Filed under: Letters of Opinion, Misc
Romantic Times convention took place a couple of weeks ago. Since the convention, a few people spoke up about their experiences which included a negative reaction to the antics of the Ellora’s Cavemen. SB Sarah said that the Cavemen acted like cavemen and were overly grabby. JC Wilder reported a poorly thought up 9/11 tribute which included strippers and a porn star grabbing themselves in military regalia and later one of the cavemen simulating a sex act with a woman. (Note, according to a pro-Caveman commenter and author, Trista, the stripper remained a whole 12 inches away from the woman at all times while simulating the sex act.) Lori Foster’s report praised the event, cheered the harmless entertainment (the costume balls), but was disturbed by the acts of the Cavemen.
The push back against this is that those who do not wholesale condone or appreciate outward displays of sexuality are prudes or anti-sex. This latter sentiment echoed the arguments of those who defended the Open Source Boob Project. (I refer to this argument as The Ferret Chorus). For those who didn’t follow OSBP, a few guys started asking women if they would offer their breasts up to be touched. It morphed into the OSBP and was rolled out with buttons at PenguiCon. In order to not be groped, you had to wear a non-groping a button. That’s right, it was an opt out program. Now, PenguiCon is synonymous with a convention where women have to wear a button on their boobs to avoid being groped by strangers.
Similarly, I think the RT convention is becoming a conference that is no longer about romance readers meeting romance authors and romance authors taking writing seminars, but instead is becoming the con of ribald and tawdry antics. As stated by author Trista,
You know it happens every year and you complain, than turn around and go again the next year. It’s not going to change. Next year there will be yet another round of complaints. Someone was offended, someone acted inappropriately. If you want conservative, safe, then go to Lori’s event (It is alot of fun, I’m not putting it down). If you want a little more, then attend RT. It’s as simple as that.
Essentially, if you want to be “safe”, you should not go to RT. I hope this isn’t the message because what a scary one it is. The message is that if I attend RT, I should expect to be groped. If I attend RT, I should expect to see graphic sex acts. I should not expect to be safe and if I am not a prude, I should enjoy it. That’s the unintentional message that is being sent and it is not being sent to just romance readers or romance authors but to others outside the genre.
What would we say if Locus magazine, the venerated science fiction/fantasy magazine, would host a convention attended primarily by male readers and its male authors. It hosted an event which included staged events featuring young, nearly nude, nubile women and allowed another publisher, say, Eos, bring in a number of porn stars and strippers who engaged in lewd acts with the attendees in hosted events and in the bar. What would we romance readers think of a conference like that or a publisher who did those things?
The defense to this is that it represents what romance is truly about. Some would argue that romance should own up to its prurient side. The charge is that we should let go of our high minded, elitist shields and accept romance for what it is - graphic descriptions of sex wrapped up in a socially acceptable package. We read it, the argument goes, to be sexually aroused. If the most sexual organ is the brain, then how are words any different than pictures. How is reading about a woman strumming her clit different than a picture or a short video of the same?
There are some types of disagreements that will always reside within our romance community. On one end are the authors and readers who are disgusted by the inclusion of books that contain homosexuality or polyamorous relationships within the romance umbrella. There are others who, at one time, viewed all books published by Ellora’s Cave as nothing more than porn.
I think the answer comes from a non romance writer - Lois McMaster Bujold. On the Eos blog, Bujold writes of difference of writing romance v. fantasy. She defines the genres as follows:
if romances are fantasies of love, and mysteries are fantasies of justice, I would now describe most F&SF as fantasies of political agency.
Love, for me, is inextricably intertwined with sex. Romances fulfill the love fantasy through the argument that a union with just a mental bond is not as strong as mental and physical bond. Matthew 10:8, if I can offer a biblical reference says “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall join to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?” The union, no matter how it is populated, it made one through a physical act.
But no matter how sex is used, as physical release, plot conflict, or expression of love - it is not simply porn because it invokes a physical reaction. Measuring whether a book is porn or romance based on the physical response it invokes is dangerous and misleading. Victims have reported both lubrication and orgasm during forced or non consensual sexual stimulation.
Women may succeed in having sexual intercourse with unwilling men because the anger, fear, and pain that such intimidation can evoke, although unwelcome, can cause sexual arousal or even orgasm.
Family Health International (citing R. Levin & W. Berlo, Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation, Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, Vol. 11, Issue 2, Pages 82-88).
Now, this is not to say that sexually explicit scenes in romance engender physical response due to anger, fear and pain but it does show that basing the romance = porn argument on a mere physical response is fallacious. There can be conscious arousal, unconscious arousal and automatic arousal. We can choose books that we know can be titillating but still satisfying on an emotional level. I would argue that a physical response is the result of good writing. If a book can make you cry, you are having a physical manifestation to an emotional stimulus. If a book can make you aroused, it is any different? You simply have a physical manifestation of an emotional stimulus.
