Liz Everly's Blog, page 94
March 20, 2015
Friday Roulette
by Madeline Iva
Hello readers! In search of your Friday romance fix?
Here’s a new feature at Lady Smut: it’s called FRIDAY ROULETTE.
Each Friday we try to bring to you a new author–someone who can rock the Lady Smut vibe and tell you all about her latest smexy obsession.
In case you missed our last several Fridays — here’s a recap of who’s been by on the blog recently:
Jackie Horne: No More Slutty-Slut Shaming pt. 1
Jackie Horne: No More Slutty-Slut Shaming pt. 2
Wendy LaCapra: Lady Vice: The Historical Scandal Behind LaCapra’s Debut Novel
Isabelle Drake: Tie Me Up, I’ve Been Bad
And here are some of our other recent distinguished LadySmut visitors — just ’cause they’re cool.
Madeira Darling: Dominatrix Princess Turned Writing Bitch
Shari Slade/Robin Covington: It’s All Part Of My Rock N Roll Fantasy
Elizabeth SaFluer & Adriana Anders: Tormented & Tortured–Books You Can’t Forget
A “Reader”: Hungry Like the Wolf, Sexy Paranormal Recs
Geneva Decroix: Erotica, Invention, and Living the Dream
Kemberly Shortland: Beardy Goodness
Megan Morgan: How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Fall in Love with Love
Isabella Drake: The Nicer Side of Naughty
Enjoy! Don’t forget to follow us at LadySmut.com — where we satisfy your sexy romance cravings 24/7.
March 19, 2015
Got Romance? It’s Hard Writing Modern Lurv
Delancey Stewart’s book REDEMPTION RED has a former soldier hero with PTSD.
By Madeline Iva
In romance we need our obstacles. Our trials by fire, and other torments. It’s true other cultures–take India for example–do romance differently. They’ll have the hero and heroine get together right away and then they enjoy adventures together…but our Western-style romance evolved to show us characters who prove themselves worthy by struggling through many an obstacle to wind up happy at last.
Some readers might ask: Obstacles to romance? What obstacles?
Exactly my point reader–Exactly!
Tracey Livesay’s hero is going for revenge, pure and simple…until it’s not.
Never before in the history of the world have people been allowed to happily marry so many (one at a time–or even in batches). And who even needs to marry? There’s every shade of Happily For Now going on out there.
Oh it was easy back in the 80’s–the main obstacle was sex. He wants it and he wants it now. She knows she can’t give it to him, but…maybe she does? Then there’s tension, temptation, etc. but in the end they do it, she tames him, gets a ring on it, and baby makes three.
Today it’s okay–even expected–that there’s gonna be nookie waaaaaaay before the wedding night. Some would say we’ve come a long way, baby. But I ask you–what’s a romance author to do?
This is the topic of a romance panel happening at #VALoveFest at Virginia Festival of the Book on Saturday, March 21st at 12pm. It’s called: THEY LIVED HAPPILY ENOUGH FOR NOW: Challenges to Writing Modern Love with Carey Heywood, Tracey Livesay, Kimberly Kincaid and moderated by Delancey Stewart.
Better
Don’t forget to read the story in the afterward. It made me cry, cry, cry. Click to buy.
I first thought of this panel while reading two books: Heywood’s BETTER and Stewart’s REDEMPTION RED. Heywood’s afterwards made me cry. Really hard. I read it first and then I went back and started the book at the beginning — only to find more sad when a beloved aunt is dying. (Carey, you’re killing me here.)
Heywood is an indie author and so (because she can) she starts out her book sad and climbs up from there–whew! Stewart’s book, meanwhile, has a ex-soldier hero with PTSD, which is curable, treatable, and I oh so badly wanted Stewart’s hero to recover quickly.
Some people might say there are still *plenty* of obstacles out there — AIDS, cancer, deformities, environmental causes, political corruption, vampirism — vast, serious, deadly, grim and awful things. Just pick one why doncha?
I remind the reader that romances are what Joanna Bourne coined *ahem* Happiness Machines. I think she’s right. We read for uplift, for time away from all the truly wretched and horrible, some of which may be going on in our own lives. We need a break, people! We’re carrying the world on our shoulders here.
And what if you don’t want to read about vampires 24/7?
Well, here are some people who’ve figured out some alternatives to insurmountable obstacles:
Because she can. Indie authors have the ability to mess around with modern love — and with Heywood, it works.
THE NORA ROBERTS MAGIC TOUCH—The first Nora Roberts book I ever read was from her Brides Quartet series — VISION IN WHITE. VISION IN WHITE starts off in the beautiful garden of a beautiful house where some little girls are playing ‘here comes the bride’. Oh, the ironic twist–the little bride’s mother and father are just about to divorce, the perfect childhood is about to be lost for forever. So sad! But let’s be real–not too sad. Nora stays within the strict bounds of wistfulness and has laughed all the way to the bank as a result.
