Liz Everly's Blog, page 92

Bear-Billionaire & Other Whack Trends in Romance

By Madeline Iva

Billion-Bear (Werebear Shifter Billionaire Paranormal Romance Standalone)I was out with a successful romance writing friend on a Friday night. (You know who you are–leave a comment below if you want to identify yourself) She was on a rampageous tear about Billion-Bear%20(Werebear Shifter Billionaire Paranormal Romance Standalone)BILLION-BEAR, a romance by Luna Noir (Luna Noir is also a popular name for a lot of sex toys out there, google the name and see for yourself).

Which is maybe different from BearllionaireBEAR-LLIONAIRE – by Terry Bolryder (Terry Bullrider?) Which may still be different still from the specific book my friend actually mentioned that reached up into the small digits (52? 152?) on Amazon recently.

It became the punchline to her every joke, until she was just saying it randomly, like an absurdist koan.

Should we take a right at the light?

Bear Billionaire.

Bearllionaire

This is really the best of the bear-billionaire covers, IMHO.

Think we should leave a bigger tip?

I don’t know. WWBB, Madeline.

(What would bear billionaire do? Leave a bigger tip, obviously.)

I thought Outlander was bad—time traveling, historical, Scottish highland, romance adventure novel that it is, but no, here’s a –wait for it — Bear billionaire bbw paranormal werebear shifter erotic romance.

That’s just so specific. So very specific. And there’s pages and pages and pages of it on Amazon to scroll through. Obviously people love this stuff. Why? Why? Why?

People. This is why romances writers are looked down upon.  Do we care? Yes, we care.

No, I don’t really care. Until you say that writing romances is anti-feminist. Them’s fightin’ words, missy.

These bear billionaire authors—they’re probably laughing all the way to the bank.

And Is it wrong that I love it in a post-ironic-over-the-top-cray-cray sort of way?

And why is it always bbw?

Taming the Billionaire Bear (BBW paranormal romance)

Click to buy. I dare ya.

Rachel Kramer Bussel says bbw is a sort of lewd term.  I did not know that. Well, if she says it is I believe her, because she is an editor of sexy anthologies who knows her erotica terms cold.  Maybe it’s lewd because it’s only ever used in terms of sex–never in terms of anything else.  Like MILF. But ladies, I get so very bored with the term ‘curvy’. Rubenesque? Bleh. I like the idea of a curvy woman acronym – so let’s make up our own.

How about Uber-curvy Hottie? Example: “I love Nigella Lawson, she’s such a UCH.”

I have more questions.

Are these bear billionaire books bbw because the idea is that the bbw heroine is too big herself for a more lithe shifter mate?

The best part about this book? It’s menage.

Another question: in gay porn/romance/culture they talk about bears and cubs by which they usually mean big hairy guys. Is bearllionaire big i.e. large and strapping? Is he burly? Or is he big as in fat? Or big as in big hairy biker, like some guy (not Charlie) from Sons of Anarchy? Is this trend the beginning of a fat-acceptance phase in romance-land?

Probably not.  There is a consistent branding with these books, and that is a headless beefy guy’s six pack torso, shaved.  Over and over again.  Me, I’d think a bear shifter guy would bring back the whole hairy chest thing.  Guess not.  Chest hair obscures the view of the six pack–which you can only get by having minimal body fat.  There goes the whole fat-acceptance idea. Sigh.

So what will the next incarnation of this hot trend become? The body builder bear billionaire books? Say that six times fast.

What was the first bear billionaire book written? And who wrote it? I mean, you’ve got a lot of billionaire books, of course, and you’ve got a lot of bear shifter books, naturally–but who was the smarty pants who first put them together?

Mated by The Wealthy Wolf: BBW Paranormal Shape Shifter RomanceAnd how many bear billionaire books are there out there that are not just paranormal, shifter erotic romance but bear billionaire, paranormal werebear shifter erotic romance AND bear billionaire BBW paranormal werebear shifter erotic romance to boot? I mean, in terms of romance, come on, this category is the complete package.

Seems like a lot of them have been published in a mad flurry this year–as my friend noted. The earliest that I found was published at the end of December, 2014.  And what’s the next trend that will spring from the loins of this one?

Mated%20by The Wealthy Wolf: BBW Paranormal Shape Shifter RomanceMATED BY THE WEALTHY WOLF? I don’t know, my peeps, it’s a little vague isn’t it? I just don’t see it going the distance.

MILLIONAIRE MEERKAT? OMG, I just about died laughing. I think I peed myself. Have you tried reading THE TIGER TYCOON? It’s a new Harlequin line and for some reason, the tiger is always Greek. Just kidding.

TAKEN BY MY BEAR STEPBROTHER?  Okay, now stop it. That’s a half step away from dino porn. Bet ya didn’t think THAT was a real thing either.

When you’re done laughing, you can be our little boo-bear by following us here at LadySmut.com.

