Vivian > Status Update

This is not a new concept. It is well known. I will try to find some good links regarding the discussion rather than rehashing it here. Recently I've seen a lot of friends of GR, some closer than others, feeling very uncomfortable with their enjoyment of M/M romance.

And that makes me sad. Makes me upset. Hell, I've burned enough bridges in the last six months, let me burn another. I'm pretty much completely disenfranchised, anyway.



Men policing women's fantasies is NOT acceptable to me.

Shaming women for their sexuality is NOT acceptable to me.

I have to be honest with you, GFY is not a trope I'm overly vested in because I think it addresses issues of patriarchal concepts of virginity. But as a feminist, I support other women's desire for it. Just because it isn't the first cupcake I'd grab doesn't mean I don't think it has a place.

We are all working through personal issues. Books allow us to transport into another reality and space, to try it on, or just escape for a while. And face it, not all Neapolitan ice cream is made the same.

Yes, I hear screams of appropriation.

--Please answer me: What's wrong with women projecting themselves into male bodies? The rampant misogyny and inequity that makes one wish they had the freedom of males or the fact they feel more comfortable identifying as such.

Personally I feel that if someone is feeling uncomfortable with their choices that person is responsible for those feelings. There most be something in their subconscious to bring upon that feeling. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with owning up to your likes (and dislikes); you can't please everyone. So be happy and please yourself. If someone elese wants to judge you for them, so what? again you can't please everyone.

Huh? What happened now???

I agree in premise. The problem is that female desire and sexuality have been repressed and regulated for so long that when confronted with loud screams, the first reaction for many women is:

"What have I done wrong?"

That sense of blame and wrongdoing is endemic in our social constructs. And it manifests into shame, whether or not it is warranted.

Anke wrote: "Huh? What happened now???"

The ongoing and vigorous discussion of GFY the past week.

Sorry, I didn't do a reply-to with my comment, Mercedes.

Emma makes some very good points about the romance versus erotica and pleasure coding.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Very interesting and brave.

To be honest I still don't understand what the big hullabaloo about this is. The way I see Julio's post is as simply pointing out elements of the GFY trope that are problematic. Elements that are continually exploited to sell books. I can't tell you how many GFY books I have read that are written by women and are incredibly misogynistic. Also have seen this in not GFY, but it seems GFY needs to put women down in order to sell the plot. This is incredibly disappointing.
If people choose to ignore those problematic elements so they can enjoy a book, so be it. Enjoy your book, be titillated but know that there are parts of certain books that are offensive to some people.

Misogyny is rampant in MM, though I've read less of it than when I first started in the genre. I often ask myself if women hate each other that much being conditioned to compete non-physically or if they hate themselves that much.

Vivian wrote: " I often ask myself if women hate each other that much being conditioned to compete non-physically or if they hate themselves that much."

It baffles my mind and makes me incredibly sad.

Mercedes wrote: "Vivian wrote: " I often ask myself if women hate each other that much being conditioned to compete non-physically or if they hate themselves that much."

It baffles my mind and makes me incredibly sad."

Exactly.

Mel wrote: "Very interesting and brave."

I've seen this surface several times over the past few months and this week I saw friends on my feed SHRIVEL. I want their exuberance back. I made this statement for them.

Well, I hope this works out for you, but let me tell you from experience: trying to achieve something for others seldom works. I have very bad memories of trying to do that; most probably it results in backlash.

*hugs Viv*

I am a shriveler. I have shriveled.
I can't cope with conflict at all. I'm a big, fat flower :(

I get where you're coming from... except no, I don't really.

I've heard this argument many times that MM romance springs from a mystical gyno-centric source where women can act out their issues by projecting themselves into male bodies. And that is nonsense.

In a closed forum or writers' workshop or some other protected space you can work out issues to your heart's content. But these are not generic avatars, they are lgbtq characters who, perforce, represent lgbtq human beings. You cannot write about gay men and then say, oh they don't represent ACTUAL gay men, so the hurt doesn't count.

And! These stories, no matter what the writer's intent was, are marketed and sold to the book-buying public as gay romance, the vast majority of that public has no idea that maybe-sometimes lgbtq men in a book are supposed to represent women working out their issues with sexuality and the patriarchy.