THE KRISTIN HIGGINS KILLER MOVES–I like Kristin Higgins romances! She’s a little funnier than Nora Robers. Her sad stuff is also little bit sharper. We’re talking family rejection here, big time. Like your parents blame you for your sister drowning–and they never get over it. Or your mother up and abandons you in your teens then when you meet her umpteen years later–she’s still not sorry. It’s heartbreaking (sniff). But wait–that’s what wins me over. It’s in the past. Higgins characters can’t have enough room in their hearts for forever love until they clear cut some of the old heartbreak. Which is hard to do — which is why it takes up a whole book.
Gimme Some Sugar (A Pine Mountain Novel)
Not sad, but mad. Kincaid’s heroine is getting over her asshat ex. Click to buy.
THE JENNIFER CRUSIE SECRET SAUCE is simple. There’s a mystery going on that must be solved/exposed to the light of day before we can get our HEA. Okay, Jennifer Crusie readers–you and I both know that’s not really what the main obstacle is. The main obstacle to any classic Jennie Crusie romance is the orphaned mongrel dog. Abandoned, kinda ugly, and giving forth unconditional adoration–Crusie’s books are full of them–each one with big sad needy eyes that devour all the heroine’s attention. Sure she’ll throw in a sick kitten from time to time, but it’s not until doggie is all better that the heroine can look up from knee height to discover the hero patiently waiting for her (because he gets it–he knows doggie comes first) so they can both fall deeply in lurv.
I happen to relish romances that show a bit of relationship ugly. Or even some…revenge? Kimberly Kincaid and Tracey Livesay deal with the uglies in their books. Kincaid has an asshat ex the heroine has to deal with and move on from, while Livesay’s hero wants to exact his pound of flesh.
Name the rising problems we face today: toxic bachelors, or serial monogamists married to their work –these are obstacles people face within themselves, not on the outside. So…why are there are no therapy couches in romance novels? Why no couples counseling? Is there an unwritten law for romance novel plots written down somewhere–Thou shalt not seek analysis?
THEY LIVED HAPPILY ENOUGH FOR NOW–is a panel on the challenges of writing modern love. Click to go to the website.
Wanna know the answer? Come to Love Fest at Virginia Festival of the Book this weekend and we’ll tell you.
#VALoveFest, Saturday & Sunday at Virginia Festival of the Book = awesome sauce.
Meanwhile, follow us at Lady Smut and get our unconditional lurv.
March 17, 2015
The Ultimate Down And Dirty Bromance – Why Ladies Love Gay Porn
Hello, dear readers. I’m off this week but will be back next. In the meantime, in case you missed this post the first time around, how about a little gay porn, hmm? Enjoy. ;-)
As we celebrate the release of C. Margery Kempe’s Man City: Martin this week, it got me thinking about M/M love and M/M romance and eventually it turned my naughty Lady Smut thoughts to M/M porn. Super fit, hot-bodied guys doing the bump and grind with other hot-bodied guys. Any problem with that? As it turns out, for many women it’s no problem at all.
Now, obviously, that’s a strong generalization because there are woman a-plenty who poo-poo gay porn – and regular porn – the way Miley Cyrus spurs common sense. But in doing some research for this post, I was more than a little surprised to learn how many woman get off to guys getting off.
You’ll probably remember 2010’s The Kids Are Alright with Annette Bening and Julianne Moore as a lesbian couple raising two children. And you remember that scene, right? The one where Bening and Moore are getting cozy in the bedroom and decide to turn up the heat with a little porn. Gay porn. It was a funny scene but as I’ve heard also accurate. A significant portion of the lesbian population apparently likes watching M/M porn. Seems like a curious statistic. Wouldn’t lesbians prefer watching two hot gals getting busy over two hot guys? Wrong-o, daddy-o. They like the dudes.
A lesbian couple in my building confimed this unexpected bit of trivia. “Oh, lesbians love gay porn!” my neighbor chortled, a knowing smile lighting up her face. But wait, there’s more! Because as I was talking to women and reading up on this topic, I discovered that it’s not only the gay gals who like gay male porn – our straight sisters are liking it, too.
One obvious reason behind many women’s turn-off toward straight porn is that, frankly, we’re not the target audience. Straight porn is made for straight men. From the submissive nature of the female actors to the viewpoint of the sex scenes, it caters to the guys. There’s a reason the male actors are often shown from the chest down, ’cause the viewing male wants to imagine it’s him pounding away on the gal and not some other dude. Gay male porn shows the guys in all their hot, sweaty, ripped-body glory, including their gorgeous faces.
And about those hot bodies . . . yes, that’s another high reason behind why women like the male-male lovin’. Gay porn actors are romance cover models come to life. They’re fit, they’re muscular, they’re just plain hot. And if there are no other women around, there’s no competition. They’re all for us. How delicious.
When I asked a friend about why she enjoys M/M she cited a reason I’ve seen over and over: power dynamics. Straight porn brings to the screen what many women experience in real life. The guy has the power. He comes, he sees, he conquers. The women happily do whatever he wants. Here’s a conversation I can imagine in a straight porn movie:
“Suck me, baby.”
“Ooooh, how hard?”
“Until you choke on it.”
“Okey-dokey!”