 

 

 

About That Ménage Fantasy …

By Elizabeth Shore

Ask any woman what her sexal fanasies are, and inevitably one of the items on the list is a ménage with her and two guys. Sadly, that’s often all it ever is – just a fantasy. A lot of straight guys simply can’t get down with the idea of being naked with a bro. Sure, jocks see it all in the showers. But your man and another dude naked in the bedroom? Together? Oh hell no. It’s just too “gay” seeming, or so I’ve been told. They don’t want to be so close to another dude’s junk and they sure as hell don’t want to accidentally touch him. So what’s a three-way craving gal to do? If you’re like a good friend of mine, you have the enviable fortune of meeting someone who sets your world on fire sexually and doesn’t mind taking his good buddy along for the ride.

My friend, whom I’ll call Amber, is now among the roughly 11% of women who’ve admitted to taking part in a three-way. I’ll say right up front – I’m jealous. Envious. Yes, I’m among that population of women who think it would be a pretty amazing adventure to have two guys kissing me and caressing me and licking my – whoops! That naughty little imagination of mine.

Anyhoo … I decided that since there’s a fairly high chance that I’m never gonna have the experience myself, I needed the dirt from Amber. So we met for coffee and she filled me in. I told her that, of course, I was going to have to blog about it. She said it was no big deal as long as, of course, I changed her name. I don’t blame her for that. This is not something you want your boss reading about. Or your mother.

But seriously, Amber, let’s talk. For starters, how does the idea between you and your partner even get broached? ‘Cause one big hurdle I see in the whole scenario is that many guys just don’t want to share. Guys are like cats – very territorial. If you’ve ever tried introducing a new cat into a household that already has one, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Fur can fly. In the case with men, call them fists.

Amber told me that with her the subject was broached during one of those “what are your fantasies” conversations with her boyfriend, Tyler. She told him she wanted to do it with two men and Tyler, who’s very sexually open, told her he could make it happen. Ooooh, goody! Awesome response, right? But she still didn’t think it would necessarily become reality until two weeks ago when she received a phone call from Tyler. He’d had to go on a road trip upstate and took along his good buddy, Mitch. They were about five hours away from where Amber lived. Tyler told Amber she should drive up and meet them. They could, you know, make that fantasy of hers come true. Amber hopped in her car.

So …. (me, jumping up and down) how was it?? In a word, amazing. She and Mitch clicked, they all loosened up with food and drinks beforehand, and when the party started there were no awkward moments, like wondering who goes where or does what to whom. How was that even possible? Because Tyler, as it turns out, had established rules.

He said he’s only got three: guys don’t touch each other, Mitch isn’t allowed to shoot his load in Amber’s mouth, and Mitch and Amber can only be together when Tyler’s in the room. OK, so I get one and three, but what’s the deal with the second one? Seems like that would be an expected outcome (heh) of the whole three-way deal. Tyler says it’s a personal preference, but he likes to save a little something something just for himself.

When I asked Tyler why he agreed to do it at all, he said it was to fulfill his girlfriend’s fantasy. He also loves the experience because he says “it drives the girl insane and that’s hot to watch.” But didn’t he get jeaous seeing her having sex with another guy? No, because the other guy was hand-picked by Tyler himself and it was a buddy he trusted. For that reason, as open as Tyer is, what he wouldn’t be willing to do is a repeat performance with dude #2 being solely Amber’s choice. The jealousy issue is also addresed with the whole “no screwing my buddy when I’m not in the room” thing.

Did Amber have any last minute doubts on the drive to meet them? None. Does she have any regrets after the fact? Not at all. Would she do it again? In a New York minute. She thought it was awesome. The secret sauce in the whole mix, she said, is trust. She trusts Tyler, and Tyler trusts Mitch. Without that trust, what could be a mind blowing experience is instead just awkward, uncomfortable, and a total buzz kill.

So there you have it from one who knows. The hot scenarios in those ménage books we fantasize over do happen in real life if you’re fortunate enough to have a partner willing to make your fantasy come true.

What do you think? Would you try a three-way if the situation presented itself or do you prefer the safer ground of keeping those fantasies just as they are – fantasies. Sound off in the comments below and don’t forget to follow up at Lady Smut.

 

Could she have been saved by a pen name?

By Liz Everly

No matter what your stance is on writers taking pen names and all of the explosions from the last few weeks on on the Internet that Kiersten Haillie Krum wrote about in the Professional Ethics of Pen Names, history is full of writers who took several names, especially women. And many with good reason. I recently had a chance to visit Warm Springs , Va., and was yet again reminded of good reasons to use a pen name—stay with me reader, this is a story of a writer you need to know about, but you probably don’t. She never took a pen name and she probably should have.

I had discovered Mary Johnston and her story years ago when I was writing and researching  about another woman. I stumbled on Mary looking at me, defying me to forget about her, on the page of a history book.

I don’t know if it was the look she bore, or her story that reached out and grabbed me, haunting me to this day. Both my subject and Mary had been to the bathhouse enclosing the famous natural springs.

The round bathhouse, with chipped paint and rickety boards with strands of light escaping through, had sheltered the sulfur springs for years and years—so many women healed their weary bodies in the springs. The day I was there, shoulders and hips and part of faces moved through the steam and smell of the sour sulfur permeated. I was surrounded by other women, but I could think of nobody else but Mary.