The overt sexualization of the romance industry whether it is through chestless covers or half dressed women or cover models stimulating sex scenes at a reader and writer’s conference elevates only one component (sexuality within romances) and unfairly brushes the industry with a broad red brush. That taint is undeserved because romance is more than heaving bosoms and oiled chests. Many books within the genre have no sex or very little or is represented in a closed door manner. If all that readers wanted was sexy stuff wrapped up in a pretty package, you have to wonder why more explicit erotica and erotic romances aren’t more successful. I’ve not seen one Aphrodisia on the romance Bookscan top 100. Bookscan is a list that measures sales figures for books. It’s generally deemed to be unreliable for those books that are sold in grocery stores and big box stores but for books whose sales are made primarily in bookstores and through online sales, Bookscan is pretty darn accurate.
Romance is not porn and I think that EC and RT do a disservice to the genre by focusing on one component above everything else, further promoting the equation of romance with porn. What does it say about the genre if the highlight of the event is to get your picture taken with prostitutes and xrated porn stars? Is it really then about books? I don’t think so. I think that the innocence of RT has been slowly eroding.
I attended this year RT, which was my first.
I didn’t really see what happened on stage during EC party. My table was too far and too many people blocking the view. But I do see some disturbing behaviors outside, which at that time (during the convention time) think everyone perceived as normal.
Maybe because I came from different culture (Thailand) and lived quite a shelter life, I thought those things were quite normal at RT and I am just too naïve. To be clearer, I don’t think the oversexualization is normal in the US (I spent a few year studying and working there to know it better) but since I never went to RT, I think it is normal. And if this is normal, it may mean that I am not suitable for RT.
My impression for the event is mix. I loved meeting and seeing authors, talking with fellow readers, catching with few friends. But I don’t like the sexual theme. Frankly, it is embarrassing me. I love romance and read in almost every genes including erotic romance. I am not ashamed to talk or recommend a good erotic romance to a friend but I do not like it bluntly pushing in my face. However, I don’t mean that everything should hide behind closed doors. But I believe some tasteful presentation would be more efficient.
~That taint is undeserved because romance is more than heaving bosoms and oiled chests.~
Word.
I’m annoyed when I read if you don’t enjoy/approve of the reported groping, simulated sex, half naked guys etc at the con you’re old or a prude or just don’t get the fun.
Great article and I couldn’t agree more.
I think that to focus on only one component, ie. sex, as you put it, is to be dismissed and disrespectful to the writers that put so much effort on other components of their stories. Yes, sex is an important part of the romance novels but also the empotional aspects of the story, the plot, the sense of humour, the historical research and so and so forth.
Jane, the article cut off right at the end before it was done?
Why should someone have to wear a button to tell people they don’t want to be groped? Shouldn’t that be a given? My boobies are not your personal playthings. I didn’t even like it when my ex tried to cop a feel on our first date. I’m sure not going to want some stranger coming up to me a groping.
The OSBP was not opt-out (as I gather). If you were wearing either the opt out button or no button at all, you weren’t asked.
As for the over-sexualisation of romance through these public events - I’ve never been to RT so can’t speak to actual behaviour of EC’s ‘cavemen’ but the whole idea of having male models is ridiculous. To me. If they were dressed in pinstriped powersuits or wearing a white lab coat and glasses it would still be ridiculous to me.
Though the situation would be exacerbated if, say, it was a RWA conference featuring male models, despite RT being a privately run event, I would also hope that they reach some sort of compromise between the ‘like it’ ‘don’t like it’ factions. Can they reserve a room or area or sthng for those interested in getting pictures taken/socialising?
Wrt osbp, some said that cordoning it off to a specific area will defeat the purpose of the project but unlike osbp, EC’s male models aren’t attempting to engage in any sort of social experiment. It’s strictly entertainment.
On another note - what’s this talk about prostitutes and porn stars? They’re models. Right?
I think it is possible to approach RT as a professional and come away from it with a positive, not overly sexualized experience. I did. But I should also mention that I didn’t attend any of the parties. I was there to give panels, participate in the publisher spotlight, work in Club RT and to meet with my authors during the week. I arrived on Monday (the con started officially on Wednesday) for a pre-writer’s conference I did a panel for, and left on Friday morning, after all of my appointments and obligations were met.
For me, because of how I approached RT, it was a different conference than for others. It was still a fun conference for me, I had a good time, but I didn’t see much of what went on. Maybe because I wasn’t there for the parties, but for the business. Others approached it differently, because it’s their vacation, time to meet up with friends, and have a good time. I don’t think either approach is invalid or wrong, but it does make the point that a conference experience is a different thing for everyone.
You make a good point here and I agree, although I think the outcry would be even louder if this happened, because romance is a primarily female-dominated readership, while fantasy has its fair share of both female readers, so they would be even more directly affected, excluded and marginalized by something like that. In the case of RT, it’s never had to worry about being accused of being exclusionary because, due to the nature of its readership/authorship, it is primarily inclusive.
Wow, what a shame about an event that should be highlighted for a celebration of a wonderful genre, the authors and the interactions with the fans.
I have never been to RT, but what one of my editors told me was that it was really for the readers and fans of romance–entertainment wise. And that the more “staid” RWA conference was for the writers. She would have liked me to go to RT more than RWA, I believe, and I just haven’t managed to get RT on my radar because it ususally seems to occur when I am teaching.
And I can see going for the business and teaching and learning aspects, but, frankly, to watch the spectacle described above doesn’t seem like something I am interested in. So I would have likely been in my room watching HBO or something.
But if this is what RT is like–it would seem that if you want to go, go with knowledge and do there what you want to do. And don’t do what you don’t want to do.
