# NULL



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.
Many formally active members now participate in discussions https://writersanctum.com/.
Since board ownership changed hands, the email address I used to sign up has been spammed with fishing emails and scummy advertisements. In addition, the forum is now packed with equally offensive ads within every thread. This place has become a sleezy spam trap. It is no longer a safe community.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

I haven't read the book but I heard it involved an underaged girl. Do you know if that's true?


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Probably because someone reported it and the person who saw the report wasn't busy with anything else. How do you explain random occurrences? You don't.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I haven't read the book but I heard it involved an underaged girl. Do you know if that's true?


Yes, I have a copy of it, & it's true. I'm having a tough time with it, but I'm going to finish it.



brkingsolver said:


> Probably because someone reported it and the person who saw the report wasn't busy with anything else. How do you explain random occurrences? You don't.


Maybe due to it hitting the top 100? I'm not sure if that caused the attention or if it was a result of the attention.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

ebbrown said:


> Why did this one get the ban hammer while thousands like it are left up? Why has this particular book caused such an uproar in the community? Curious to hear discussion and thoughts. (Let's keep it civil, though, please!)


Why doesn't Amazon drop the hammer on every single scammer in KDP? Why doesn't the FBI arrest every single online pirate? Why don't the police pull over every single person who speeds?

They're not omniscient and their resources aren't unlimited. Amazon mostly relies on self-policing. Maybe this book was getting attention on social media with people tagging Amazon on Twitter and Facebook and asking why they allowed this. Maybe they received a lot of reports. Could be any number of reasons.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

When it comes to erotica (and romance too), no under aged and certainly no blood incest.
I think US Laws are the reason for that.

For a while they let pseudo incest (Steps) get published under erotica but then that was banned and there was a wave of pseudo incest in Romance. I believe it was started by a trad published author but it could have been a top selling self publishing author.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

dianapersaud said:


> When it comes to erotica (and romance too), no under aged and certainly no blood incest.
> I think US Laws are the reason for that.
> 
> For a while they let pseudo incest (Steps) get published under erotica but then that was banned and there was a wave of pseudo incest in Romance. I believe it was started by a trad published author but it could have been a top selling self-publishing author.


Stepbrother Dearest by Penelope Ward was the first mainstream "step" romance between long-separated step brother and step sister to hit the charts outside of erotica. I believe she had to get the okay from Amazon before she could publish it. But that's a bit different from a 40 YO adoptive father and his less than 16 YO and then 16 YO adoptive daughter (there were apparently shenanigans to put it loosely before she was 16) who called him "daddy" since she was 4.

Amazon is automated as much as it can possibly be. Stuff is going to get through by clever publishers who know what code words to use. There's a whole sub-sub-genre of romance featuring older man / barely legal woman step-dad / step-daughter 'man of the house' and 'brat' stories with some floating around in the top 100.

I have read reviews of the book on Goodreads and as usual, the reaction is split between people who love the writer and give it 5+ stars and people who hate the book and its content, and give it 1 star. Hey -- Some readers like this stuff. All you have to do is take a quick search on porn sites to see what is the most popular genre and it's barely legal so it seems both men and women are attracted to this kind of story.

I personally find it creepy but then again maybe some people find what I like as creepy. Yanno, serial killer stories. Brain-eating zombie stories. Apocalyptic death in the billions stories.


----------



## Beth_Hammond (Oct 30, 2015)

How on earth does George RR Martin get away with it then?


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Beth_Hammond said:


> How on earth does George RR Martin get away with it then?


Because he's not writing Romance or Erotica. Different rules for Romance and Erotica.


----------



## Sati_LRR (Jul 10, 2017)

Underaged girl
Implied incest
Rape
Child abuse bordering on paedophilia
= banned

IMHO it is a pure media stunt, out to get banned and for attention. And the authors supporting the writer for "free speech" which basically amounts to the glorification of child abuse (for titillation) should be ashamed of themselves. If a man had penned this, they would be in uproar and calling for his head. I wouldn't be surprised if she has the FBI knocking on her door soon.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

dianapersaud said:


> When it comes to erotica... certainly no blood incest. I think U.S. Laws are the reason for that.


That makes me laugh because it ain't true.

Just one example: my father reported a book years ago, _Asphyxia_ by Derick Hudson, Publication Date: November 23, 2013, that has not only brother/sister incest, but she dies afterward, all in the prologue.

It's still for sale on Amazon. Its categories:

#3524 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > *Erotica* > Mystery
#3745 in Books > Literature & Fiction > *Erotica* > Mystery
#5439 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > *Erotica* > Thrillers


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Huldra said:


> There are literally thousands of erotica books on Amazon featuring an underaged girl in a relationship with her father?
> Huh. Things have changed.


Yes and no. Most smart erotica writers know to use enough code words to fly under the radar.

You can also write about insect, rape, and under age sex as much as you want if you strange presenting it as titillating (we could certainly argue that point with GoT but it's tradpub so it gets more leeway anyway).