And off to the races she goes, cheerfully gobbling his manly tool. But in M/M porn, as one lesbian said, it is, for once, the man who’s getting f**ked. The power dynamics normally seen in straight porn are tossed in the garbage like a used condom. As my friend added, “Watching man-on-man sex and seeing a man giving in to something that seems almost taboo is an intense, erotic experience.”
A further problem in straight porn is how fake it is. Nary a real breast in sight, positions that sometimes look more sadistic than sexy, and the gleeful exuberance that female porn actors show while getting their faces covered in sperm just doesn’t do it for the ladies. Even lesbians, who get no sexual jolt from guys, prefer gay porn to most F/F scenes which, clearly, are made by men for men.
What do you think? Have I missed any of the reasons? Sound off in the comments below and let me know. And while you’re at it, be sure to click on the follow button, too. You never know what titillating topics will pop up here at Lady Smut.
Community: Finding Your Tribe
When you think Virginia Woolf, you may tend to think of the resigned suicide portrayed in The Hours, but she was an innovative writer with a good sense of humour and an ambition to write the kind of stories that fired her imagination.
While troubled and struggling for much of her life, Woolf survived longer than she might have done because she had a community of other writers and creators who gave her inspiration and support. Without that safety net, Woolf probably would have given in to despair even sooner. She was able to complete a number of fascinating and ground-breaking works before she took that final walk to the river.
Woolf wrote, “Some people go to priests; others to poetry; I to my friends.”
Woolf reminds me of the importance of community for writers and for readers. Our work is solitary. It requires a lot of hours simply putting pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. While you can do that anywhere—in your office or out in a coffee shop—the process is one that requires spending much of your day inside your own head where the movies unfurl and you try to capture every nuance (or where you kick the projector to get it running again).
That’s why you need that community—people who understand that need for solitude, the difficulty of the process and the hunger to fill your head. One of the best things about working for small presses like Fox Spirit and Tirgearr is that they bring together a whole new community of writers. There’s a broad range here, from old hands who’ve been writing for years, to people new to the genre and even folks who are publishing for the first time (yay you!).
Largely, the other writers here have been supportive, cheerleading and generous with their knowledge and experience. Our Lady Smut tribe, too. Just look at the blog entries here, where folks offer advice, tips and insight into the writing process and share what turns them on. We find new friends here, on Facebook, on Twitter and the ripples widen (hello, SpeakEasy!)
In other situations, I have seen writers overwhelmed by envy and so competitive as to grudge the least bit of success to others. There’s none of that here. We all know that the success of the genre is a tide that raises all boats. We spread the word not just to promote our own projects, but all our friends here, too. We’re an eclectic bunch and we have publishers who celebrate it. How great is that?
Follow Lady Smut and be part of our community.
Rare recording of Virginia Woolf, 1937, speaking about the craftsmanship of words on BBC Radio
March 16, 2015
Sex. It Does a Body Good
by Kiersten Hallie Krum
Beyond the requisite happy ending, sex does a body good. Turns out, the health properties of getting it on can really help you, well, keep getting on.
Calorie burner: On average, sex reportedly burns about 85 calories. How did they come up with that average, do you think? Timed trials? Imagine if you had more than one sex “session” a night. You might never use an elliptical again.
Looks like a workout to me.
Protect yourself: Sex can act as an immunity builder. Higher levels of antibodies were found in people who had sex once or twice a week and it’s those little suckers that ward off infections and stuff like the common cold. So next time you need a little boost, put down the OJ and jump on your honey. Just maybe take a decongestant first. Nobody finds phlegm sexy.
Sex also works to alleviate pain since the body produces the oxytocin hormone during sex, which releases endorphins that make just about every ache and pain feel very far, far away. If that knee injury is pinging or those back twinges start acting up, bang them back into shape with some banging.
Put your heart into it: Sex improves cardiovascular health. It makes your heart pound, sure, but women who have more sex produce higher levels of estrogen which helps guard against cardiovascular disease.
Laughter burns calories too. Mash up!
Sex makes you feel good: Well, yes, like that, but also because it boosts self-esteem and creates intimacy. Oxytocin is called the love hormone for a damn good reason and the more it’s released–by having more sex, in case that wasn’t clear–the better women (and men) feel, about themselves and about their partners. Sure sex can be casual and fun, but at its best, it’s deeply intimate and helps build bonds of trust between partners. And done right, it can make you feel fantastic about yourself. In fact, studies show that getting a self-esteem boost is one of more than 200 reasons people give for having sex.
Sleep on it: Oxytocin, the hormone released by orgasm and having sex, also helps you get more and better sleep. So ladies, when your guy passes out right after glimpsing heaven, it’s not you, it’s hormones.
Poor things look tuckered out. Good job!
Our bodies are wondrous vessels that were made for many things. To be strong. To produce life (if we choose to). To nurture. To be amazing. To have sex and enjoy all its many benefits. So the next time your doctor asks “Are you sexually active?” feel free to reply, “How do you think I got so healthy?”
Follow Lady Smut. Mind, body, and soul, we’re always what’s good for you.
March 15, 2015
Does a Man Need the Pill Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle?
Damn. Did I take the Pill this morning?