Mary Johnston was a famous novelist in her day. She was first woman novelist to hit the New York Times Bestseller list and was no ordinary writer—or woman, for that matter. She turned from being a very successful writer of turn-of-the-century romance novels into an early feminist and defiant champion of women’s suffrage—at serious cost.

Johnston was a successful novelist during a time when “genteel” women working for themselves—let alone as writers—were looked down on in society circles. Mary was Southern, and perhaps it was worse for her. Sometimes I think we modern women writers forget that it’s really only  in our recent history that writing was considered an appropriate undertaking for women. Mary, however,  was widely accepted—as long as she concentrated her efforts on historical romances like “Prisoners of Hope” (1898), “To Have and to Hold” (1900), and “Sir Mortimer” (1904)—all focusing on colonial times in Virginia. “To Have and to Hold” was published in 1900 by Houghton Mifflin and became the bestselling novel in the United States in 1900. Mary’s next work “Audrey” was the 5th bestselling book in the U.S. in 1902. So was “Sir Mortimer” in 1904.

Three of Mary’s books were adapted to film. “Audrey” was made into a silent film of the same name in 1916, and her blockbuster work “To Have and to Hold” was made into a two silent films—the first in 1918 and another in 1922. “Pioneers of the Old South” was adapted to film in 1923 under the title “Jamestown.”

Along the way, Mary built a colonial revival mansion in Warm Springs, Va., that architects say is every bit as defiant as Mary. She called the place Three Hills because of its view.

Mary, who had lived in Richmond, Va., had been summering with her family in the old Warm Springs since 1903—and had grown to love the area. She earned plenty of money from books sales and film rights—three of her novels would be made into movies. (Yet, how many of us have even heard of her?) She had not married, and had no close male relatives, and so had become independent. She chose where on the property she wanted to build the house and live with her two sisters, Eloise and Elizabeth. She commissioned the architects, and planned and built the gardens. Articles of the time point out how unusual it was for a woman to have such a take-charge attitude and work with builders on her own.

But, unfortunately, Mary’s career spiraled downward with the publication of “Hagar” in 1913—a favorite book of mine. It was one of the first feminist novels—somewhat autobiographical—and not surprisingly, created a backlash. Hagar captures the early heady days of women’s rights. Mary’s personal letters are full of correspondence from women working for the right to vote.

But husbands and fathers were outraged by the book’s progressive ideas and refused to purchase it, or subsequent Johnston novels, for their wives and daughters, most of whom had very little power to protest.

Part of Mary’s personal story can be found in the novel’s pages. Like “Hagar,” she was born in a small Southern town (Buchanon, 1870); she wrote secretly until she was published; she traveled through Europe with her father; and she spent a good bit of time in New York City. “Hagar” was published shortly after Johnston moved into Three Hills, and she almost went broke. Though she continued writing and collecting money from her earlier works, until her death in 1936, Johnston and her sisters struggled to maintain the grand house. They were forced to take in boarders. Against the advice of her publisher and editors, Mary continued to write about social and political topics. Those were the ideas that intrigued her, and she refused to live her life in anything but her own way.

Though largely forgotten, Johnston’s work is sometimes dusted off by scholars and readers. I wonder what Mary would think of Lady Smut. I wish I could ask her if she wishes she’d used another name for her romance writing, so that she could be free to write about the other subjects that interested her. Mary Johnson’s readers loved her, but they were quite unforgiving when she left historical romances for feminism. Yet another good reason for a pen name. If she had, she might have done much better and her name would be better known.

I like to think Mary would fit right in here at Lady Smut. After all, her dying words were, “Listen to me…” She had something to say, but left us to wonder.

Follow along with us on Lady Smut. We have something to say—and we won’t leaving you wondering.

 

 

Droughtlander No More: Outlander Returns With a Reckoning

by Kiersten Hallie Krum

Outlander is back and started part two of its electrifying first season with a bang, a spanking, and, well, some really hawt banging. I’m pretty sure smoke actually wafted up from my flat screen.

Let me say from the outset that I thought this episode was absolutely brilliant, a victorious return for the series and an emotional and adventurous hour of television that made me tense, made me laugh, made me sigh, and made me more than a bit giddy. But I’m still gonna nit pick the shit outta it because, well, duh.

Warning: Here be spoilers. Don’t read any further if you haven’t already seen the episode.

No, really.

NO. REALLY.

SERIOUSLY.

SPOILERS.

Adapting a book always has its difficulties and many has been the disappointing adaptation for changing core elements of the story so many readers fell in love with in the first place. From the start, the people behind Outlander have gone out of their way to make the show as true to the spirit and often literally the letter of the book, seeding the scripts with lines lifted from the novels to the joy of all long-term fans. There’s no way–there’s no way–any show is going to get everything in there especially when you’re talking about a book of 800+ pages. Often it’s the spirit rather than the letter of the story that is seen on-screen.

The shift in POV

Episode 9, The Reckoning, is chock full of watershed moments for Outlander that will reverberate through the rest of Claire and Jamie’s journey together. It’s also the first episode to most deviate from the canon starting with the voice-over from Jamie, which sets the tone for the episode as being, for a change, from his point-of-view. I’ll admit to a tinge of disappointment when I first heard this news. Outlander has been heralded for many things, but at the forefront is its near unique celebration of the female gaze. Shifting to Jamie’s perspective is a departure away from that.