I am 100% for free speech but this has nothing to do with free speech. The government isn't censusing this book. Retailers pulled it. Amazon is a private company and they can pull books for any reason. They should give us more clear content guidelines (though it's well known that insect, nonconsensual sex, and underage sex will get your book banned), but it's still their right to choose else goes in their store.


----------



## dianapersaud (Sep 26, 2013)

Word Fan said:


> That makes me laugh because it ain't true.
> 
> Just one example: my father reported a book years ago, _Asphyxia_ by Derick Hudson, Publication Date: November 23, 2013, that has not only brother/sister incest, but she dies afterward, all in the prologue.
> 
> ...


I'm not reading that book but based on the blurb it sounds like a mystery/thriller that deals with a sexual predator. Doesn't sound like erotica at all.

It's possible that Amazon put the book into the erotica category based on keywords or their last sweep couple of years ago. I heard that cookbooks and kids books were shunted into erotica because when they did the sweep, they did it by catalog NOT by individual books.

Lots of things that violate TOS gets through.

It really depends on the CONTEXT of the work.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Beth_Hammond said:


> How on earth does George RR Martin get away with it then?


I think it's because erotica is for the purpose of sexual gratification, while George RR Martin's books are for the purpose of telling a story. Martin didn't intend for the audience to find these subjects arousing. It's like the difference between naked people in porn magazines vs. artistic nudes.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Huldra said:


> I think you confuse erotica with porn.
> Erotica is very much about telling a story. An often sexually arousing story, sure, but a story nonetheless. It's very *very* dismissive of an entire genre and its authors - your fellow colleagues on these boards, hello - to say the difference between erotica and GoT is "story."


Seems like you can't say anything about erotica (or even romance) on here without offending someone. The subject matter as used in erotica is obviously different from the way it's used in non-erotica. I think Amazon construes the former as promoting those things, while in the latter they're just there as part of the reality within the story.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Crystal_ said:


> You can also write about insect, rape, and under age sex as much as you want if you strange presenting it as titillating (we could certainly argue that point with GoT but it's tradpub so it gets more leeway anyway).
> 
> I am 100% for free speech but this has nothing to do with free speech. The government isn't censusing this book. Retailers pulled it. Amazon is a private company and they can pull books for any reason. They should give us more clear content guidelines (though it's well known that insect, nonconsensual sex, and underage sex will get your book banned), but it's still their right to choose else goes in their store.


I agree that, as a retailer, Amazon can sell or not sell whatever they like, but the day they start refusing to sell books on insects is the day I start rallying entomologists to mail Jeff Bezos live termites in wooden crates directly to his house while he's on vacation as a form of protest.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> I agree that, as a retailer, Amazon can sell or not sell whatever they like, but the day they start refusing to sell books on insects is the day I start rallying entomologists to mail Jeff Bezos live termites in wooden crates directly to his house while he's on vacation as a form of protest.


Please tell me you don't have a "crush" fetish. I knew a girl who kept finding her boyfriend watching clips of sexy women stomp on insects. I'd never heard of it before, but apparently it's quite a thing...


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Evenstar said:


> Please tell me you don't have a "crush" fetish. I knew a girl who kept finding her boyfriend watching clips of sexy women stomp on insects. I'd never heard of it before, but apparently it's quite a thing...


That would be cruel, so no. I never heard of it either. I typically capture rather than kill insects and their cousins (spiders, centipedes, etc.) and release them outside.


----------



## David R. Larson (Aug 3, 2017)

Huldra said:


> It just always baffled me that sex within a romantic setting is considered so much worse than murder written to excite readers.


Me too.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Evenstar said:


> Please tell me you don't have a "crush" fetish.


It's not a "fetish." It's a "fixation." A fetish is a physical object; a fixation is the mental state. This started being used incorrectly several years ago and has spread through the Internet, that instantaneous disseminator of incorrect information.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Huldra said:


> Mhm, it's annoying how people get up in arms when you say their writing isn't story-related.
> 
> We can agree on our assumption of what Amazon sees it as.
> It just always baffled me that sex within a romantic setting is considered so much worse than murder written to excite readers.


I don't think anyone has a problem with sex within a romantic setting. What was being discussed is incest, rape, etc., and I don't think most people are cool with that. I wouldn't read it, but personally I don't think it should be banned (although it would be nice if it could all be contained in the right categories). That's up to Amazon what they want to sell on their site though. Other books they've banned I think were a good call like Holocaust denial, racist theories parading as science and that kind of crap.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> I agree that, as a retailer, Amazon can sell or not sell whatever they like, but the day they start refusing to sell books on insects is the day I start rallying entomologists to mail Jeff Bezos live termites in wooden crates directly to his house while he's on vacation as a form of protest.


I often argue with people about sexism in video games. People will argue that a company pulling or changing a game because of criticism is censorship. But it isn't. Censorship is the government stopping something from being published. If I didn't argue that Amazon is well within their right to pull this book, I'd be a hypocrite.