By Alexa Day
The best thing about the modern march toward gender equality? Every day, I gain new insight about things men want.
Like a few days ago, I heard Ashton Kutcher’s lament that most public men’s rooms don’t have a changing table, which annoys him when he’s out with his little ones. Now, I’ve observed how much space the changing table occupies in our own bathrooms, and I have on at least one occasion used it to keep my pocketbook off the floor. (Trust me here. That floor was frightening.) I figured the men’s room didn’t have a changing table, although I know those newfangled family bathrooms do have them.
But for whatever reason, I didn’t appreciate how difficult the lack of changing tables must be for Ashton and other single dads — like my brother. My brother thoroughly educated me about the whole public changing table situation, and now I get it. (Ashton, if you’re still looking, my brother and his similarly situated friends suggest Target for your changing table needs.) Still, I wonder why more men haven’t complained about that before now, especially since I’m pretty sure that’s how we ladies got our changing tables.
Now I wonder if my lack of insight is keeping me from appreciating the birth control pill for men. I first heard about the male Pill last week, and now I’ve watched a news brief on it, thanks to my colleague Madeline Iva. So I get how the male Pill works, and I’ll be interested to see if the male Pill gets through the FDA gauntlet before the HPV vaccine for grown women does.
I can’t help but wonder, though — why do men need a birth control pill?
I live in a very selfish little world (population: Alexa Day), and so my first thought was that I don’t mind being in charge of birth control. The world is a safer, more functional place if I don’t replicate. Very few things are more important to me than easy access to my very own reliable birth control. After all, if the birth control fails, I figure I have to make the bigger life change, so it makes sense to me that I should take the larger contraceptive responsibility.
Even if men wanted to shoulder more of that responsibility — and good for you, guys, if that’s where you are — I don’t get why the Pill is the way to go. Aren’t condoms easier, less expensive, more available? Sure, beyond the condom, I concede there aren’t a great deal of options, and the choices that do exist either last forever, demand adjustments to one’s sexual repertoire, or require injections into one’s junk. I just didn’t see that the Pill was a better idea.
But now I think I understand.
A man who wants control of his reproductive life has a dearth of options similar to what women had before the Pill. They’ve got surgery, abstinence, rhythm, and condoms. Men haven’t had to face the consequences of pregnancy in the same way that women have, but those few options are more or less where women were once upon a time, right? I don’t know that a male Pill would be quite the same game-changer that the original Pill was, but I’m okay with expanding their birth control options to include something as effective and easily reversed as the original Pill is.
Fair is fair. Things might be even more fair if men could get pregnant, but science isn’t there yet.
Now if the male Pill shoots through the FDA’s hoops without the usual delays, I might be a little miffed. And I’m definitely not relying on someone else’s birth control when I’m sure of my own.
But generally, the male Pill is okay with me.
So what do you think? Do men need the Pill like fish need bicycles?
Do fish need bicycles?
Do men need bicycles?
Think it over. Then follow Lady Smut. We’re 100% effective.
March 13, 2015
Sexy Saturday Round-Up
By Liz Everly and the Lady Smut Bloggers Hello, Sexy! Welcome your Saturday. Kick back, relax, and check out some of our favorite blog posts from this week.
From Liz:
What’s going on with e-books? Dear Author weighs in.
The science behind finding romance on-line.
FaceTime with your vagina.
From Elizabeth:
Proving that truth really is stranger than fiction, six insane sex myths that actually aren’t myths.
The best morning jolt you’ll ever get. 23 deliciously hot guys, drinking coffee.
No time to stay at home masturbate? No problem! Now you can just take your wearable vibrator with you wherever you go.
What your snuggle habits say about your relationship.
From Madeline:
Why isn’t there a male pill? Oh, wait–there is!
Everything you need to know about Lesbian Sex.
Expo + Sex = Sexpo. The World Fair for Sex Workers, 2015 was in Milan this year. Freebie Alert!
From C. Margery Kempe:
Oooh, interview with out own Liz Everly and mystery author Mollie Cox Bryan this week at the SpeakEasy. Put it on your calendar!
An alarming new attack on indie writers and small press
Film critic Anne Billson is sorry she doubted Keanu!
Saffron%20Nights
Stay Hungry, Liz
No More Slutty Slut-Shaming: Q&A with Jackie Horne pt. 2
Hello pretty kittens! Here’s part two of our interview with Jackie Horne, the femme genius behind ROMANCE NOVELS FOR FEMINISTS.
MADELINE IVA: Any guilty pleasures out there in romance land for you, Jackie? Anything you’re reading and being like — oh this is horrible, but I just want to eat it with a spoon anyway…
JACKIE HORNE: When I first read the question, I was tempted to be all self-righteous, and say “oh, I don’t feel guilty about any of my reading. I take pride in being a romance reader.” But then I remembered a few times when I did feel uncomfortable about what I was reading, even while I found myself wanting to read more.