But this shift allows the show to employ one of the Golden Rules of Storytelling: Show, Don’t Tell. Readers of the novels are accustomed to the story being filtered solely through Claire’s first-person recitation, which means we learn what happens to Jamie and the others when and if they tell her. On film, that’s quite boring. Showing those events in action has much greater resonance with an audience and that requires opening the point-of-view beyond Claire’s sole perspective. It also allows the show to crack open the wider world of Outlander in key scenes that are pivotal to the ongoing story and that is never a bad thing. If there’s a time to do such a shift, kicking off the show’s return after a six-month hiatus is the strategic moment for it.

Let’s break it down.

Horrocks and The Brothers MacKenzie

While pushed aside for a while in the book, given the flurry of events surrounding Claire’s kidnapping and rescue, here Jamie’s meeting with the British deserter Horrocks kicks off the episode. We begin by seeing what Jamie was doing while Claire was rushing back to Craig na Dun. The revelation of Jack Randall as the murderer of the soldier for which Jamie is accused is now front-loaded so that we the audience have that knowledge and can see it brewing within Jamie as he heads into Fort William after Claire.

Likewise, Jamie’s perspective allows the Brothers MacKenzie, Colum and Dougal, to be brought center stage shining a spotlight on the family politics churning within the walls of Castle Leoch. Dougal’s shilling for funds for Prince Charlie does not go over well with the Laird. The gloves are taken off as the brothers go toe-to-toe with Ned Gowan and Jamie as witnesses. Later, Colum reveals his anger toward Jamie is due to his plans for Jamie to succeed him as laird, a plan not shared by Dougal, being scuttled by Jamie’s marriage to Claire. an Englishwoman. None of which we the audience would’ve been privy to had the story continued solely in Claire’s perspective.

Didja notice no one spoke conversational Gaelic in the episode? That’s because Jamie and the others speak both languages fluidly. Whatever scene he is in, the language spoken in it is one he can understand and, by correlation, the audience also understands. While in Claire’s POV, we understand only the languages she speaks, but in Jamie’s it’s all the same.

Laoghaire’s Expanded Role

Laoghaire is arguably more nuisance than obstruction until…well, we won’t spoil that now, will we? Claire is told how Jamie spoke to her in the hall and set things straight, but with Jamie’s perspective now at the forefront, we see Laoghaire seek Jamie out to literally throw herself at him. Denied by Claire, Jamie is (briefly) tempted, which humanizes him as honor tempted and proven has more value than a mere untested if well-intended vow. Laoghaire is more of a threat here, but also is an example of the kind of woman Jamie would have been married to had Claire not made the scene. His exposure to Claire has already made Jamie a different man, one who is not satisfied by a mild-mannered Scottish girl but instead needs the challenges and complexities of life with a woman like Claire, even if that woman isn’t allowing him into her bed at the time.

The Rescue

I was riveted by this entire scene. We’ve been in Claire’s head for so long, it’s shocking to see her finally in a situation from which she can’t talk or reason her way out. It’s a harsh wake up call to the peril to which she’s at risk in this brutal era. And then to see her from Jamie’s momentarily helpless perspective as he’s forced to watch Randall abuse her while he, Jamie, waits for his moment. It’s offensive and frightening and it’s meant to be.  The standoff between Jamie and Randall crackles with things left unsaid that, for the moment, only the two of them now. Randall is repulsive and terrifying and he taunts Jamie mercilessly. All of his crimes against Jamie and his family flit across Jamie’s face as he barely holds himself back, particularly when Randall mocks him with “only risk brings the possibility of reward,” an adage that no doubt has deeper meaning for them both that is yet to be revealed.

I will nitpick that I dislike the change made with regard to the pistol. Jamie goes after Claire bare-handed with an empty pistol because he used it to kill a soldier on his way in and didn’t stop to reload once he heard Claire scream, a small but key detail. There was a blood cost for Claire’s disobedience, one Jamie bears, and one that no longer exists in this version of events.

The Fight

If there was one scene that paid off in ways no long-term fan could truly have expected, it was this first major confrontation between the married couple. It’s blistering, violent, painful, unhinged, and passionate. Jamie and Claire both are out of control, all the fear and pain and anger they’ve set aside till now bursting forth. They were already brewing before Claire got kidnapped thanks to the assault in the glen, which Jamie isn’t afraid to throw right at her. Having escaped Randall now, it’s the first time they’ve been safe enough for those feelings to finally be violently released on each other.

Sam Heughan does such amazing work in this episode, you can almost hear the lines he doesn’t speak from the minute shifts in his expression first in the confrontation with Randall but especially during this verbal brawl when he goes from inchoate rage to emotional devastation in moments. You can see the huge effort he exerts to avoid hurting Claire even when she wails on him. His offended pride, outright rage, and emotional turmoil are tangible and after the scuffle, he trembles with uncharacteristic vulnerability as he confesses “you’re tearing my guts out. Claire.”