I heard from one of my myspace pals (a male writer) that it was a gas, though–so maybe one of these days, I will be able to get there.
Jessica Inclan
Hahaha. Bunny porn.
But you CAN go and do all the business and teach and learning aspects and not participate in “the spectacle”. I did, and I assure you, I did not spend any time in my room watching HBO.
I haven’t been to RT for the past two years. The last time I went was the Daytona RT because hey, it’s at the beach! My husband went with me and we blew off most of the nighttime parties. I went to meet with readers, booksellers and to see and mingle with other authors. I had a great time and got my money’s worth. The nice thing about an RT conference is the schedule is packed with things for everyone to do, even if you don’t do everything. You can still get your money’s worth. I’ll probably go next year to Orlando, because hey, it’s at the beach! (heh).
For networking with your peers, meeting readers and booksellers, it’s a great conference. You can also pick and choose your poison as far as what else you decide to involve yourself in, but there are opportunities galore for promotion for an author, and lots of fun opportunities for readers.
I’ve always enjoyed writing and reading explicit romances, but that’s where it ends for me. I do not now and never have enjoyed ogling naked men–strippers or your average Joe on the beach. I’m not a prude, I simply don’t understand the lure of staring at the oiled, hairless pecs of some man I don’t even know. It’s a man’s mind and heart that make him interesting. The exterior–no matter how pretty–just isn’t enough by itself.
Also, as women, I think we all know what it’s like to be objectified. I certainly didn’t enjoy having a strange man stare at my ginormous pregnant breasts yesterday while I was pumping gas and had two of my young children in the car. It made me uncomfortable, and I wouldn’t want to make anyone else feel that way–male or female. (And men can be made uncomfortable.)
Long story long, that’s why I’ve continued to spend my money on the RWA National conference, not RT. The emphasis on overt sexual displays–both this year and in the past–didn’t sound like my cup of tea. And this is coming from a woman who writes naughty, naughty things, and feels no shame about that what-so-ever.
But then writing sexy fantasies about two (or three) people who love each other, is very different from watching some strange man you don’t know from Adam simulate a sex act with another stranger. Eww…I say. Just…ew.
Anna J. Evans
Word. What Anna said!
Does it matter if the sense is that it is a reader con v. a writer con? For me the problem is that it is one of the highest profile romance book/romance reader events in the country. If it did not base itself on being a book convention but instead was about woman’s sexuality or like Cosmo Con (not a real con) and they offered seminars on Achieving the Maximum O and The Top 10 Flirty Outfits to Get Noticed then it wouldn’t bother me because it’s not about the books. But RT sells itself as a book reader/writer convention. There are dozens of workshops and most, if not all, are for writers. Therefore, what happens at RT affects the genre as a whole.
Jaci, hate to break it to you…but Orlando is in the middle of Florida. No beach. You’ll have to drive an hour east or west to catch waves, LOL! But it does have Disney, which has simulated beaches. So there is that.
I’m going to kick myself for saying this publicly, but it seems to me that the people who love the oiled male bodies and simulated sex acts and chocolate shaped penises don’t really go to the conference to meet authors and talk about books–well, they do, but that’s not their only reason–they go to attend a three-day bachelorette party on the premise (er, excuse?) that they are going to a romance writer’s convention. What happens at RT stays at RT? They want to party, get groped by men, ogle men and feel totally justified and innocent about the whole sordid affair.
To each her own. I’d rather stay home and ogle my own personal hot man, but that’s just me.
I’ve been to one RT about three or four years ago. It was a small conference and wasn’t, at the time, focused on any one publisher. I didn’t attend any parties and didn’t see anything remotely offensive. But the stories I’m hearing are scary and even though Orlando is in my back yard, I’m probably not going to attend. It’s my choice. I’m sure it’s no loss for RT. But it is a shame that so many authors are feeling disenfranchised within what should be an inclusive celebration of romance novels. And that’s what I’m sensing from all the discussions in all the blogs. Like dirty sex? You’re in. Offended by blatant displays of oiled, male flesh and simulated sex acts? You’re a prude. We don’t want you.
I write about hot sex. I’ve been doing it for years. But even in books that have toyed with the idea of exhibitionism, the sex in any ROMANCE novel I’ve written or enjoyed as a reader is about intimacy, trust and eventually, love. This attitude is not reflected by public acts that bring sex down to the most base levels. Sex, IMO, is fabulous and fun and can be kinky and naughty, but it is never crass or dirty. Seems to me that the events at RT have debased what is the ultimate act of intimacy.
Anna–I’m with you.
My friend loves RT. But to tell you the truth she talked more about winning a trophy for best costume than about the business of writing. I attend a conference for the reasons that Angela James has stated. I do think it’s great that you get to meet your fans at RT. That would appeal to me as well. I’ve been avoiding RT, but I know I won’t be able to avoid it for long. Someday I’m going to have to go, but I don’t want to have to stress about parties and costumes. (My friend spent a fortune on her costumes. Conference cost, airfare, hotel and everything else is enough without having to worry about a ton of costumes.)
Well, I wrote a really long post that the blog decided to swallow.
I’m not rewriting it. It was long and probably very controversial. So I’ll just say: Anna, I’m with you.