The product for sale and consumption is a romance novel starring human beings (usually), representing real-life human beings, and if they tell you that this book/blurb/advertisement is hurtful then it is.

MostlyDelores wrote: "I get where you're coming from... except no, I don't really.

I've heard this argument many times that MM romance springs from a mystical gyno-centric source where women can act out their issues by projecting themselves into male bodies. And that is nonsense."

I think that it has been proven fairly clearly that MM romance is derived from slash fiction.

Whether women either identify or identify sexually from a male point of view is for the individual to decide. There is a spectrum of gender orientation.

Romance is fantasy, not education.

Natasha wrote: "*hugs Viv*

I am a shriveler. I have shriveled.
I can't cope with conflict at all. I'm a big, fat flower :("

{{hugs}}
You are not alone.

Mercedes wrote: "To be honest I still don't understand what the big hullabaloo about this is. The way I see Julio's post is as simply pointing out elements of the GFY trope that are problematic. Elements that are c..."

This is how I feel as well. For me, there are certain books which I simply refuse to read because they are incredibly troubling to me personally. And it's incredibly offensive if after, expressing my reasons, in a review without rating the book, people get hostile and dismissive of my personal feelings. If they like GFY. Fine. We enjoy what we enjoy, simply ignore my post and read those of people they're likely to agree with.

I don't get all the drama around a couple of reviewer's opinions.

Well, I do. I think that societal pressures lead a lot of women to be overly invested in seeming 'good'. It's difficult for us to own our desires and interests particularly when it comes to sex. MM romance genre tends to be fairly erotic and comes with it's own societal issues related to homophobia, etc.

If the need to seem 'good' (whatever socio-political meaning that carries for a woman) is paramount, then the MM genre can be a rickety bridge for many of us. We want to believe ourselves open-minded and supportive of the gay community. We also want to get our rocks off; emotionally, sexually, whatever.

What happens when the two interests seem to conflict? I think the reaction tends to be rather knee-jerk. We enjoyed, what we enjoyed, maybe we're a bit conflicted about it, maybe we aren't. Then someone actually gay, not MM gay, comes along and says, 'this is problematic and here's why'. We could simply ignore the post and move on. But, that might not seem 'nice'. We can say, 'I get where you're coming from and it's a lot to think about, but you'll pry this book from my cold, dead fingers'. But that might make us seem insensitive and especially in the case of erotic fiction, a little trampy.

And we identify as good.

The only way out then becomes to invalidate somene's feelings and experiences by telling them how they should or shouldn't; feel or think. The dialogue just devolves from there.

Vivian wrote: "This is not a new concept. It is well known. I will try to find some good links regarding the discussion rather than rehashing it here. Recently I've seen a lot of friends of GR, some closer than o..."

And I have like, 87 reasons for disliking most MM 1-80 being the pure, gluttonous cynicism which have publishers turning out one, horribly written, edited-while-blindfolded (my kink may not be your kink, but hey, at least remove the blindfold at work) bowl of sludge after another in the name of profit. The last seven reasons tend to be about my personal social bell-ringers.

I have no patience for GFY these days, for reasons stated by both you and Julio and a couple of my own. Does that mean it shouldn't exist? No.
Maybe...it's mostly a 'me' thing. But I tend to feel that if someone expresses hurt over something, that it isn't about me. I can choose to listen and try to understand, or I can choose to move on. But as an adult, responsible feminine person on this planet; Its my opinion that if my response is,"What have I done wrong?"; that says something about my own lack of self-confidence and -esteem; that I am unable to apply critical thinking to the information received and assess my own behavior and come up with an answer as to it's rightness or wrongness.

I find it troubling that this argument stems from the idea that Julio's review is policing the fantasies of women. I read the book blurb and wrote a review before ever seeing Julio's. Somehow, no one seems to care that the bi white woman objects to this blurb FOR THE SAME REASONS, but boy are we all filled with wrath against the far more eloquent brown guy. I can't imagine there's any kind of racism at work since this is a community built on love is love, amirite? But I digress.