Caitriona Balfe is likewise at the top of her game, perhaps more so for not having the voice over with which to explain Claire’s feelings. None is needed either as everything she says and does is so fiercely displayed. Mere hours from being attacked by Randall, Claire yet she still goes toe-to-toe with Jamie, at one point smacking him across the face in unhinged rage and pain regardless of what retaliation that might bring. There are so many things happening between them here, so many layers being revealed and torn apart until they both practically bleed onto the ground. And let’s just pause for a moment in appreciation for Claire’s jutting chin.

Respect.

The Spanking Scene

We’ve been waiting for it and here it is. In the near ocean of publicity that has flooded the press this week for Outlander (and huzzah to the Starz publicity machine on a job well done there), much was made of “the spanking scene.” It was repeatedly referenced by cast and producers as a pivotal shift for Claire and Jamie’s relationship and rightly so. It’s a major turning point in their story together, the outcome of which sets the parameters of their marriage as they endure cataclysmic events on the near horizon. But here is where I think changing to Jamie’s point-of-view was detrimental to the proceedings.

Of all the things I’d considered about the spanking scene, I never expected it to be…well…played for laughs. The music cue was jaunty. Claire’s disbelief at what was happening was so incredulous as to border on amusement. The scampering around the bed felt like an 18th-century episode of Benny Hill. The struggle was real. The fight, fierce. Claire was pissed and she got more than her own in including a solid kick to Jamie’s nose that made me grin. But given as it was framed from Jamie’s perspective rather than from Claire’s, the whole emotional approach was considerably lighter bolstered by the repeated cuts to the peanut gallery below getting their just deserts from Claire’s humiliation. Claire and Jamie are both right from their respective positions and while Jamie feels justified, he isn’t being malicious (however much he’s enjoying it). Claire is suitably outrage and offended with a healthy dose of “oh hell no!” And if I’d never read the book, I would have found it all to be disturbingly entertaining but executed with an attitude and explanation I could understand if not approve.

 

 

 

 

But I have read the book and know that, overall, the spanking scene lacked Claire’s deep feelings of insult and betrayal. Instead, her disgruntlement is presented as if she’s merely in a wifely snit. Never mind that she was manhandled and nearly raped at knife point by Randall only hours earlier, now the one man she trusted above all is set on whipping her bare ass with his belt. He practically has her in the same position as Randall put her on his desk. So the POV change has a greater impact than merely being a storyteller’s shift to add something fresh. Because we see it from Jamie’s perspective, Claire’s emotional and physical violations from the “spanking scene” are…diminished. And that has a ripple effect.

Reconciliation

In the book, Jamie goes to great pains to make himself vulnerable to her, a key component to their reconciliation. When Claire threatens him with the dagger, Jamie takes it from her and uses it to swear fealty to her, a profound moment as Jamie puts Claire above tradition and clan and laird and all other members of his family no matter what. In the episode, he merely states that things between them maybe should be different from what tradition has raised him to value so when Jamie immediately follows that up with his oath of fealty to Claire, it doesn’t quite feel earned. 

Losing Claire’s perspective of these events means losing the internal work Claire does to reconcile herself to what she thought she knew about who Jamie was and who he actually is. Likewise, Jamie hasn’t humbled himself to Claire and she hasn’t expressed just why she’s so hurt and angry at him. We know Jamie’s been thinking and making decisions based on what he’s seeing in the clan and between the Brothers Mackenzie and due to what happened with Laoghaire, but Claire doesn’t and this lack of insight into Claire’s emotional progression is key. We haven’t seen the growth they should have done together to add weight and consequence to that fealty. When Claire takes the dagger to him (while also in rather dominant command of his balls), it’s an oath tied into angry sex rather than one offered from an emotional commitment that defies what tradition demands a husband should do and be with his wife. And that changes the dynamic.

You Are My Home

Whatever emotional fallout may have been lost in those scenes due to the absence of Claire’s perspective is arguably made up in this beautiful scene where Jamie reveals the meaning of Claire’s wedding ring. I’m not as bent out of shape as others about the changes made to the ring’s origins and meaning. Tying it to Lallybroch gives it much more weight than some pretty Latin engraving from Catullus, romantic as that is. Jamie is an outlaw. He hasn’t slept under his own roof in years and with Horrocks’ revelation, he may never again be able to go home. Which leads to this beautiful moment.

Now, now we can see Claire’s emotions all over her face. Claire has always been adrift, first with Uncle Lamb then with the war. She was just starting to settle down to a solid marriage and family with Frank, looking at vases and considering their home, when she was swept back to the turmoil of the 18th century Scotland. Now Jamie not only offers her his home, should they ever be able to return, but grounds their renewed union on the idea that wherever they may be, home is each other.

Angry Make-up Sex

 

Ah. Yeah.

As fierce and vicious as the fight at the beginning, Claire and Jamie’s make up sex was–strewth–so intimate and raw, it was almost embarrassing to watch. And like the earlier fight, lines lifted from the book added to its authenticity and depth. It should’ve been corny to hear those words articulated on the screen but it really, really wasn’t.