Stephanie Laurens’ books, for example, which feature intriguing sex scenes, but also continually insist that alpha male masculinity is the only masculinity that could ever appeal to a woman (I always wondered how all those alpha male friends managed to be in the same room without killing one another, didn’t you?). Many of Nora Roberts’ romances, which feature strong, empowered women and compelling plots and romance arcs, but which also take fairly conventional gender norms, particularly norms of masculinity, for granted.
Love these covers–Kit Rocha’s Beyond Series.
Most recently, Kit Rocha’s Beyond series, features smoking-hot sex scenes, but places them in a horribly anti-feminist dystopian setting (to challenge patriarchal assumptions? Or to make us not question the far less overt sexism we encounter in our everyday lives?). So that’s what I think of when I think “guilty pleasure”: books that in on one level give me deep pleasure, but on another level make me deeply uncomfortable, typically in response to underlying assumptions or ideology that conflicts with my feminist ideals.
MADELINE IVA: (By the by, our Kiersten Hallie Krum is a *huge* Kit Rocha fan. She’s posted on them HERE and HERE.)
JACKIE HORNE: Those books, though, can be great for helping me clarify my thinking about romance and feminism, though!
MADELINE IVA: Let’s talk about the erotic romance revolution. We at Lady Smut wanna know–in your opinion, can we be brainy and sexy and fun all together?
JACKIE HORNE: When I first joined my local Romance Writers of America (RWA) Chapter, back in 2011, I was surprised by how many members wrote erotic romance. I had no idea what a strong sub-genre erotic romance had become since I had last been an avid romance reader. And once I began to talk with such writers, I realized how frustrated many of them were at the relative lack of respect their sub-genre was given by the romance community at large.
I’m guessing that many romance writers who did not write erotic romance felt compelled to distance themselves from it, and those who wrote it. Already accused of writing “porn for mommies,” romance writers feared being tainted by association by a sub-genre that sat right on the border between romance and porn. And since this sub-genre was being issued by a new set of publishers, often in a new format (ebooks), many likely worried that literary standards set by traditional romance publishers would not be followed or maintained, opening up the genre as a whole for further criticism, and shaking its already tenuous hold on respectability.
In the face of such attitudes, I can totally understand why you all began LadySmut—it met (and still meets) a real need, to publicize, and to advocate for, erotic romance and its writers. Attitudes in the larger romance community have gradually begun to change—RWA awarded a RITA award in the erotic romance category for the first time in 2014—but worries about erotic romance still linger. Yes, you can extend the invitation to brainy and sexy and fun all together, but not everyone is ready to accept it yet, I fear.
MADELINE IVA: And if we can, I want to think there’s a massive audience out there for smart heroines in books — read by smart readers, but in your experience do readers in their quest for ruthless entertainment go for the less brainy type of heroine — or (shudder) the anti-intellectual heroine?
JACKIE HORNE: I always get frustrated when people talk about “romance readers,” as if they are a monolithic group. This is a result of romance being a mass-market product, I think: publishers want to reach the largest possible audience, and so they reduce the vast diversity of romance readers, with all their individual likes and dislikes, into this mythical creation, the “romance reader.” “Romance readers prefer alpha heroes”; “romance readers won’t accept a heroine who was a prostitute”; “romance readers hate brainy heroines.” Ugh! Romance gets watered down to the least common denominator, to meet the tastes of this utterly make-believe “romance reader.”
MADELINE IVA: Point taken.
JACKIE HORNE: Some romance readers do love smart heroines. I myself have always been labeled a brainy girl, and love to find similar characters in the romances I read. Those are the types of characters that I find entertaining, not the less brainy types.
But not every romance reader is an intellectual, or wants to read about intellectual heroines. And you can be smart without being intellectual. Given how vast the romance market is, surely there should be room for many different types of heroines.
MADELINE IVA: Who are the most edgy feminist writers out there today?
JACKIE HORNE: Courtney Milan, who writes historical romances, not ones with anachronistically empowered heroines, but with heroines who struggle against the gender restrictions of their times in believable, but effective ways
Ruthie Knox (and her NA alter ego, Robin York), a contemporary writer who doesn’t just write from a feminist sensibility, but who directly tackles issues relevant to feminism
Victoria Dahl, who began her career as a historical romance writer, but who found her humor and strong feminist views more suited to contemporary romance
Cara McKenna, an erotic romance whose unconventional heroes and heroines are as far from your bland Mary Sue/Stus as you can imagine.
M.L. Buchman, who writes military and adventure romance; his heroes always fall for the heroines because of their strengths, not their weaknesses
Molly O’Keefe, who writes contemporary romances that often challenge conventional romance tropes for feminist purposes
Madeline, you write that you find Urban Fantasy romance ahead of the curve when it comes to kick-ass heroines. But I’ve found fantasy romance in general pretty disappointing when it comes to feminist ideals. Lots of heroines able to fight, but not as many who have romantic relationships that center on mutual respect, equity, and equality. The only authors that I’ve found to be consistently feminist are Meljean Brook and Ilona Andrews. What other urban fantasy writers would you recommend?
It’s urban fantasy but it’s also Y.A./New Adult — so don’t expect wild n crazy sex, kay?