I don't read or write dark romance, so I don't have a dog in the race. Getting blocked is always a risk when you write something taboo and the vast majority of indie authors know that. I don't agree with Amazon's policies (I don't know the laws. I do believe pornographic insect is illegal, but don't quote me on that), but no matter what they ban on their site, it's not censorship.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 18, 2015)

> I do believe pornographic insect is illegal


You've just totally crushed Dan's hopes.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

It all depends on whether it's "literature" or not. I refer you to V.C. Andrews' "Flowers in the Attic". If I wrote that and tried to publish it, Zon would probably ban me for life.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

There are a lot of "dark romances" and "dark erotica" right there on Amazon for sale which feature just about everything, including incest, rape, underage sex right down to toddlers, nazis who torture and rape gay boys, underage rent boys, vorarephilia, sex with stab wounds, and whatever else kicks people. Some of these books are bestsellers even, take Tiffany Reisz who specialises in breaking just about every taboo in her books, or Jane Harvey-Berrick.

Some books get reported, some get banned, a lot stay on Amazon and get sold.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

brkingsolver said:


> It all depends on whether it's "literature" or not. I refer you to V.C. Andrews' "Flowers in the Attic". If I wrote that and tried to publish it, Zon would probably ban me for life.


Oh, man, you are right on there! Also, one of the few movies that I have ever walked out on. I didn't last 10 minutes.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

If it involved an underage girl, no mystery why it was removed. 

V.C. Andrews' Flower in the Attic series is still a bestseller and not banned because it's underage sex between a brother and sister in the context of a suspense/horror novel. If it had been a romance novel, people would have been horrified. If you're writing outside romance and erotica, you can write pretty much anything. 

I'm not stating approval or disapproval, just the way it is.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

brkingsolver said:


> I refer you to V.C. Andrews' "Flowers in the Attic". If I wrote that and tried to publish it, Zon would probably ban me for life.


That's what I've been thinking, too. There are plenty of books out there like that : see list



Nic said:


> There are a lot of "dark romances" and "dark erotica" right there on Amazon for sale which feature just about everything, including incest, rape, underage sex right down to toddlers, nazis who torture and rape gay boys, underage rent boys, vorarephilia, sex with stab wounds, and whatever else kicks people. Some of these books are bestsellers even, take Tiffany Reisz who specialises in breaking just about every taboo in her books, or Jane Harvey-Berrick.
> 
> Some books get reported, some get banned, a lot stay on Amazon and get sold.


Yes. ^^



Shelley K said:


> If it involved an underage girl, no mystery why it was removed.
> 
> V.C. Andrews' Flower in the Attic series is still a bestseller and not banned because it's underage sex between a brother and sister in the context of a suspense/horror novel. If it had been a romance novel, people would have been horrified. If you're writing outside romance and erotica, you can write pretty much anything.
> 
> I'm not stating approval or disapproval, just the way it is.


^^ Yes, same here. I don't know if I think books should be banned or not. It's just curious to me that these extreme graphic subjects can exist in many books (even Pulitzer Prize and other award-winning books) without much uproar.

And Amazon certainly has the right to refuse to sell anything that breaks their TOS, just like the rest of the vendors, of course.


----------



## Seshenet (May 20, 2015)

Evenstar said:


> Please tell me you don't have a "crush" fetish. I knew a girl who kept finding her boyfriend watching clips of sexy women stomp on insects. I'd never heard of it before, but apparently it's quite a thing...


The things I learn about in the Writer's Cafe. Definitely hadn't heard of that one before.


----------



## Seshenet (May 20, 2015)

ebbrown said:


> My newsfeed is full of controversy about the latest book banned by Amazon. Erotica/Taboo subject
> (Daddy/Daughter)= banned. This particular book is just one out of thousands of the same subject matter listed on Amazon, which is literally stuffed out the wazoo with the same topic books.
> 
> Why did this one get the ban hammer while thousands like it are left up? Why has this particular book caused such an uproar in the community? Curious to hear discussion and thoughts. (Let's keep it civil, though, please!)


I googled this and can't find anything. Did it just come out in the news?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

There's a difference between a genre where a rape, for example, occurs, but is not described in excruciating detail for the express purpose of getting someone sexually aroused and um, satisfied. This is the line Amazon is trying not to cross, and I think rightly so. If there are books in romance or erotica, and they are written just to get someone off, then report them. They are violating the admittedly vague guidelines Amazon has for this stuff.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

It happens from time to time. I can think of one very famous indie who made an entire career out of skirting "dubious consent" in her stories. This is why Amazon suppresses the hell out of erotica. They just mostly do so quietly. Which includes shoving books into the dungeon. Or nixing an erotic books alsobots. There are people who want to read the really kinky stuff and if a particularly taboo bit of erotica sneaks past the censors, they will gobble it up like mad. Trust me Amazon is regularly keeping tabs on erotica that crosses the line. If they didn't the store's top 100 would be flooded with erotica. Its why there isn't an erotica category for top 100 short reads. Monitoring erotica is probably the one thing Amazon is 100% on top of!


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I can think of one very famous indie who made an entire career out of skirting "dubious consent" in her stories.