Claire bringing a knife to a gun fight was…all right, look, it was hot. Frankly, I’m not opposed to how she wielded it either or the strategic timing of that wielding. It also stands in juxtaposition to the spanking scene too. It’s Claire now who is mixing pain and pleasure to drive home to Jamie the extent of his offense against her and just how serious she is about what will happen should he do it again. She’s drawing a line at what she will and won’t tolerate from him. He concedes–he’s hardly going to object given he basically said the same thing minutes earlier. Their resultant lovemaking is passionate and fierce. They’ve said the words, now they consecrate them physically, literally pounding out their reformed connection on each other. This is their reckoning, a fight for dominance both only win by yielding bodies and souls to the other.”I am your Master and you are mine. Seems I canna possess your soul without losing my own.”

Not if you’re doing it right, lad, no.

And boy, did they (overall) get The Reckoning right.

 

 

 

 

Follow Lady Smut. We don’t always do it right, but we always make it memorable.

 

One Small Implant for a Woman, One Giant Orgasm for Womankind?

Giggling about the Orgasmia? Dr. Feelgood says to check your presumptions.

By Alexa Day

Technology is awesome.

I’m mesmerized by the Apple Watch. I’m super stoked about the electric car. (I’d rather have one that flies, but you know, other drivers.) I even love the occasional throwback, like that time medieval medicine killed the MRSA superbug. Prithee, superbug, what saith thou?

Even as the world advances, though, I have to ask one important question.

Who’s asking for the surgically implanted vibrator?

In case you’re hearing about this for the first time from me, medical science has now made it possible for women to have a vibrator surgically implanted inside their bodies. As I write this, this procedure is available from exactly one doctor in Beverly Hills, and it costs about $6500, which I think is pretty reasonable for such a thing. The implant goes against the legs of the clitoris, it has Bluetooth connectivity, and implantation is an outpatient procedure.

My first thought was that I need to be able to microwave metal utensils a hell of a lot more than a surgically implanted vibrator.

But let’s really think this through.

Is there a class of patients out there who need an internal vibrator? Yes. I think there must be.

Quite some time ago, the FDA approved a vibrator for use by men who had difficulty maintaining an erection. (It costs about $300 and did not require implantation, but I’m not going to complain about that here.) Is it really so unreasonable to think that the implanted vibrator serves a similar class of women affected by female sexual dysfunction?

I’m grateful to live in a world where a woman can obtain a vibrator in any size and shape conceivable by the imagination. We even have sex toys now that will allow us to photograph the interior of our vaginas, although the recreational purpose for that is also a mystery to me. (Again, I see doctors all over something like that.) I definitely think that with enough patience and a large enough budget, most women could find something that will suit their needs and achieve orgasm with the help of a toy. Apparently, doctors have also prescribed topical treatment to facilitate orgasm for women.

But that’s not for everyone. We may never know how many women are in this situation, but I have no doubt that lots of women have honestly tried everything and are still unable to reach orgasm. Still more women cannot climax for other reasons, like antidepressant use. I would think the surgically implanted vibrator is a discreet option for female sexual dysfunction. By offering women the chance to control the vibration while removing the impediment of a toy, the implanted vibrator is poised to make real waves in the treatment world.

I’ll be frank — medical science is not doing nearly enough to treat female sexual dysfunction. Personally, I think it’s because medical science isn’t taking female sexuality seriously, and it never has. I’d like to see medicine continue to make strides like this.

But it’s easy to giggle at the implanted vibrator, isn’t it? It’s made by a company called the Fun Factory, after all. They call it Orgasmia, which sounds like something right out of a slut-shameful sixties sci-fi movie. Both Bustle and Jezebel are covering it, but in the context that they’re sure glad they don’t need or want something like that.

Let’s go back to my original question.

Who’s asking for the surgically implanted vibrator?

I hope someone is. And if not, I hope there’s another breakthrough in the future.

Follow Lady Smut. We keep it coming.

Sexy Saturday Round-Up

By Liz Everly and the Lady Smut Bloggers

Hello, Sexy! How handy would a tex toy disguised as a household object be?  Ever wonder if porn was really a relationship-killer? Ponder these and other complex, deeply disturbing, and fun issues with Lady Smut. We’ve got the best blog posts of the week right here for your reading pleasure.

From Liz:

Embrace: A New Body Image Movement.

Sex toys disguised as household objects.

The “self-aware alpha.” Great blog post by Meg Benjamin.

From Elizabeth:

He just won’t lisen to me! If you’re dealing with that (and frankly, who isn’t?), give him these 10 tips to be a better listener.

Turns out, recent studies suggest porn isn’t the sex-killer of your relationship after all.

Want a great orgasm? Make sure other women think your guy’s attractive.

Here’s what guys think they should be doing to seduce us. Do you agree?

From Madeline:

Easy to miss signs that a shy person has a crush on you.

A twisted take on beauty.

Flirt Better.

Stay Hungry,

Liz

Droughtlander is Over!

Those cheeky brits.

Hello lovely Lady Smut readers!

This week we’ve been talking (mostly) about sexy historical books.  Here’s an interview with Lavinia Kent

The Thwarted Desires of Lavinia Kent

who is writing the sexiest erotic historicals out there.  Hope you all are reveling tonight at the end of Droughtlander and tomorrow enjoy the first episode of OUTLANDER Season One, Part Two. Whoever thought of separating one season by a long gap is evil!