*I* was ignored or given a pass, however you want to see it, because my voice is smaller? Because every troll on that page didn't notice my review even though it was posted before Julio's and when only a few existed for the book? I see no one is commenting on the fact that the marketing here is the problem and the objection. I did have someone say they want to hear from a marketing professional that this is about marketing.

*waves* Hey, Hi, marketing professional, right here! Bi, female, MARKETING PROFESSIONAL.

If people feel shame for reading this book, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not shaming anyone for reading the book. I have (as Julio did) simply pointed out the fact that the blurb is hurtful and GFY is HURTFUL. And we are Hurting. For a community based on LOVE IS LOVE, it seems to me that we could use quite a bit less fantasizing and quite a bit more loving.

Wow. So many good thoughts, Penny.

I have zero commentary on publishing competency or practices, but I'm also not ignorant to the fact that they write for profit. Each component is designed to get the reader to purchase, some do a better job than others.

My point here is that MM romance's origin is vastly different than gay fiction, catering primarily to different audiences. Sure there's overlap.

MM romance was created by woman to more satisfactorily deal with issues of romance and eroticism than found in traditional romance. Those issues are wide and complex, overarching a variety of themes.

Castigating woman who are expressing their sexuality is NOT acceptable to me. The last few months there has been a growing and very vocal berating of how woman explore issues of sex, kink, and romance in regards to MM.

Heated and emotional lashing outs that subside into rationed discourse, but start off as fire grenades.

It is NOT FOR MEN to dictate how women identify with erotic material, imo. And screaming and intentionally creating a hostile environment is not conducive rational discourse.

I'm not a fan of the Attack and Parley strategy.

liz wrote: "I have (as Julio did) simply pointed out the fact that the blurb is hurtful and GFY is HURTFUL.

I'm saying there's more than one interpretation of GFY. One that has zero to do with gay sex. To see something through only one band of the prism is myopic.

Btw. This statement is not in reply to a single incident or person's review or status update. I have seen multiple male reviewers making various comments or lashing out.

Vivian wrote: "To see something through only one band of the prism is myopic."

Ah. I see what you did there with prism. Rainbows. Clever.

Here's the thing, telling someone they aren't entitled to feel hurt about a common interpretation of a hurtful to many trope, screams of privilege, no matter how you slice it. It's more important for readers of "GFY" to use those words and that idea than it is to acknowledge the people it hurts. And certainly the idea that all the men are "lashing out" must mean that those of us of the female persuasion are...what? Taking their backs. To be clear, I'm standing on my own 2 feet saying, again, THIS HURTS ME. It hurts to have this community I've loved and found a home in ignore how it hurts me and mostly ignore me when I SAY it hurts.

Keep dismissing me rather than acknowledging inherent problems in this community. That's fine. Now we all know where we stand.

liz wrote: "I find it troubling that this argument stems from the idea that Julio's review is policing the fantasies of women. I read the book blurb and wrote a review before ever seeing Julio's. Somehow, no o..."

Exactly. Julio never said "Don't read this book." He just explained the problems with the trope. That's it.

Vivian wrote: "This is not a new concept. It is well known. I will try to find some good links regarding the discussion rather than rehashing it here. Recently I've seen a lot of friends of GR, some closer than o..."

Beautifully said, Vivian! Amen to all that.

liz wrote: "Vivian wrote: "To see something through only one band of the prism is myopic."

Ah. I see what you did there with prism. Rainbows. Clever.

Here's the thing, telling someone they aren't entitled to..."

Edited for clarity my previous comments which caused confusion are under the tags since I don't know how to do the strike through thingy (view spoiler)[An author, either jokingly, or not; it's hard to know her original intent; made comments in her FB timeline about turning the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings story into a BDSM romance; that it was really 'going to happen'. She made joking reference to Jefferson ordering Hemmings over to restraints. Once things heated up, she said it was a joke in bad taste. There was no such book in the works.