Speaking as an unprofessional, uppaid blogging book reviewer who mixes with readers across all genres on-line and in Real Life daily, it is my opinion that most of this could be solved by making certain that the line between Romance and Erotica is clearly defined and labeled. I’ve never been to RT. Was the Ellora’s Cave party clearly advertised as Ellora’s Cave party? Was it assumed or was Ellora’s Cave clearly labeled as an Erotica publisher? If so, all guests had to do was not attend.
In my experience, if a novel is clearly defined as Erotica the average Romance reader is okay with that. She simply looks for something else. It’s when a reader buys a Romance novel only to discover AFTER she’s spent her hard-earned money that it’s akin to Erotica that publishers and authors will run into trouble. These readers feel cheated and angry. They will never buy from that author again and they will tell all their friends not to as well.
It seems to me in the industry’s own best interest to make clearly defined and labeled distinctions.
No reader conference will be successful without author involvement. If we expect the authors to show we need to make it attractive to them.
I’m all for fun and games, but there’s another dimension here, which has to do with something we all complain about. The equation of romance to a lesser literary form because it’s written mainly by women for women and the fact that un- and some of the initiated compare it to mindless stroke fiction.
Having simulated sex acts does nothing to dispel that incorrect notion and it does the genre as a whole a disservice, because there’s so much more variety out there than hot nookie.
I like nookie just as much as the next gal, but I’m not a visual person. I don’t watch sexy movies because they don’t do anything for me. I love to read sexy books because I can let my imagination soar. It’s the words that are sexy to me, not watching the real thing (I’d rather do after having read the sexy words, grin).
Other folks feel differently and that’s not wrong, but if RT is presented as *the* event that describes what readers want, then I have an issue if that’s all that people who don’t know better take away from it, and with it what they think of me a romance reader.
Kimber An - The problem is that the EC men aren’t confined to the party but where there for the entirety of the conference, roaming the conference halls and elevators scantily clad, free with their groping, etc. Read Lori Foster’s account.
Someone else asked if these weren’t models. On blogs and in personal accounts, I was told that many of the EC guys were strippers.
Heh. taint. I have nothing to add except: Eloquent post as always, Miz Jane!
There’s a real irony to the idea that Romance as a genre is oversexualized, when the overwhelming majority of romance novels purvey a deeply conservative account of gender relations in general and women’s sexuality in particular, vaunting monogamous heterosexual (and “vanilla”) sex in the context love, and typically marriage and procreation.
Like Jaci, I was at the 2006 Daytona RT Con. Now granted, I am most definitely part of the older group, but I neither experienced nor observed the Cavemen/Mr. Romance contestants being anything less than friendly. In fact, most were quite charming in an effort to win votes for the contest. Of course that could also be because that particular year most of them were from Ohio and we Ohioans get quite giddy when we can escape the Land O’ the Grey for sunnier climates (it was 35 and pouring here that whole week).
Before going to that con, however, I had heard horror stories about how the Cavemen were treated! THEY were groped, or treated like brainless twits. From what I was told, one older author dismissed one of the Caveman by informing him that “Your job isn’t to talk, just stand there and look pretty.”
Maybe for some reason, some of the Caveman were not told or just did not understand what their job was. And I would think that they SHOULD approach their attendence at the Con as a job. In fact they should consider it a job interview that may land them more work if they are remembered for the RIGHT reasons.
Although, come to think of it, most attendees from this year’s con refer to the Cavemen and Mr. Romance contestants as if they were two seperate groups of guys. If so, is it possible that the Cavemen really were brought in to be “entertainment” instead of aspiring cover models (which would explain a LOT)? Can anyone tell me if they were two seperate groups?
As for the EC party, I don’t know how anyone attending it could NOT know that it was going to be bawdy. Hell, they raffled off gift baskets full of sex toys- at least they did in 2006, I don’t know about this year.
From my observations, there are three distinct groups of people at RT– the party-hardy group (and yes, that included many of the Cavemen- dem boys can DANCE), the people who prefered to sit back and observe the party group, and those that escaped the ballroom in order to find quieter places to chat. And within those groups, there were just as many people in costumes as there were those that chose to simply dress nicely.
I also sat in on many panels while I was there even though I am not a writer. I found them fascinating, but probably not of much use to writers that already have a few books published. For a new or aspiring writer, though, I think those workshops would be invaluable.
BTW, it was explained to me that RT Con celebrated the FUN side of the Romance book industry, and that RWA Nationals was for the serious, BUSINESS side of the industry.
And I’m again going to state, here and elsewhere, that the hotels chosen for the conferences do not suddenly become a personal palace for the convention attendees. They are still public buildings with other guests and people who may be out for an evening of dinner and a stop at the bar.
Case in point, RT St. Louis. The fancy restaurant was at the top of the hotel, hence, it required the use of the elevators to get there. Well, one night just happened to be prom night for a local school. Teenagers poured in, all fancily dressed and happy as heck. And then they all packed onto the elevators with other attendees.
Now I ask you, how would you feel if it was your teenager in those elevators? When your kid is faced with the spill-over from a conference where attendees no longer seem to have any civil boundaries?