MADELINE IVA: I think that Melissa Marr’s book Wicked%20Lovely
WICKED LOVELY would knock your socks off. But you’ve really crystalized for me exactly what’s going on with Urban Romance. Yes, I do think they’re badass because they fight and say what they want, but you’re right — the romantic relationships are not equal to the rest of the novels in peeps like Kim Harrison and a few others I’ve read…Hmmm. Much to ponder. Last question: Who are the most popular surprisingly feminist authors writing the smexy stuff today?
JACKIE HORNE: Well, you’d probably be better at recommendations here than I will :-). But my favs include:
Thank you so much Jackie — Love your blog, love your mission, and hope you come back and visit us again soon. :) Meanwhile, readers check out some of the spicey hot romance authors listed above and follow us at Lady Smut for your favorite commentary on all things rip roaring in romance land.
March 12, 2015
No More Slutty Slut Shaming: Q&A with Jackie Horne pt1
You know the drill. Click to buy.
by Madeline Iva
Hello lovely readers! Ever wanted to have your feminist romance cake and eat it too? You’re in luck today, because we have with us Jackie Horne who has the awesome-sauce blog ROMANCE NOVELS FOR FEMINISTS–a blog devoted to reviews and commentary from an enlightened perspective. Welcome, Jackie!
JACKIE HORNE: Thanks, Madeline, and the rest of the Ladies Smut for inviting me, and for asking me such provocative questions!
MADELINE IVA: Tell us about you and your blog. Why did you start it? Who reads it? (I do!)
JACKIE HORNE:During my early adolescence (in the late 1970s/early 1980s) I had been an avid, but uncomfortable, reader of Harlequin and Silhouette romances. After I took some Women’s Studies classes in college, I started to understand both my fascination with them (ohh, sex, we’re good girls, we’re not supposed to talk about that, isn’t this illicit fun!) and my discomfort with them (ohh, good girl heroines aren’t supposed to want sex, but pushy guys force it on them for their own good, cue the creepy music). So I stopped reading them.
Fast-forward about twenty years, and I’m a college professor, a scholar of children’s literature, preparing a conference talk about the appeal of the Twilight series. I wanted to better understand the connection between Twilight and the romance genre, so I started to do some academic reading about romance. During that research, I came across an article that basically argued that today’s romances “are not your mother’s romances,” that romance was no longer primarily the preserve of conservative, anti-feminist values.
Lord of Scoundrels
Best. Historical. Evah. Click to buy.
I wondered, could this really be true? Around the same time, I came across an NPR interview that Smart Bitches, Trashy Books did, along with their recommendation to those unfamiliar with the field to give Loretta Chase’s Lord%20of ScoundrelsLord of Scoundrels a try. I decided to go to the library and pick up a copy. And I’ve been reading a steady stream of romance ever since.
MADELINE IVA: It’s addictive! Lord of Scoundrels is basically romance crack.
JACKIE HORNE: While I didn’t quite agree with the author of that article—there’s still a large number of romances out there that instill anti-feminist ideas and values—I did notice that there were some romance novels and novelists that took feminism, and feminist ideas, for granted, and incorporated feminist beliefs in their romance writing. No one seemed to be talking or writing much about this developing trend, and I wanted to talk to other people who were interested in it. So I started my blog, Romance Novels for Feminists, in the fall of 2012. I try to post twice a week: a review/discussion of a romance novel on Tuesdays, and a more general discussion of a topic related to romance and feminism on Fridays.
I’ve been amazed by the diversity of people who read and comment on the blog: romance readers, yes, but also romance writers, aspiring writers, scholars who study romance, and other romance bloggers and reviewers. I love being part of the larger, ongoing conversation about the feminist possibilities (and pitfalls) of romance.
After Hours: (InterMix)
Cara McKenna. Accept no substitutes. Click to buy.
MADELINE IVA: Let’s talk about BDSM. You’ve talked about it before on your blog HERE and it’s something that we at Lady Smut are divided over. I have a theory about BDSM I’d like to share with you, but let me go back a bit first:
In the 80’s (long before I was born, ;>) ‘rape-y’ romances contained forced consent when sex before marriage was still a bit of a conventional no-no. This allowed the female reader back then who identified with ‘good girls’ to still enjoy hot sex scenes. The forced consent provided a kind of arousal mechanism — something hot, but shameful and powerful.
Cut to today: Is BDSM just a more ‘evolved’ form of rapey 80’s sex? On one hand, we again have an arousal mechanism for something hot, shameful, and yet powerful. On the other hand, the basis of many a BDSM scene is all about informed consent and sexual negotiation. Please comment.
JACKIE HORNE: Before I re-started reading romance novels, I knew next to nothing about BDSM. I assumed that any woman who engaged in it in a submissive role must not be a feminist, must have been brainwashed into adopting the patriarchal belief that men must always be in charge and women must submit to their will. But after I encountered Victoria Dahl’s Start%20Me UpStart Me Up, the first romance I ever read with a heroine who wished a man to treat her one way during sex, and quite differently from he dealt with her in day-to-day life, I began to realize the limitations of my previous assumptions. In my blog post about that book, the first book I ever reviewed on RNFF, I wrote about how its protagonist, Lori, enjoys having an aggressive, dominant partner in bed, but how she hates it when her new boyfriend, Quinn, tries to talk on the “saving the damsel in distress” role in her everyday life. Dahl’s book doesn’t depict a BDSM relationship, but it did prepare me to encounter such relationships in erotic romance with a far more open mind.