One of the things I noticed, whichI'm seeing a little of here...is that her twitter feed included comments from a number of women of color. But this author simply didn't respond to them...she skipped right over their comments and responded instead to white women who said basically the same thing...actually, even addressing her apology to them. It wasn't until a few people kind of called her out on it, that she began making responses to some of the black women who commented on her feed. The whole situation left a bad taste in my mouth and a bit of an ugly feeling in the pit of my stomach. (hide spoiler)]

There was a situation a while ago which left a bad taste in my mouth and it seemed like the parties, most concerned in the issue were not considedered and important part of the conversation.

So, I can kind of recognize Liz's frustration here. She is a woman too. And if this is a feminist issue, her concerns deserve equal time with everyone else's.

Though honestly, it's difficult to see this as a feminist issue. I do love, love the points you make Viv about the reason many women read and write MM...they totally resonated with me.

I guess the part that doesn't, is the idea that we need to be somehow 'protected' from men determined to oppress our sexuality. We vastly outnumber men in this dialogue, the majority of arms slinging mud have been female; and the targets a tiny minority of the MM readership community.

And of course men have the right to express themselves regarding anything from sailing stories to women's erotica, as GR is primarily an opinion site. It feels like we're giving away a victory already won by framing a man's thought on this topic as a 'dictate'. In doing so, it's saying that his opinion carries more weight than mine; which is not something I'm willing to concede.

I'm not a victim. I'm not oppressed. Honestly, if the ideas of a few men, on a book review site about a genre dominated by women, is a threat to the expression of my sexual/emotional freedom; that is a personal problem. Shutting down the voices of those who disagree with the status quo will not help me.

Also, MM is an evolving thing, the fanfic, the yaoi, tended to be egregious on soooo many levels. The industry didn't develop and then just decide to create a better product, people criticized, people talked; a lot of those voice which contributed to the discussion were LGBTQ and we (the larger community which make up MM readership) benefitted. Change is often hard and uncomfortable but brings rich rewards. And now I've rambled on for a million years...apologies.

I refuse to respond to someone implying I'm racist.

Pendragonish wrote: "An author, either jokingly, or not; it's hard to know her original intent; made comments in her FB timeline about turning the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings story into a BDSM romance; that it was really 'going to happen'. She made joking reference to Jefferson ordering Hemmings over to restraints. Once things heated up, she said it was a joke in bad taste. There was no such book in the works.

One of the things I noticed, whichI'm seeing a little of here...is that her twitter feed included comments from a number of women of color. But this author simply didn't respond to them...she skipped right over their comments and responded instead to white women who said basically the same thing...actually, even addressing her apology to them."

I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE EVERY POINT SOMEONE FEELS LIKE MAKING IN THIS THREAD. Feel free to start your own or comment on threads addressing issues that interest you.

I have responded to comments as they pertain to the statement that I made about men policing a genre women created to explore and express their physical and emotional desires.

Pendragonish wrote: "It feels like we're giving away a victory already won by framing a man's thought on this topic as a 'dictate'. In doing so, it's saying that his opinion carries more weight than mine; which is not something I'm willing to concede. "

this concerns me a little.

responding to a stated point of view isn't giving more weight to that view. It's continuing the discussion. Adding a voice to a complex issue.

The alternative - ignoring a view contrary to yours - is something I'm not super comfortable with. Yeah, sometimes it's worth more emotional energy than you have, or want to spend. Because spoons. But sometimes it feels like your mom telling you to "just ignore the bullies and they'll stop."

Vivian's post didn't mention Julio, rather the current debate in general about GFY. But other commenters have name dropped Julio, so let me be clear: I am not saying Julio is a school yard bully. I am using a general metaphor for debate in online spaces.

I'm saying women often get told we should take the high ground. That we're wrong to respond, because it feeds the trolls. Or that, as Pendragonish has stated, it validates the arguments against us.

And we internalize that. too, you know? We think about how we're supposed to take other people's feelings into consideration. We don't want to alienate people. We don't want to have others unfriend us. We don't want retaliation.

We should be discussing this. Debating it. Hotly, if necessary. That's how the genre grows.

Vivian thank you - this statement is spot on. No shaming!

I have way too much conflict irl that I hate to see this happening in my happy bubble.

Omigosh Vivian, I'm sorry, I was in no way implying you are a racist. I truly apologize for making my point in a clumsy way, if that's what you took from it.