I went to RT at Daytona and I can remember during the Mr Romance competition they had a segment about the perfect date. One of the models from EC on stage answered the typical I’d take my date to dinner answer… and then he’d take his date to a hotel, but wouldn’t make her have sex unless she wanted to… (I’m paraphrasing here…) I remember my friend and I looking at each other after he answered like what was that???
And at RT this year, I did hear that one of the EC models was in porn movies… And I was in the lobby when that other model freaked out and the ambulance was there for him… I guess during one of the mixers he admitted to being institutionalized for a while…
BevQB,
Yes, the cavemen and the contestants are two seperate groups. On occassion, one of the cavemen also enters the cover model contest.
Unfortunately, the model contestants often don’t know what they are getting into. Attendees equate the behaviour of some cavemen with “okay, this model contestant guy is fair game too.” Hence they face the groping and often crude questions on panel that should be reserved for the other guys.
Slightly tangential…
As a long-time reader of romance, I’ve become annoyed lately by the oversexification of the books and I have to say that I liked it better when the lines between Erotica and Romance were very distinct. When I read romance, it’s because I want to read about a relationship — I want to read about two people who meet and are attracted to one another, who get to know one another and develop a strong foundation of friendship and respect and love, and who overcome the obstacles to their relationship and really EARN their happily ever after. Lust is and should be a part of that, but at the same time I guess I just don’t want to see the couple’s sexual relationship as the main component of their love story, either in terms of emphasis or page count. I’ve read too many romances lately in which this seemed to be the case, and frankly it’s difficult for me to buy into a couple’s HEA when they only way they’ve proven themselves to be really compatible is physically. It also seems to me that as the sex quotient has gone up in romance novels, the sexual tension has gone down…way down. There’s no more teasing, no more foreplay, no more build-up. The couple just drops trou and gets it on, often within mere moments of meeting one another, with assorted grunted “dirty words” spicing things up. The sex scenes are hot, no question, but at the same time they leave me cold. They’re sexual, but they’re not particularly sexy, and certainly they don’t really seem to be very emotional. By the time the story is finished, I actually am left feeling rather desensitized and even bored by the whole thing.
I went to RT this year and last, and I intend to go next year. It’s a big chunk of change for me, because I live in the UK, and it takes a couple of weeks out of my writing schedule.
But it is so worth it.
I’m not a member of the RWA, but the RNA, the British one, because I can get to chapter meetings, but if there was some kind of reciprocal arrangement, I could see myself going to Nationals. As it is, there seems to be too much “us and them” for it to be worth it for me.
I don’t think the innocence at RT is eroding. Certainly Houston was wilder than Pittsburgh and the complaints I heard at this year were that the Cavemen didn’t show enough flesh, not that they showed too much! Oiled bodies would have been more fun than the covered chests that were mostly on display.
Who would have thought that the presence of twenty men (plus a few male authors and partners) could have caused such a fuss! On the other hand, has anyone seen “Chicken Run”? The protests are getting a bit like that. (Mind you, it’s one of my favorite films!)
Prostitutes and porn stars? Where? I saw none, or at least none behaving that way. I have nothing against either prostitutes or porn stars (and I’d like to keep it that way!). People don’t behave like their profession all the time. So librarians don’t always wear horn-rimmed glasses on chains and tell everyone to shut up and accountants aren’t always checking the price of things on their calculators and telling people to watch their tax returns. I’ve seen accountants behaving like porn stars from time to time. And believe it or not, real prostitutes and porn stars are capable of behaving like librarians from time to time and most of them have more than two brain cells to rub together. I’ve seen that, too.
I would, however, say that the parties and events at RT should come with a warning, if neccessary. Whichever panels (this year there was a course on writing erotic romance)and parties are likely to contain raunchier material should probably be labelled as such in the brochure. Then there would be no mistakes. And although people are always people and incidents will happen outside the party rooms, there should be a warning to them.
Because it’s Orlando, a family resort. It’s likely that responsible authors will be careful what they put in Promo Alley, because it is usually available to anyone at the convention hotel.
For me, RT is a chance to meet readers and fellow writers, as well as do a little business that is hard to do in email. I’m happy to say that business was done and meetings were made.
I write for Ellora’s Cave, and since I was signed, I’ve made it a point to read all the output I can, and so far, I have yet to read out-and-out porn. The books are of varying quality, especially the older ones, and not all of them are to my personal taste, but erotic or not, they are all romances. No porn. I’ve seen that at other publishing houses, but not EC. But one woman’s erotic romance is another woman’s porn, I guess. I’m reasonably open-minded and pretty tolerant, and I don’t seem to have that guilt about sex that many people carry around (including my mother!) It’s fun, it’s free, and as long as it’s consensual, it hurts nobody.
RT is wacky, it’s a bit wild, but porn, no, you’ll have to do what a group of people did last year at Houston and visit a male strip club for that. And no, they weren’t dragged in and forced to watch, or to go, they went of their own accord. They even paid to do it.
The moment I was shocked was when I saw children at the faerie ball. I really didn’t think they belonged there, and I hope I won’t see it again. It really isn’t the place for them. Fairies or not.
Anon76 said:
AH! Thank you. In Daytona, the Mr. Romance Contestants and the Cavemen were the same group. That probably has a lot to do with the difference in how the men behaved at the two cons. As I said, in Daytona, they used charm to garner votes and were evidently aware that the Con was, in effect, a job interview.