The term "bodice-ripper" didn't materialize out of thin air. Thirty years ago, dubcon was ubiquitous, especially in historical romance. Could Lolita be published today? Times change.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

If you want to read a book presented as romance in which the hero repeatedly rapes and abuses his wife before beginning to rape and abuse his daughter at age 10 or 11, and ultimately rapes her while she is in labor with his child at age 16 to "show her she's his"--perhaps the author will begin selling it from her website, unless she's found in violation of her state's obscenity statutes. You can go find it there if that sounds amazing and romantic to you.

Anybody can write anything they want. Nobody's obligated to publish it. The corner store doesn't have to sell Hustler, and Amazon doesn't have to sell this. The author made a choice to publish something she had to know was far across the line. Now she's weeping about how she's not a monster and everybody's being so meeeeaaan. But you know--there are a lot of real victims out there, girls and women who were molested by their father or stepfather, a man who told them it was romantic and they had a special love. These are the twisted words and rationales of the abuser, and they hurt.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Wait . . . Is insect porn a real thing?  Because, um, ew.  I can't even.  No.  Just no.  Wut?

Sometimes, the things I learn on KBoards are rather disturbing.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Ok, since everyone is just hinting at something and I can't find anyone actually naming that author, can someone please pm me the name so I can put it on my list of authors to never read? Would appreciate. I don't always double check every book someone puts out. 

I do suggest to those not having done so, do not try to google this with the little info posted here. I do not recommend it.   

I guess all the naming must happen on facebook where I don't go. On twitter its all just "I know something you don't".


----------



## Romancer (May 22, 2016)

Usedtoposthere said:


> If you want to read a book presented as romance in which the hero repeatedly rapes and abuses his wife before beginning to rape and abuse his daughter at age 10 or 11, and ultimately rapes her while she is in labor with his child at age 16 to "show her she's his"--perhaps the author will begin selling it from her website, unless she's found in violation of her state's obscenity statutes. You can go find it there if that sounds amazing and romantic to you.
> 
> Anybody can write anything they want. Nobody's obligated to publish it. The corner store doesn't have to sell Hustler, and Amazon doesn't have to sell this. The author made a choice to publish something she had to know was far across the line. Now she's weeping about how she's not a monster and everybody's being so meeeeaaan. But you know--there are a lot of real victims out there, girls and women who were molested by their father or stepfather, a man who told them it was romantic and they had a special love. These are the twisted words and rationales of the abuser, and they hurt.


All of this. I am so relieved to see someone else type this out. I saw 95 percent of the authors in my genre praising the author that wrote this book and I was straight up horrified. I felt like I must be insane... like I had missed something or that the entire community had missed something.

Sadly, I think some authors will compromise what's right in order to "get in good" with the right people. I think that's what disappointed me the most.

The book blatantly went against Amazon TOS. The uproar was ridiculous. Amazon can sell what it wants.

I used to think I was pretty open-minded to what can be published. I have never thought any book should be banned. I don't shame readers for reading what they read. I write some pretty steamy books myself that skirt the line of taboo.

This book is a whole other level. For personal reasons, it made me ill. Now, I understand I don't get to decide what is okay for others to read. But nothing has ever made me feel this way. Selfishly, I am glad it was banned and wish it had never been written. A lot of the reviews on Goodreads sound like something straight out of an abuser's diary. "She's underage but wise beyond her years. Their love was so intense. Destined."

I just.. I can't.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> ... I typically capture rather than kill insects and their cousins (spiders, centipedes, etc.) and release them outside.


This is what I do, too. Unless it's a "me or him" situation, in which it's always me. But I wonder if I'm part Buddhist that way. 

(BTW, all this bug-crush talk is due to a transposing of letters in the word incest. Just in case anyone wonders about the origin of Dan's joke about entomologists.  )


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Thank you poster for the pm and thanks usedtoposthere. 

Prolific author and seen plenty of that authors book on my feeds and such. So glad to know that I can steer clear. Looks like author loves all this attention with big smiley faces.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Let's not name the book in question, despite the extreme content.


----------



## Seshenet (May 20, 2015)

Atunah said:


> Thank you poster for the pm and thanks usedtoposthere.
> 
> Prolific author and seen plenty of that authors book on my feeds and such. So glad to know that I can steer clear. Looks like author loves all this attention with big smiley faces.


Can someone please pm it to me? Thanks.


----------



## Cecelia (Jun 28, 2017)

ebbrown said:


> (Daddy/Daughter)= banned.


Paedophilia?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

A possible defense for this kind of material is that some people do have sexual desires that would be dangerous to themselves or others if acted upon in real life. Whether these desires are innate or acquired from early experiences (or some combination of the two) I don't know, but my understanding is that they don't go away. Rather, they must be suppressed throughout the entirety of the person's life. Imagine having to go your whole life without a single truly satisfying sexual experience because having such would do profound damage to an innocent person. It would be hard to do. Maybe the chances of pulling it off are small. Can targeted porn or erotica help people in that kind of situation manage their dangerous sexual desires safely? We don't know, I think, because so few people study the issue -- the topic is too abhorrent to attract funding, even though you'd think preventing molestation would be high on everyone's list, given how common it is, and how damaging.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Atunah said:


> I do suggest to those not having done so, do not try to google this with the little info posted here. I do not recommend it.