Natural Law
Joey Hill does alpha males who are submissive. See how she pulls off that hat trick: click to buy.
Is BDSM just a more “evolved” form of rapey 80s sex? Not as far as the rape trope = permission to enjoy hot sex scenes. As you note, there’s so much about consent in the BDSM romance, which seems the opposite of the rapey 80s trope. But yes, perhaps, if you’re right that BDSM serves as a kind of arousal mechanism, one that combines shame and hotness and power.
These are some questions I ask myself when I’m reading a BDSM book: Is the female protagonist making an active choice to participate in BDSM sexuality? Is it something that gives her pleasure, or is she doing it only to appease a lover(s)? Does her lover(s) respect her, outside as well as inside the bedroom (or dungeon, or wherever the kinky times are taking place)? Does she respect herself? If the answer is “no,” then the book is not likely to feel feminist to me.
I’m intrigued by your comments about shame. Does shame amp up the tension, the pleasure? Who is feeling the shame? The character? Or the reader? And is that shame a pleasure, or a turn-off?
Can sexual shame be feminist?
Unbound: (InterMix)
Here’s another BDSM novel that Jackie discusses on her blog. Check it out!–Click to buy.
MADELINE IVA: Does shame amp up the tension and pleasure? Hell yeah! Who is feeling the shame? Good question — in the best kind of BDSM, IMHO, we get the pov of the submissive experiencing it. Bonus points if she’s a very entitled person from the git go. I trust the author more and feel reassured about the consent if we experience the submissive feeling the shame, wanting it, riding it, and then craving more. I think sexual shame can definitely be hot. And if guys can get off on sexual shame then why shouldn’t women if they want to? But we should really be talking to Stephen King about shame–the man is a master manipulator of shame in his novels and readers gobble it up.
Meanwhile, Where do you stand on Bimboification? Is it feminist if the heroine is choosing it of her own free will — or are some things just bad for women because they’re unfeminist no matter what?
JACKIE HORNE: Hadn’t ever heard this term before! Since it’s not yet made it to the Oxford English Dictionary, my go-to for definitions, I had to do a bit of Googling to find it. And came across this by Melissa A. Fabello at Everyday Feminism: [LINK: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/05/sex-positivity-critical-analysis/ ] “a fetish involving women playing up the bimbo stereotype—from her looks (long, blonde hair; large breasts) to her personality (ditzy, man-pleasing, sexually available).”
MADELINE IVA: Yup, that’s it.
JACKIE HORNE: Fabello notes that on the simplest level, if you’re turned on by “extensions, high heels, and an air of vapidness,” then more power to you. But our turn-ons don’t just emerge from a vacuum; it’s important, she argues, to look a bit deeper, to ask why such a thing would be a turn-on? Why should a bimbo be attractive? What culture messages tell us that a bimbo is attractive? And do you want to buy into the whys behind the act? So before saying “yea” or “nay” to a bimboification scene in an erotic romance, I’d want to read it, and analyze how it is functioning: as a camp gesture, one that is serving to call humorous attention to our restrictive gender roles? Or as something that is serving to reinforce anti-feminist gender roles?
MADELINE IVA: I’ve wondered if it’s possible for women writing bimboification scenes (not even saying scenes from romance novels–not sure any exist) to serve as a signal for fourth wave feminism. That “I’ll be whoever the hell I wanna be” kind of gesture which can often take on a certain perversity or uber-femme stance.
JACKIE HORNE: I’ve not read any erotic romances that include bimboification scenes. Are there any out there you’d recommend to a feminist reader?
MADELINE IVA: Nope. Just something I ran across as a kind of tag warning on some smutty stuff around the web. I’m sort of amused that we’re at the stage where what used to be a given in terms of smutty sex is now tagged with a warning label. I kind of love it, actually.
Blonde Date: An Ivy Years Novella (The Ivy Years)
Click to buy. It’s only .99!
On to the next question: by and large women romance readers don’t like promiscuous women. Will we ever be free of the ‘shame’ of sex just for sex’s sake? Or will we eventually see the rise of the ‘boink buddy’ in romance?
JACKIE HORNE: Every romance ends with the creation of a stable, happy, committed romantic relationship. Having multiple sex partners is typically (although not always, in erotic romance) seen as the opposite of such a committed relationship, a threat to it. So I don’t think we’ll see the rise of the “boink buddy” in romance any time soon, unless it’s as a friend-with-benefits who will be set aside by book’s end in favor of a more committed love partner, or a boink buddy who gradually transforms into a committed partner (a la Friends with Benefits film).
MADELINE IVA: Both of those choices sound good to me.