I am assuming then that this year, the seperate group of Cavemen were there for “entertainment” purposes only. It still might have been more acceptable if they were hired for the night of the EC party only AND they were given some guidelines for behavior.
The Mr. Romance Contestants, however, should still be free to attend all the events in their efforts to charm votes from the attendees.
I have attended RT for the past three years, and every year I have come back knowing I got a whole lot more out of the convention than a wild week of partying with half-naked men.
Nothing personal, but IMO, bloggers tend to post topics that are controversial, sensational. Topics that will draw attention and increase hits/page views. As a result, I believe a few occurrences have received the lion’s share of the attention in blog world. And, sadly, the actions of a few are becoming the representation of the many.
Not every cover model is a stripper or porn star. Not every cover model groped women. And not every conference attendee witnessed lewd behavior.
Like Angela said, there are a lot of other workshops, events, and opportunities there for someone who is looking to network, meet new people, talk about books, and learn about the industry. I’m not there to fawn over the cover models. I’m there to meet fellow authors, to talk to readers and booksellers, and to learn. That’s what I wanted to do, and that’s what I did. Like Angela, I didn’t sit in my room and watch HBO.
Jane, you make some interesting points, and your position is obviously well thought out. My only disagreement is in relation to this sentence: “Romance is not porn and I think that EC and RT do a disservice to the genre by focusing on one component above everything else, further promoting the equation of romance with porn.” Ellora’s Cave is an erotic romance publisher who is seeking to market their product to a specific segment of romance readers. I don’t think they do a disservice to the genre by focusing on the sexual content in their books. That’s their niche, and they should be able to market their books to appeal to readers who are looking for sexy books with edgy material. In fact, I could argue that by not clearly defining who they are and what kinds of books they publish, they could mislead readers.
Does that mean I think they should have men running around manhandling conference attendees (or vice-versa) or simulating sex acts on stage? No way. But it does mean that they should be able to produce their marketing materials, their party gift bags and theme, and anything else associated with their company in line with their target market–to the extent that RT feels is appropriate.
To me, the question is what does RT want the Romantic Times convention to be about? What is the purpose of the convention? And how do the convention planners make sure that the events, workshops, parties, gift baskets, etc further their purpose? Honestly, if I had had a problem, I would have contacted RT at to let them know. Because IMO that’s the best way to initiate change.
Nifty,
Ditto. Bring back sexual tension! Please!
Nifty - YES!
As for the RT conference, tacky is tacky. I’m glad to have read about it so I will know better than to go.
Ms. Connolly - your response has a tone of “get over it” to it which is the point of the whole article. I hear you saying that what the conference was missing was not enough oiled flesh. My argument is that making oiled flesh the focal point of the conference oversexualizes romance; that in focusing on the man titty instead of the core of romance which is the love fantasy, then it degrades the genre as a whole. And romance as a genre doesn’t need help in dragging it down.
“People don’t behave as professionals all the time.” Why not? I mean, why can’t you at a conference devoted to romance books and romance writers and romance readers actually have people behave as professionals? Why can’t the Cavemen act as paid professionals? (or conversely, were they and if so, doesn’t that raise even other questions). I don’t understand why that is so hard to accomplish. I’ve been to many conferences during my professional life and I’ve always acted as a professional. The time not to act as a professional is at home or in my friends’ homes.
If what an attendee at RT wants at the conference is more oiled chests and simulated sex acts, why spend the thousands of dollars to go to Pittsburgh when she could probably order the same guy to come to her home and give her one on one attention. In other words, how is it different?
And the conference fee that an attendee pays covers all the events. Again, it’s not an opt-in sort of thing. Are the parties all completely funded by the hosting publishers or are the attendees partly subsidizing it?
. ~I’ve been avoiding RT, but I know I won’t be able to avoid it for long. Someday I’m going to have to go, but I don’t want to have to stress about parties and costumes~
I don’t understand why you’d feel pressured to go–or not to go. It’s absolutely a choice.
Are you serious? No, you can’t be. HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THE COVERS?!?!
Word, yo. What, they’re gonna take away your author badge if you don’t go to RT or something?
Tawny - I have been a long time proponent of erotic romance. If you go back to some of the earliest archives of the “opinions”, you’ll see that I have railed against those who are trying to marginalize ER. I believe it has a place in the romance family. I also believe that when EC began, it truly was focused on offering something that wasn’t in the romance market which was more sexually explicit romances.
Now, I don’t believe that so much anymore. I think that some of what EC is offering really is pornography. I also think that having the Cavemen carted around to every event (like BEA and other trade shows), portrays romance in a poor light and isn’t necessary to trademark or market their product.
If we view EC by its promotional materials - the Caveman calendar, the Cavemen themselves, what exactly is EC selling? Are they selling erotic romance fiction or are they simply selling sex? If it is the latter then how can they claim a defense against those who would say that EC and its writers don’t fall under the romance genre umbrella?
There are other houses that publish erotic romance now. Spice, Avon Red, Berkley Heat, Aphrodisia. I didn’t see any of these companies bringing cover models to the convention but they still seem to be able to sell books.