I learned my lesson on this forum a couple of years ago. You can't un-see things.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Of course books shouldn't be banned. Amazon removing books that violate their terms is a different matter altogether. I have the right to write the most depraved things imaginable whether anybody else likes it or not. Nobody is obligated, however, to publish or sell what I write. Please let's keep in mind that no matter what horrific act is being depicted on the page, it isn't really happening. I find The Human Centipede a concept so absolutely vile that the trailer bothered me for days, so much so I never watched the film. I still support the creator's right to make what I consider absolutely vile trash. I'm not forced, after all, to consume it. Please remember it's not the acceptable speech that needs protecting.

And somebody PM the title of this book, please. (Got it, thanks!) I'm not going to claim it's to blacklist this author from my own library--I probably don't read them anyway, and frankly I don't care what people write. I'm more morbidly curious about what's been said about it, and I can't find that without her name or the title.

Also, yes, I believe Lolita would be published today. It's not a romance and would never be mistaken for one.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

Interesting. A little snooping around shows that the author and her street team advertised that Amazon would ban the book before it was released. Not the first book Zon's banned by this author. Also interesting that there is a group of "dark authors" who support and pimp each other's books that violate ToS. As they say, even bad publicity is good publicity. I guess. Of course, none of these people are publishing using their real names.

What surprised me was the number of women on twitter, facebook, etc., who endorsed the book. Silly, little, naive me.


----------



## Seshenet (May 20, 2015)

brkingsolver said:


> Interesting. A little snooping around shows that the author and her street team advertised that Amazon would ban the book before it was released. Not the first book Zon's banned by this author. Also interesting that there is a group of "dark authors" who support and pimp each other's books that violate ToS. As they say, even bad publicity is good publicity. I guess. Of course, none of these people are publishing using their real names.
> 
> What surprised me was the number of women on twitter, facebook, etc., who endorsed the book. Silly, little, naive me.


I read some reviews on Goodreads during my own snooping and I too was surprised at the women who liked it. I looked at the author's website and I could be wrong, but I get the impression she wanted it to be banned.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Romancer said:


> All of this. I am so relieved to see someone else type this out. I saw 95 percent of the authors in my genre praising the author that wrote this book and I was straight up horrified. I felt like I must be insane... like I had missed something or that the entire community had missed something.
> 
> Sadly, I think some authors will compromise what's right in order to "get in good" with the right people. I think that's what disappointed me the most.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's definitely brought out a lot of strong opinions in the community. After finishing the book and then reading the reviews, I am quite stunned. I agree that Amazon & any other vendor has the absolute right to sell whatever they want, and they can choose not to sell whatever they want, 100%. My first reaction to hearing about this was to think, "Why on earth would any author write something like that and then pass it off as a love story?" I mean, heck, just yesterday here on KBoards we were discussing the issue of having a hero/heroine in a romance have sex with another person or cheat, and how much that turns off readers. I think we can all agree that cheating in a romance can be a hot button issue, so it's good to have the conversation for all of us who write romance. Ultimately we want readers to enjoy our work, and arguably most of us probably want to make some money at this gig. So we pretty much try to give readers what they want without pushing the boundaries of the genre too far... and then there are those book that strive to do the exact opposite.



brkingsolver said:


> The term "bodice-ripper" didn't materialize out of thin air. Thirty years ago, dubcon was ubiquitous, especially in historical romance. Could Lolita be published today? Times change.


I was SOOO thinking of _Lolita_ when this exploded. 
And seriously, the whole "bodice-ripper" era and the whole hero-rapes-the-heroine-but-she-falls-for-him-anyway thing that went on for years.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

brkingsolver said:


> Interesting. A little snooping around shows that the author and her street team advertised that Amazon would ban the book before it was released. Not the first book Zon's banned by this author. Also interesting that there is a group of "dark authors" who support and pimp each other's books that violate ToS. As they say, even bad publicity is good publicity. I guess. Of course, none of these people are publishing using their real names.
> 
> What surprised me was the number of women on twitter, facebook, etc., who endorsed the book. Silly, little, naive me.


Wow. Just...wow. 
I feel like I am approaching marketing all wrong after watching this unfold.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

ebbrown said:


> And seriously, the whole "bodice-ripper" era and the whole hero-rapes-the-heroine-but-she-falls-for-him-anyway thing that went on for years.


Not to mention the infamous General Hospital incident, which I think the show might have tried to retcon in later years.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Jena H said:


> Not to mention the infamous General Hospital incident, which I think the show might have tried to retcon in later years.


They still have a rapist and rape victim couple, except he wasn't _her_ rapist.


----------



## Seshenet (May 20, 2015)

Barnes and Noble is selling it. Four 5-star reviews.

The pb, not the e-book.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Now that I've been able to check it out, the whole thing was an obvious marketing ploy. She's laughing all the way to the bank. 

I'll stick with regular appeals to Bookbub.