Look for Isabelle Drake’s post here next Friday –it’s the start of a regular gig for Isabelle at Lady Smut. On other Fridays we’ll have Rachel Kramer Bussel and starting in May, Elizabeth SaFleur.

It’s gonna be delicious!

And follow us at Lady Smut for all kinds of Outlander-ish fun. ;)

 

 

Poldark: The *Other* Outlander

by Madeline Iva

God, I love lavish historical dramas.  This week at LadySmut we’re celebrating the last week of Droughtlander, and Kiersten will probably have much to say next Monday about the first episode of Outlander, Season Two, Episode 1.

It was a harsh barren land for historical drama when I was growing up.  My mom told me about something called The Thornbirds–both the book and the made-for-TV show.  She told me the entire plot one time during a long car ride and it sounded awesome, but I never got to see it myself.

Yet I will get to see this awesome new series revived from that Thornbirds-ish time — it’s called Poledark. Yes — another amazing production from the other side of the pond. It’s being updated. Remember that hot dwarf Kili in The Hobbit? That’s him! That’s Poldark. Meanwhile, feast your eyes on this preview:

Poldark comes back from losing the war in America, only to find things are rotten at home and the lady he loves is now with his cousin.  Boo! He rallies, it’s complicated, and we root for him.  They had me at the horse running across the green cliff tops.  The sucky part is that it doesn’t land on the U.S. shores until June on PBS. :(

Austenland. Best. Darcy. Ever!

Why are we so swept away with historicals? Why? Things are so much better now for women, for everybody–so why do we love them so obsessively? Maybe because of the emphasis on beauty–both of women, men and of nature. There’s also an emphasis on goodness and firm character, as well as on plain ole heroism. Bonus points for the overt attention to the dangers of evil seducers.  Historical romances are where I first learned that beauty can draw rakes and cads out of the woods and to beware.  I think I learned more about how to avoid date rapists, douche bags and other toxic forms of man through historical romances than I ever did from my mom. (A woman who, alas, was drawn to cads.)

I liked OUTLANDER–what am I saying? I loved Outlander. Talk about a visual feast!  The TV show was just an excuse to go back and re-read the first two books.  They are so whack.  Whoever could have guessed that a time-travel Scottish historical adventure romance would be this whompishly successful? Gabaldon threw everything in there but the kitchen sink.  In book two, when the romance is pretty well settled, it’s fascinating to note how Gabaldon keeps us romance readers going.  She does it by having the hero and heroine drawn apart, and then back together.  Then apart again, then back together.  Over and over, it’s like the soothing cycles of waves washing on the beach.

Belle — j’dore.

I realized that one standard I have for historicals like Outlander which I don’t have for everything else is that I want to enjoy them over and over again. So here’s my go-to list for lush costume historical movies, classic books, and historical romances that I’ll read or watch over and over:

For movies it’s The%20Last of the Mohicans Director's Definitive CutLAST OF THE MOHICANS, Room%20with a View, AA ROOM WITH A VIEW, and Sense%20and SensibilitySENSE & SENSIBILITY.  Also check out BelleBELLE if you haven’t before.  There’s an awesome satire about people who love love love Jane Austen’s period and historical romances (C’est moi) which is the movie AustenlandAUSTENLAND. It’s so good it hurts–I SWEAR!

Want some heartbreak? Try Camille:%20The Lady of the CamelliasCAMILLE by Alexander Dumas.  The Camillemovie is very different, but also excellent in a dreamy way, and it stars Greta Garbo.  Also try Villette%20(Bantam Classic)VILLETTE by Charlotte Bronte–so overlooked, yet really brilliant.  It’s almost an anti-romance for it’s time–heck, for this time too–and quite, quite radical.

I am all sensibility when it comes to Historicals.

If you insist on genre romances, try some Georgette Heyer.  No sex, but really good slang, and if you’re surrounded by crass vulgarians you’ll love the emphasis on manners and civility.  Here are my two all time favorites to reread: The%20Grand Sophy (Regency Romances)THE GRAND SOPHY (maybe the most perfect light historical romance ever written?) and Frederica%20(Regency Romances)FREDERICA.  Also good are: The Quiet Gentleman, Sylvester, or the Wicked Uncle, Arabella, The None Such, Cotillion, The Convenient Marriage, These Old Shades, and Devil’s Cub.

Pushing aside my worship of all things Georgette Heyer, my other two all time favorite go to’s for historical romance are Joanna Bourne’s The%20Spymaster's Lady (The Spymaster Series)THE SPYMASTER’S LADY, and Loretta Chase’s Lord%20of ScoundrelsLORD OF SCOUNDRELS.  These are books I can reread a thousand times over and still find delightful.

So enjoy! And follow us at LadySmut.com.

 

Adultery in a Romance Novel? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Miss Independent

By Elizabeth Shore

Some time ago I wrote an erotic historical novella where the plot went something like this: wide-eyed heroine is forced into an arranged marriage to afford her opportunities she’d otherwise never have. Heroine is determined to love her husband, but he’s a scum-sucking cruel SOB who physically abuses her. One night, after they’d been married a couple of years, he comes home drunk and tries to rape her. Wide-eyed heroine has had enough. She fights off the bastard, escapes into the night and moves far away. Four years later, our heroine has re-invented herself into a chic, savvy, cosmopolitan gal who enjoys physical love with dashing men of her choice but guards her heart against the emotional stuff. Naturally, this being a romance novel, the heroine does meet someone with whom she falls in love. She’ll need to confront the hellish SOB husband to demand a divorce (rare, but could happen – I did my research) so she can finally realize her happily ever after.