I want to thank you for making this point, Jane. I, like Nifty, LOVE sexual tension, but get precious little out of most descriptive sex scenes. Consequently, that’s what I write. If/when I’m published, I’ll be known as a romance author, and I’d like, as much as possible, for the public to be aware that there is a very wide spectrum of romance being published. Therefore, I think these conferenses should reflect (to the public, as well as to those attending) the wide range of romance being written, as much as possible.
I do realize, however, that more “exciting” and explicit goings-on will make the news (whether through blogger land or elsewhere) much faster and wider than more traditional happenings. I guess the question is whether convention organizers should take this into account when they make rules as to what’s allowed and what’s not.
I just wish there was a way to really know what you were getting. I like erotica and have a vast and varied collection of it in my porno box, but it used to be that when I wanted an erotica novel, I trotted down to Borders and went to the Erotica section and found myself something to read. Lately, though, it seems that there are fewer books in that section as the “erotic romance/romantica” titles increase in number. Nowadays, “erotic romance” is mixed in with “regular” romance — for lack of a better way to put it — and you don’t really know what you’re getting until you start reading the book. Sure…some labels make it pretty obvious. I know if I’m buying an EC or a Aphrodisia title (which I don’t, actually, since I don’t like “romantica”) that I’m going to get “erotic romance.” But if the book doesn’t have an EC-style cover or isn’t titled “Big Spankable Asses,” I really have no way of knowing that the content is going to be heavy on the sex, light on the relationship.
Now, if they could figure out a way to publish stories that are heavy on the sex AND heavy on the relationship, fine. But right now, that’s not the case. Romance novels are X number of pages long. If a “romantica” novel features seven or eight (or more!) sex scenes that are 15-20 (or more!) pages long each, there’s very little time left for the development of the actual relationship.
I remember reading the Flower and The Flame 37 years ago. It blew me away. It had sex!!!! I like sexy books. But I don’t read for the sex. I read for the story. I need characters that I care about. I need an engrossing plot.
Then I remember the first clinch cover that I ever saw. I thought that it was hot. I bought the book. To this day, I prefer a half naked man on a romance cover to some cartoon.
I enjoy books with the forcible seduction. I love Anne Stuart and Linda Howard.
Needless to say, there are a lot of women who hate all of the things that I like. I can’t stand scenes of two men. I read a really good paranormal which was ruined for me due to the sex scenes between two male characters. When I see a post about authors posting naked pictures, naively I totally did not expect to see someone’s genitalia.
But on the happy side, I can choose what websites I visit and what books I read. The key is not exposing people to unwanted experiences.
Female sexuality has been suppressed for thousand and thousand of years. Barriers are being broken. Some women enjoy a frat party atmosphere. Others are really hate it. But I can’t attack freedom. However, I do believe that if convention is being touted as an opportunity for writers and readers to mingle, it should focus on this. If someone wants naughty parties, it should be arranged that no one is unwilling exposed to unpleasant experiences.
If I judged books solely by the covers, I wouldn’t read half the books I do.
There are plenty of EC covers that are more discreet than some Avon historical romance covers. And if someone needs proof, I’d be more than happy to supply it.
One thing that strikes me as interesting about this discussion and controversy is an apparent conflation in some quarters of fantasy and reality, ie. approval of erotica demands that one live the dream, if only for a short time and if only with erzatz immitations of it.
That reminds me of my husband’s comment that he didn’t like to attend business conferences or CLE seminars very often because a lot of them degenerated into some pretty sleazy behavior.
Apparently, men do not have the market cornered on sleazy behavior.
I do not go into bad areas of town, for my own safety and peace of mind. RT sounds like a bad area of town. Penguincon or whatever it’s called sounds pretty bad, too.
Everything feels oversexualized these days, including romance. It makes me sad, because it takes away from (at least to me) the beauty, power, and mystery of sex. When a romance novel has sex every few pages, and sex that goes on for pages and pages…to be honest, that does just feel like porn to me. I am not labelling it porn, because YMMV. It’s just, after being so inundated with the mechanics of every sex act of the hero and heroine, sex starts to feel common. Boring. And very unromantic.
And the further you go down that road, the more and more porn-like erotica has to become in order to stay titillating. Hence, the stuff they sell at places like EC now. Makes me want to go take a long (cold) shower and read a romance with just a few chaste kisses.
And the “cavemen” roaming the halls to grope unsuspecting women doesn’t elevate my opinion of the people in charge at Ellora’s Cave, either.
Would someone who was unsuspectingly groped by a Caveman please come forward. I keep hearing seeing this second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-hand.
At the same time, why do people brush off the rumors of the Cavemen being groped by authors and readers?
Your inference, not my implication. I never said it, I never meant it.
No, I didn’t say the conference didn’t have enough oiled flesh, I said that was what I heard from the people there at the time. Me, I can take it or leave it. That’s not why I go.
When did sex “drag romance down?” Is romance, then, something pure and beautiful where couples never think about getting each other naked? Is making love a dirty and degrading act?
Not in my book (or books, even).
Allow me to rephrase. People don’t behave true to their professions all the time. Of course a professional manner is required, but that’s very different to behaving like a stereotype of what you do for a living. Which was my point.
I have never yet been to a conference where every attendee attended everything on offer. There were some really interesting events I was forced to miss because of commitments elsewhere and I didn’t actually go to all the parties because I had two private meetings with editors and fellow authors to attend as well (I’m not talking EC events, I’m talking about business meetings with my editors and authors I might be doing projects with in the future).