----------



## RedFoxUF (Nov 14, 2016)

brkingsolver said:


> Interesting. A little snooping around shows that the author and her street team advertised that Amazon would ban the book before it was released. Not the first book Zon's banned by this author. Also interesting that there is a group of "dark authors" who support and pimp each other's books that violate ToS. As they say, even bad publicity is good publicity. I guess. Of course, none of these people are publishing using their real names.
> 
> What surprised me was the number of women on twitter, facebook, etc., who endorsed the book. Silly, little, naive me.


Well of course. They've turned getting banned into a money maker. No doubt there's a secret group somewhere coordinating this. It's all marketing. All of it.

Back in 2012 I would buy an author being surprised at what happens when you publish this kind of stuff, but today? When the author has a strong FB presence? Please. They know what they are doing. This is all calculated. These books come out every few months and the culture of outrage on the internet means everyone loses their collective minds, on all sides, and the author profits.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> Can targeted porn or erotica help people in that kind of situation manage their dangerous sexual desires safely?


No. My opinion, but based on the fact that when these people do cross that line and act out their fantasy, they are found to have loads of child porn (even if it's literature, or computer generated pictures). They can't help their urges, but it's society's job to prevent them from acting upon them, and to punish them if they do.

Lolita would indeed be published today. It's not romance, and not meant to be. It's not erotica, and not meant to be. I remember the "bodice rippers" from back in the day, and while I found it to be a weird way to look at romance, it did not contain incest nor underage heroines, to my recollection. And I read tons of them, because that was romance. The same with the Flowers in the Attic books. Not romance, not erotica.

Remember the movie "Blue Lagoon"? People were up in arms because two shipwrecked siblings entering puberty had sexual relations. They basically raised themselves, had no idea what was so"right" or "wrong". Again, not meant to be a romance nor erotica.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> A possible defense for this kind of material is that some people do have sexual desires that would be dangerous to themselves or others if acted upon in real life. Whether these desires are innate or acquired from early experiences (or some combination of the two) I don't know, but my understanding is that they don't go away. Rather, they must be suppressed throughout the entirety of the person's life. Imagine having to go your whole life without a single truly satisfying sexual experience because having such would do profound damage to an innocent person. It would be hard to do. Maybe the chances of pulling it off are small. Can targeted porn or erotica help people in that kind of situation manage their dangerous sexual desires safely? We don't know, I think, because so few people study the issue -- the topic is too abhorrent to attract funding, even though you'd think preventing molestation would be high on everyone's list, given how common it is, and how damaging.


I'm pretty sure there has been research done on this, but I'd have to go track it down.

It's far more likely that by portraying this type of thing as acceptable or desirable to the victim that it would be more likely to lead to someone doing it rather than give them a safe outlet. Also the more mainstream it appears to be, the less someone thinks they have to suppress those urges.

On a side note, they did studies on those Nancy Reagan era don't do drugs ads and found that they actually increased drug usage because they made it appear that drug use was far more common than it was. (Discussed in a book called Contagious by Jonah Berger that I recently read.)


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Cassie Leigh said:


> It's far more likely that by portraying this type of thing as acceptable or desirable to the victim that it would be more likely to lead to someone doing it rather than give them a safe outlet. Also the more mainstream it appears to be, the less someone thinks they have to suppress those urges.


Yes. It's called "normalizing the behavior."


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I agree with a lot of what has been written about this book and the whole issue of taboo literature and taboo erotica.

I don't personally want to read it or books like it. I think it romanticises what is a very negative thing that is not at all romantic in any way and shouldn't be erotic.

When I was doing my MA, I worked for a professor who studied deviant behavior and I did research on child sexual abuse (and my BFF was a survivor of incest). I had to stop doing the research because it was too hard to read about. Plus I have seen my BFF struggle ALL HER LIFE because of the abuse by her father. She still suffers, thirty years after she finally escaped her abuser.

My issue is that it is _literature_ (or at least fiction) and it is speech and I think it has to be protected. Even if it is vile. I don't want anyone policing my mind, my fantasies, or what art I like to consume. Or art. Art -- even bad disgusting or vile art -- has to be protected. Art is not the reason people do this. But art is often an expression of what goes on beneath the surface.

That said, no government is banning her book. Amazon and other retailers are because that's their right as retailers. If people want to read it, I am sure she can find a way to publish it somewhere and people will buy it who want to read it.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

sela said:


> That said, *no government is banning her book*. Amazon and other retailers are [banning it] because *that's their right as retailers*. If people want to read it, I am sure she can find a way to publish it somewhere and people will buy it who want to read it.


The emphasized parts are important. Too many people throw around the "censored" bomb as though they have a right to force a retailer to carry a certain item. That right doesn't exist. You _do_ have the right to boycott a company if you don't like the way that they operate. You can even advocate that others stop doing business with them. But you can't make them carry a certain product. That's capitalism.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

sela said:


> My issue is that it is _literature_ (or at least fiction) and it is speech and I think it has to be protected. Even if it is vile. I don't want anyone policing my mind, my fantasies, or what art I like to consume. Or art. Art -- even bad disgusting or vile art -- has to be protected. Art is not the reason people do this. But art is often an expression of what goes on beneath the surface.
> 
> That said, no government is banning her book. Amazon and other retailers are because that's their right as retailers. If people want to read it, I am sure she can find a way to publish it somewhere and people will buy it who want to read it.


