the clumsy, the crude, the inconsiderate, the bigoted...
Which brings us back to that incredibly flat-footed and indeed offensive comment. That ignorant and offensive conflation of alternate sexualities so totally lacks subtlety that the stomach of a potential reader simply churns in revolt at the prospect of enduring what the company thinks are acceptable parameters for a het romance.
Skip anything avante-garde--what kinds of crimes against literature are they committing when they're so careless with simple facts like these?
OMFG, what are they like in *editing* a romance, any romance fiction?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Heh. Yes!

You don't have to want to molest young boys to want to be a priest, but it helps!

[themostepotente.livejournal.com]

“Entries that include m/m, f/f, bondage, rape, or bestiality will not be considered and will be returned to the author. All genres of romance will be accepted”

That's a complete contradiction in terms.

What a joke.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes because gay people cannot love. It's not allowed.

[irreparable.livejournal.com]

*headdesks*

*a lot*

God, that attitude pisses me right off. It's right up there with the whole 'teehee omg u so risque' attitude if you happen to write something not deemed mainstream. Or listen to non mainstream music. Geeze, people, step out of the Old World and into the new! Gah!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more!

[beauty-seeker.livejournal.com]

how ridiculous. how peculiar. what a bunch of jerks. i've heard that romance associations in particular have been very anti gay in the past. so this saddens me, but alas it doesn't surprise me. yuck.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Absolutely- and the fact that the publisher doesn't want m/m or f/f then that's up to them, it's their choice, but to be inflammatory like this deserves sporking. can you imagine the response if a publisher said they didn't want stories about blacks or Muslims?

[beauty-seeker.livejournal.com]

and you know, i've never seen a call for a glbt anthology that has said one has to be be glbt to submit work. on the other hand i see calls for women only and that really irks me. but of course here (unless there's something more to their call) they aren't saying they don't want your work if you are glbt, just that it must be about straights, which is just sooo dumb. i think the publication will be dull and not worth even reading.
by the way, i unsubscribed from erwa writers and parlour, but am keeping my subscription to storytime.

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

Whilst the first sentence is irritating and not very politely expressed, on its own it wouldn't be so bad. What makes it utterly abhorent is following it by "all genres of romance will be accepted" - when they've proved that that isn't the case.

Ugh.

Idiotic me not to realise that romance could only be between males and females.