I'd only intended to acknowledge Liz and her feeling of being overlooked during as the dialogue surrounding this issue has developed, even though she is both female and bisexual.
And I honestly never considered the author I mentioned a racist either, merely tone deaf at first and then incredibly uncomfortable in the aftermath.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Vivian. I appreciate it.

Emma Sea wrote: "Pendragonish wrote: "It feels like we're giving away a victory already won by framing a man's thought on this topic as a 'dictate'. In doing so, it's saying that his opinion carries more weight tha..."

I haven't said we shouldn't discuss it. I guess I'm really getting it wrong in expressing myself tonight.

A man can write a GR review denigrating the genre or the way it's written and then I can write one disagreeing with his point of view; his opinion carries no more weight than mine. And for me, framing his thoughts as 'policing' or 'dictates' implies my opinion is somehow 'less than'; and grants his opinion power that it simply doesn't have.

By the way, followed Vivian's link to your review and it was amazing. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Pendragonish wrote: "A man can write a GR review denigrating the genre or the way it's written and then I can write one disagreeing with his point of view; his opinion carries no more weight than mine. And for me, framing his thoughts as 'policing' or 'dictates' implies my opinion is somehow 'less than'; and grants his opinion power that it simply doesn't have."

hmm, so you're saying that by calling one person's opinion "policing" we are giving it the weight of authority? As if we are considering them to be in a position over us, and able to control what we do/say?

because if so, I dont think that's the intended meaning of 'policing' here

like when some dude on the street calls me a 'fat bitch:' that's policing. That's body shaming to maintain cultural norms. It doesn't mean he has authority. His statement is attempting to claim authority, but naming his behavior as policing doesn't put him actual charge of body weight and the social requirement for women to present themselves as sexually pleasing to men. Naming it policing identifies opinionated speech as an attempt to wield force, which it is. it doesn't mean I dont have equal force available.

Pendragonish wrote: "Omigosh Vivian, I'm sorry, I was in no way implying you are a racist. I truly apologize for making my point in a clumsy way, if that's what you took from it.

I'd only intended to acknowledge Liz a..."

I have zero tolerance for passive-aggressive attacks.

I can't breakdown your statement since it has been deleted. But four paragraphs, two being devoted to a charming, seemingly unrelated anecdote about another online discourse you were witness to where "an author" made an appalling racial aside in order to chastise my behavior for not addressing what you wanted, in the manner you wanted, by implying that I was mimicking such behavior is not acceptable. Followed on by a subsequent statement which attempted to turn my comment about this being a feminist issue for me and therefore since Liz is a woman I was required to respond to all her statements even those off topic was so wrong.

Piece of advice, take or leave it. Consider your words carefully for you will be judged by them and crying "I'm misunderstood" after the fact is suspect.

You may say whatever you like, but I am not obligated to respond or forgive.

Juniper Green wrote: "Vivian, you don't know me, I don't know you, but I wanted to leave a quick "thank you".

I left Goodreads last summer - because I had the feeling that I spent more time justifying what I like"

You are welcome, Juniper. I am sorry your experience led you to withdraw; I completely understand. A hostile environment is not the kind of place one wants to go to share any part of themselves.

Vivian wrote: "Pendragonish wrote: "Omigosh Vivian, I'm sorry, I was in no way implying you are a racist. I truly apologize for making my point in a clumsy way, if that's what you took from it.

I'd only intended..."

You are of course in no way obligated to forgive, it was simply my obligation to offer an apology.

Unless you have deleted my comments, you'll find them under the spoiler tag.

And now, I'll see my way out.

Hi, Shelley.

My statement here is about the GFY trope, and how there is more than one interpretation of what GFY is. There is more than the one touchstone for readers than a guy refusing to identify as gay. Looking at many of the readers I know who are enthusiastic about the GFY trope, a major, often overwhelming component of the trope is the concept of virginity.

Look at some shelf names I found: gfy-ofy, anal virgin, bye bye butt virginity, mm first time, awakening or acceptance, butt virgin, pop that anal cherry, virginal virgin bottom, he got his cherry popped, bisexual--and that's just one page of reviews for a popular book shelved GFY.