^THIS^

Burning books = bad
Writing prurient books that might cause bad behavior = bad
Raising children who don't have the urges to read about or commit such things = good

If there wasn't a market, it wouldn't be an issue. I live in a city that has more than one murder a day. Banning guns would probably reduce that, but a lot of the murders are done with a knife. Fixing the root causes might possibly be some help toward a solution?


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I'm still shocked by what short memories people have. Was I the only one around during the early days of KU? The store was literally flooded with tons of "Do Me Daddy" types of erotica. Most of it targeted to women readers. And not just Amazon quite a few of the retailers were carrying it. Those readers didn't just suddenly vanish. And Amazon works really hard to suppress that sort of material. I'm not a particular fan of this particular brand of erotica. But I see the appeal of selfish, abusive "daddy" type. Its a kink quite a few people have. They imagine themselves as being subservient. It what tickles their fancy. And yeah that writer knew the ban was coming. IMHO it will drive Private sales plus paperback sales. Amazon typically ignores the Create space version of banned books.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> A possible defense for this kind of material is that some people do have sexual desires that would be dangerous to themselves or others if acted upon in real life. Whether these desires are innate or acquired from early experiences (or some combination of the two) I don't know, but my understanding is that they don't go away. Rather, they must be suppressed throughout the entirety of the person's life. Imagine having to go your whole life without a single truly satisfying sexual experience because having such would do profound damage to an innocent person. It would be hard to do. Maybe the chances of pulling it off are small. Can targeted porn or erotica help people in that kind of situation manage their dangerous sexual desires safely? We don't know, I think, because so few people study the issue -- the topic is too abhorrent to attract funding, even though you'd think preventing molestation would be high on everyone's list, given how common it is, and how damaging.


Sexual deviants didn't put this book in Amazon's Top 100. The number one demographic for this book is middle-aged women. And not because they are sick or twisted or anything. It's because the number one demographic for all romance is middle-aged women and if you tell people something is forbidden and naughty and they can't have it, then they are going to try twice as hard to get it. She wrote a book that was 'taboo' and people enjoyed reading and she came up with a campaign that has everyone talking about it. Smart lady.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm not on board with the idea that stories about things people consider deviant fuel deviant behavior, even a little. Heavy metal music doesn't cause Satanism or suicide, and pornography doesn't make people rapists. Murder mysteries don't cause homicides. The most sexually violent societies on earth are also the most sexually repressed ones, not the ones where you can buy pornography on a street corner.

And it bears remembering that the audience for a book like this blocked one is women, not men. Women write these stories, women read them and give them five star reviews. I'm not going to judge other women for what turns them on or shame anybody for their sexual inclinations. *shrug* That's been done to women for centuries already, and I figure that's more than enough. 

This case, though, it's almost a shame to look at in that context. I'm all for sexual freedom, but this is just marketing. It's like shock radio. Not worthy of the conversations that spring from it, really.


----------



## JulianneQJohnson (Nov 12, 2016)

What your average non-sex offender reads because they find it sexy and what they want in real life are two very different things.  Rape is a very common fantasy, but that doesn't mean folks want to be raped in real life.  Same thing with incest stories.  There are people who find reading about fictional incest exciting, but it doesn't mean they personally want to sleep with anyone in their family.

Human sexuality is a complex and murky area that is still not fully understood.  I personally will not judge anyone for what they choose to read in eroticaland or any other genre.  It's a story, it's not real life, and reading (or writing) something which would be taboo or illegal in real life isn't a crime.  I don't think video games make people violent, I don't think rock and roll will lead people to devil worship, and I don't think rape or incest fiction will promote sex crimes.

All of that said, Amazon and any other book retailer has the absolute right to refuse to carry any book they wish for any reason.  Period.  Lolita might be a classic now, but it was turned down by a slew of publishers at the time, and they had every right to do so.


----------



## JulianneQJohnson (Nov 12, 2016)

Shelley K said:


> I'm not on board with the idea that stories about things people consider deviant fuel deviant behavior, even a little. Heavy metal music doesn't cause Satanism or suicide, and pornography doesn't make people rapists. Murder mysteries don't cause homicides. The most sexually violent societies on earth are also the most sexually repressed ones, not the ones where you can buy pornography on a street corner.
> 
> And it bears remembering that the audience for a book like this blocked one is women, not men. Women write these stories, women read them and give them five star reviews. I'm not going to judge other women for what turns them on or shame anybody for their sexual inclinations. *shrug* That's been done to women for centuries already, and I figure that's more than enough.
> 
> This case, though, it's almost a shame to look at in that context. I'm all for sexual freedom, but this is just marketing. It's like shock radio. Not worthy of the conversations that spring from it, really.


We posted at almost the exact same time, and you said it better than me.