JACKIE HORNE: I do think the stigma surrounding female sexual expression has diminished markedly since the 1980s, though, especially in books written by younger women who have grown up in communities where feminism is taken for granted. Virgins are far from the norm for romance heroines these days, and many, if not the majority, of romance heroines have had an active, pleasure-filled sex life before encountering the person with whom they will establish a long-term romantic relationship.
Truly: A New York Novel (The New York Trilogy Series Book 1)
Click to buy
MADELINE IVA: Yet we still judge women far more harshly than men. It’s clear that while a male hero–say a vampire–can slay hundreds of men, a childless heroine who pursues her career and says what she thinks is just a selfish bitch–and must be unhappy. When-oh-when will we stop judging men and women by different sexual standards? Why are Urban Fantasy writers so ahead of the curve with kick-ass heroines, and why does this seem to go along with thwarted/incomplete romance arcs? Why Jackie, why?
JACKIE HORNE: That’s a lot of questions, Madeline! But they all stem back to the sexual double standard: that sexually experienced men are desirable, but sexually experienced women are flawed, tainted.
When will this change? When more people, women and men, start challenging people who espouse it. Why do you think she’s a slut, but think he’s a stud? Why is an aggressive woman pushy, but an aggressive man assertive? Why do you smile when you hear of a teen boy’s sexual escapades, but frown when you hear of a sexually active teen girl? Why did you just call that woman a bitch, rather than a jerk or an asshole? Why does female sexuality frighten you?
Deeper: A Novel (Caroline & West Book 1)
This woman has the longest legs I’ve ever seen. Click to buy.
Romance authors have a fantastic platform from which to issue such challenges. A small but growing handful of romance authors are threading issues of male privilege, sexual double standards, and internalized sexism into the hearts of their stories. Truly:%20A New York Novel (The New York Trilogy Series Book 1)Ruthie Knox (Truly), Blonde%20Date: An Ivy Years Novella (The Ivy Years)Sarina Bowen (Blonde Date), Deeper:%20A Novel (Caroline & West Book 1)Robin York (Deeper) all depict heroines who gradually recognize, and then actively challenge, the sexism that is placing limits on their lives. I’m hoping that many more romance authors will follow their lead.
That’s the end of part one, folks. Check out Jackie’s blog HERE and for more of her articles/reviews on BDSM look HERE. Check out part two on the blog tomorrow.
And follow us at Lady Smut, before we threaten to crack our feminist whip over your heads. Whoocha!
March 10, 2015
Vikings – The Really REALLY Bad Boys
Two years ago I wrote a post about the hotness factor in gladiators. At the time, the show Spartacus was on and gladiators were having a resurgence of sorts. But that was then and this is now, and it’s time we talked about Vikings.
If you haven’t seen the show, by the gods remedy that – pronto! It’s a delicious feast for the senses – entertaining, compelling plotlines and visually stunning scenery … and I’m not only talking about the jaw-dropping views of mountains and fjords. I’m talking about the gorgeous cast. Travis Fimmel, anyone?
Here’s Travis in his early days when he was just a young ‘un modeling for Calvin Klein. Even back in the day it’s easy to see why he was eventually cast as legendary Norse ruler Ragnar Lothbrok. The chiseled face, blond hair and piercing blue eyes make for a pretty picture as a model, and an intimdating one as he gets older and plays the fearless leader who believes he’s destined for greatness. Now, admittedly, Fimmel isn’t the greatest actor to ever grace the screen. But seriously, with that face – and those abs! – who cares?
Although Fimmel may be the star of the show, he’s not the only gorgeous guy in the cast. Let’s take a moment and talk about Clive Standen. Never heard of him? Well, ladies, let your eyes raid this:
Any complaints? I thought not.
Ragnar Lothbrok also has a pretty hot son, played by Hunger Games actor Alexander Ludwig, who now in Vikings’ 3rd season is all grown up and ready to plunder.
The females in the cast are just as beautiful. I particularly adore Katheryn Winnick as Lagertha, Ragnar’s former wife. She’s as badass as they come, fighting right alongside the men during the fiercest of battles. Actress Winnick is perfectly, cast, too. In real life she’s an accomplished martial artist, obtaining her first black belt at age 13. She’s also a licensed bodyguard and owns a string of taekwondo studios. In other words. don’t f**k with her.
It’s true that historical vikings were nothing to admire. They raided, they pillaged, they raped women, they killed innocents, they took what wasn’t theirs. They weren’t bad boys to be admired, they were truly bad boys from which to run far far away. And to be fair, the History Channel’s series doesn’t entirely look the other way when it comes to the harsh reality of what vikings were and did. A friend of mind, in fact, doesn’t watch the show because she says it’s too violent. The battle scenes are bloody, it’s true, although for me the most gruesome scene of the entire series thus far was the “blood eagle” ceremony from season 2. If you don’t know what that is, brace yourself. Or hit the fast forward button.
Alongside the beautiful cast and scenery, the plotlines keep me hooked. There’s really compelling subtext going on in the character of Athelstan, a former monk who was captured and later befriended by Ragnar. Athelstan suffers pangs of spiritual crisis, hovering between his former Christian identify and his new Pagan one.
So grab a cup of glog and giving Vikings a try. It’ll bring out the warrior in you.