And yes, my statement is that women created a space to explore their sexuality: physical, social, and psychological in ways that traditional venues didn't allow. For some, it was the freedom to be sexually open, for others it was to explore non-physical elements of their sexuality--tentative exploration of the spectrum of sexuality and gender identity.

Emma's commentary on the twisted nature of romance and erotica explains better than I could how pleasure is coded. What is acceptable and what is not in western society.

My grievance is that men---men coming into M/M, a space women created to explore their psychological, emotional, and physical desires and screaming that they are wrong is not acceptable.

This statement is not in response to a single incident on GR. It has been ongoing for months by multiple male reviewers. Rational discourse is not an intended outcome. It is aggressive and hostile, and I find that not acceptable.

I'm not discussing books labeled queer or gay fiction. I'm talking about M/M, wherein woman prefer to identify as male in a romance for whatever reason they want.

Shelley wrote: "I'm really not okay with silencing real people who have been caused real pain and then turning around and casting them in the role of oppressor b/c they spoke up and spoke out."

And I am really not okay with men policing women's sexuality.

My grievance is that men---men coming into M/M, a space women created to explore their psychological, emotional, and physical desires and screaming that they are wrong is not acceptable.

There is no such space. These are books. You cannot dictate how a consumer product for sale at Amazon or Smashwords or ARe is read. People buy books and read them and it is ludicrous to expect them to decode that in this particular book, the characters who look and speak and act like men are really not men at all but the men-shaped suits that author is trying on. Especially since on the next shelf over, there's a book containing "gay men" who are actually gay men, no hocus pocus required.

I have no interest in discussing poor marketing and shelving strategies or education of potential readers. Science fiction and fantasy often get mixed together and we have trusted the reader to figure out for themselves if they want to read Asimov or Tolkien.

I do not believe that M/M or gay readers are any less intelligent or require special handling.

I read most of these comments, but not all. I'll just, say this:

As a woman who has been reading gay fiction, m/m romance , fanfic, etc for many years, I'm of the opinion that, while it might have started out as a way for women to express their sexuality as men (or however you put it), it has now evolved way past that.

I, for one, cannot side with anyone saying that we should ignore people that feel hurt by how some authors fetishize gay men (or denigrate other cultures, etc., etc.) in their books just because this genre is "not for them!" But dude....You're writing about them, so I'm sorry but that's the epitome of not cool at all. IMO these sorts of statements are just as damaging and non-inclusive as many statements made during the whole The Garçonnière brouhaha. And if that's not how you meant it, I'm sorry (not sorry) to say that that's how it came across.

I, as a not 100% straight Woman with a gay brother, feel hurt and have felt hurt by the way gay men or bi men have often been portrayed in this genre, in the past and now but I certainly keep reading and hoping for the better. Or I just don't read those problematic authors. And you know what? I don't. Which means I only read books by a few hand picked authors.

Imo it's problematic when gay allies say that they should be able to read and write whatever they want about gay men because this genre is not for them. That's just as messed up as gay men saying women shouldn't write about them.

No one is saying you shouldn't read or write whatever you want (I personally don't give a good goddamn what people think of what I read. If they don't like it, oh well.) , just like I wasn't saying that the author of The Garçonnière shouldn't have written her book. People are saying that certain ways of writing about certain subjects in this genre CAN BE hurtful, as it was proven then, as it was proven now.

Like Pendragonish said, if someone feels attacked because people (not just men, but people) are saying a way of writing about a trope is hurtful... Well... Why is that, do you think?

Erika wrote: "I read most of these comments, but not all. I'll just, say this:."

Hi, Erika.

I am reading your comment as conflating various discussions going on simultaneously. As I've stated before, I'm only going to address the issue I brought up in my statement. I haven't talked about any books in general.

My statement only focuses on the GFY trope. Stating that it has different interpretations depending on how one approaches it. And that men constraining the interpretation, of defining how GFY is one thing and chastising women for enjoying a different interpretation is not acceptable.

Ok so can you point me to some of these posts, because you seem to be saying we are talking about two different things.