I pitched the novella around and received really positive feedback: editors liked the writing, the setting, the characters, the heat. There was just one teeny little problem – the heroine was still married. Well, yeah, she was. But how about the fact that it was an arranged marriage and her husband was an abusive bastard who tried to rape her? Who routinely abused her both physically and emotionally? Wouldn’t readers applaud her daring escape and subsequent transformation into an independent, passionate woman who makes her own choices in a male-driven world? They probably would, editors agreed. But then they’d bash you for the fact that she’s still married. Really? Even today? Yep, even today. So back to the drawing board I went.

I revised the story so that cruel SOB husband gets killed. Heroine still needs to escape and transform herself because the now-deceased husband’s horrendous brother is out for revenge and it’s the heroine’s pretty neck he wants swinging from a noose. So now she’s a widow instead of an adulteress and all’s well. My wonderful publisher, The Wild Rose Press, gave me a contract for it and it’s in edits as we speak. Release date tbd, but the title is Desire Rising.

I’m thrilled – of course – but the experience made me go, hmmmm. Am I cool with extramarital sex? As a rule, no. But my novella is in a historical setting, and although getting a divorce at the time wasn’t impossible, it was really really difficult. My heroine couldn’t just hop on the internet, download divorce forms, and start filling out papers like women in many part of the world can today. She was, for all practical purposes, condemned to a life of love-less, passionless misery. Can’t we see beyond the aspect of her technically being still married and cheer her brave spirit? Apparently not.

We’re celebrating this week the historical romance novel in all its glory, and this is something I can happily get behind. When I first started reading romance novels it was to the historicals I went, devouring like candy the works of Johanna Lindsey, Bertrice Small, Jude Devereaux, Virginia Henley and on and on and on. And, to no surprise, that’s what I started writing. My first two published works were historical and I’m really excited to have Desire Rising on deck. But I do ponder how far we’ve truly come if readers would still today sit in judgment of a woman who decides her hellish existence isn’t OK and decides to do something about it. I also have to wonder: would that same condemnation be directed toward a man?

Thoughts? Ideas? I’d love to hear them all. Speak your mind and follow us at Lady Smut, where we always speak our minds and condemn no one for doing the same.

 

 

Sexy Middle Ages

by C. Margery Kempe

People believe just about any kind of foolishness about the Middle Ages, probably because of cartoons or bad teacher or I don’t know what. The truth is we still use a lot of wisdom from that time. The most outrageous idea is that people were prudish in medieval times.

Pardon me while I guffaw!

The thing I hear from my students is “the church controlled everything back then”; guffaws are now eclipsed by my stunned look of disbelief and rolling eyes. Yeah, at a time when most people went to church once a year, somehow that institution ‘controlled’ them. Yes, there are manuals the church made for quizzing people at that annual confession. Bet that was really effective, eh? What the monks wrote up didn’t necessarily have any bearing on what really happened. And monks were no puritans either: why do you think they were always reforming the monasteries? Chaucer has his friar giving girls money so they can get married quick after he deflowers them.

Yeah, those monks must have been so puritanical…

We’re so prudish now that we can hardly conceive of how relaxed people were about sex back then. Plus it was well accepted that women were gagging for it most of the time. My own name sake, the medieval mystic (and first autobiographer in English literature) Margery Kempe had the worst time trying to control her sexy thoughts when she decided to become holy and was always being tempted by the flesh.

Marie de France told stories where the sex pretty much indicated when people were falling in love. It wasn’t a pure meeting of the minds — it was lust! Often achieved by magical means, but it was real enough — and the babies proved it.

“Lanval,” she said, “my friend, my dear,

I left my lands to come where you are;

To find you I have come so far!

Be valiant and courtly in everything,

And no emperor, count or king

Ever had joy or blessings above you;

For, more than any thing, I love you.”

He looks at her; he sees her beauty;

Love pricks him, strikes in him the spark–

Now his heart blazes in the dark.

Enough about the courtly stuff! Let me introduce you to a wonderful genre: the fabliau. Fabliaux were very popular: even Chaucer wrote some. They are short comic tales about sex and often shady dealings to get money: usually the clergy end up badly and the women come out on top! Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale is an excellent example: young Alisoun is married to the old carpenter, but she decides to let the student Nicholas become her lover after he grabs her by the crotch — after all, he’s a bit closer to her age. Meanwhile the parish clerk Absalon also wants her but she spurns him and tricks him into literally kissing her arse. Oh and her husband ends up a laughing stock with a broken arm when Nicholas’ plan for a little extra lovin’ time goes awry — so much so that he gets a hot piece of iron up his bottom! Alisoun’s the only one who gets off scot free!

Hmmm, maybe I need to write some fabliaux next after the fairy tales. My sweeter alter ego is writing Breton lais: they’re much more reserved.