The sponsor pays most of the costs of the party, mixer or whatever, as far as I know. I presume the cost of the conference helps to subsidise it too, but since I’m not privy to RT’s accounting figures, I can’t help you more than that.
To me the cost is reasonable, comparable to the other conference I regularly attend (the RNA conference in the UK - shorter, and more industry oriented). How much does the RWA conference cost and is everybody expected to attend every event?
Jane,
I hear what you are saying about romance being misrepresented at RT, by having the focus be on sex. But, I don’t necessarily think that’s the case. I think that the coverage on the RT conference has mainly been focused only on the scandalous behavior, because that is what gets peoples’ attention. Ellora’s Cave is only one component of the conference. What about the other publisher parties? Have we heard anything about them? NO - because apparently it is not as exciting. What about the awards banquet? How come nobody has chosen to list the winners on their blog? I remember last year that you guys (if it wasn’t you, someone did) had minute to minute coverage at RWA. I think things have been blown out of proportion and that we are getting a skewed perception of the conference.
I say to counter-act all the negative press RT has received, then the people who attended the conference, who had a positive experience that didn’t involve any gyrating, half naked men should post about it on their websites and spread the word.
Read mine and say that. Of course, you might, but I do work very hard to keep both the sexual tension and the development of the relationship upfront and center. Sexual tension happens before the act, so I could argue that if a couple have regular sex, there can be more of it in an erotic romance book, not less. I do try for that, and my poor characters have dreadful dilemmas to overcome, internal and external, before they get their happy ending.
We aren’t writing these books because nobody wants them, we’re not writing them because we love being vilified and abused, we’re not writing them as a chore.
I met a number of delightful and charming writers of erotic romance while I was at RT and I felt myself privileged to be a part of it all. To a woman (and one man I met!) we write them because we love to write them, we love the freedom that we have to describe a relationship without having to close the bedroom door. Many of us would write them anyway- the fact that currently they’re wildly popular is a bonus.
I don’t write every book to an erotic level, I write books with a lower sexual content too, but if I write a book about rock musicians, sure, it’s going to have sex in it. I write to celebrate the act and the freedom we have now, as opposed to our mothers and grandmothers. We have the choice.
Yes, it’s a polemic, but I’m old enough to remember the good ole days of repression and shame, (later than you might think!) and I am not going back there. Ever.
We now have a true choice. From the burgeoning genre of Inspirational to the full-on BDSM, we can choose what we read. Long may it be that way.
Ms Connolly - I feel like you are deliberately missing the point. I never said that sex drags romance down. I said ” that in focusing on the man titty instead of the core of romance which is the love fantasy, then it degrades the genre as a whole.” Nowhere did I ever say that sex was dirty or that romance was pure or that making love was a dirty and degrading act. Point it out, please.
You said “Certainly Houston was wilder than Pittsburgh and the complaints I heard at this year were that the Cavemen didn’t show enough flesh, not that they showed too much! Oiled bodies would have been more fun than the covered chests that were mostly on display.”
To me, that is you saying “that what the conference was missing was not enough oiled flesh.”
As for the conference cost, if you object to the EC cavemen but enjoy all the other events, why should you, as an attendee, help subsidize the event? Yes, RWA is expensive and no one is expected to attend every event, but I can’t recall there being some “event” that I found was objectionable.
Nifty - I don’t disagree with that there should be good labelling. I am totally for that. I think that part of the problem of erotic romances is that there is a glut and not everyone is doing it well. What I mean by that is that a good erotic romance is strong on the sex and the relationship. (I find Joey Hill to excel at this and Anya Bast’s novellas). Does that help clear things up?
Have you seen mine?
http://lynneconnolly.com/wildfire.htm
Not a naked chest in sight. But I love them, and I write to the E level (the middle level).
Anyone for bunny porn with heaving bosums and oiled chests?
I totally agree, Jill.
I know a lot of people have blogged about their positive (grope-free) RT experiences. But their blogs/posts haven’t been picked up by the larger blogs and thus their messages have reached a limited audience. OTOH, the more sensational/scandalous posts have gained more attention and gotten picked up by blogs like this one (and others).
The bottom line: it’s easy for perceptions to be skewed, people to get lumped into broad categories (example: EC Cavemen are porn stars/strippers), and prejudices to be spread.
Hey Julie! Thanks, I am with you as well. I think your eaten post eventually showed up.
As for the accusation some people seem to be making that EC is becoming simply a purveyor of porn…well it doesn’t seem fair to lump all the hundreds of writers producing work for a house into one category. I do my best to write love stories, because that is what I like to read. My EC books are sexy and at times may push the comfort level of some readers, but they are, at heart, about two people falling in love, overcoming obstacles, and having fabulous sex on the way to their happy ever after. If that’s not romance, I don’t know what is.
And believe me, I know, I’ve been stealing romance novels from under my mom’s bed since I was eleven :).
Anna J. Evans
~When did sex “drag romance down?” Is romance, then, something pure and beautiful where couples never think about getting each other naked? Is making love a dirty and degrading act?
Not in my book (or books, even).~
I didn’t read sex drags romance down, but that questionable sexual behavior at the con, a focus on that can drag the image of the genre down.