----------



## RedFoxUF (Nov 14, 2016)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> I'm still shocked by what short memories people have. Was I the only one around during the early days of KU? The store was literally flooded with tons of "Do Me Daddy" types of erotica. Most of it targeted to women readers. And not just Amazon quite a few of the retailers were carrying it. Those readers didn't just suddenly vanish. And Amazon works really hard to suppress that sort of material. I'm not a particular fan of this particular brand of erotica. But I see the appeal of selfish, abusive "daddy" type. Its a kink quite a few people have. They imagine themselves as being subservient. It what tickles their fancy. And yeah that writer knew the ban was coming. IMHO it will drive Private sales plus paperback sales. Amazon typically ignores the Create space version of banned books.


Yeah. People have super short memories. I see authors running around now claiming they are the first to do this and that right in front of the people who actually invented the marketing techniques....they have no clue of what came before them. An ebook history of the indie gold rush would be instructive at some point.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

kcmorgan said:


> Sexual deviants didn't put this book in Amazon's Top 100. The number one demographic for this book is middle-aged women. And not because they are sick or twisted or anything. It's because the number one demographic for all romance is middle-aged women and if you tell people something is forbidden and naughty and they can't have it, then they are going to try twice as hard to get it. She wrote a book that was 'taboo' and people enjoyed reading and she came up with a campaign that has everyone talking about it. Smart lady.


Yeah, good points.

This discussion is reminding me of a women's studies class I took as an undergrad. One day, the class got sort of heated while discussing rape fantasies. One side thought women should refuse to indulge in them because they normalize rape in a culturewide sense; the other side thought women should be free to enjoy them while also demanding not to be raped in real life. As I recall, neither side was able to convince the other before class ended.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Shelley K said:


> Now that I've been able to check it out, the whole thing was an obvious marketing ploy. She's laughing all the way to the bank.


Reminds me of the _Faces Of Death_ marketing back in the 1970s.










From wiki:



> The movie is often billed as Banned in 40+ Countries, but actually it has only been banned (at least temporarily) in Australia, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Yeah, good points.
> 
> This discussion is reminding me of a women's studies class I took as an undergrad. One day, the class got sort of heated while discussing rape fantasies. One side thought women should refuse to indulge in them because they normalize rape in a culturewide sense; the other side thought women should be free to enjoy them while also demanding not to be raped in real life. As I recall, neither side was able to convince the other before class ended.


I can't think of a single society where thought policing made things better for anyone. Plus, the kind of people who commit these crimes wouldn't likely be interested in these books. They usually have hatred or indifference towards their victims. In the books, the MMC is so in tune with the FMC's needs and wants, he's able to fulfill them without her even fully knowing herself.

And while that may seem patronizing, I remind you, this is an industry dominated by women. These are women imagining these men that sweep in solving all the heroine's problems and forcing her to be happy for the rest of her life. Can it really be patronizing if no patrons are involved?


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Huldra said:


> Seriously? In romance/erotica?!


Yes, in the so-called "dark erotica" and "dark romance" sub-genres.

Could someone please PM me the title and author of that book? I'm making a guess, but would like it confirmed.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> No. My opinion, but based on the fact that when these people do cross that line and act out their fantasy, they are found to have loads of child porn (even if it's literature, or computer generated pictures). They can't help their urges, but it's society's job to prevent them from acting upon them, and to punish them if they do.


There's an established case for this according to a couple of studies, and there are counter examples. I believe no real verdict has yet been made, mainly because at the moment child porn is so radically punished in so many countries. One thing you shouldn't forget is that if the book contains what was cited here in the thread, it definitely is illegal in many countries worldwide. No need for banning it, it already is illegal as per content. That's probably one reason why such books are banned by Amazon.


----------



## AssanaBanana (Feb 1, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> Sexual deviants didn't put this book in Amazon's Top 100. The number one demographic for this book is middle-aged women. And not because they are sick or twisted or anything. It's because the number one demographic for all romance is middle-aged women and if you tell people something is forbidden and naughty and they can't have it, then they are going to try twice as hard to get it. She wrote a book that was 'taboo' and people enjoyed reading and she came up with a campaign that has everyone talking about it. Smart lady.


Um... I just finished reading it and I fit that demographic, lol. I write explicit paranormal romance that occasionally skirts the lines that Amazon has drawn (vague though they may be). This book definitely crosses a lot of lines, but it still manages to maintain some standards of romance. This book was NOT as horrific and shocking as others in this thread have made it out to be. One of the spoilery descriptions posted in this thread is clearly written by someone who hasn't read the book. All the sex was consensual, despite the girl being underage (17, not 16), the girl is never raped by the father (bar the statutory variety, but like I said... consensual), and there is a happy ending. The author certainly front-loaded the book with as much shock-factor content as she could, which kept ME turning the pages. If there's anything to learn from this it's a marketing lesson... But in the end I felt like the book definitely delivered a good read, especially for readers who really love to devour dark and twisted romances.

There've been FAR more shocking, unsettling books published than this one, seriously.


----------



## K.B. Rose (Sep 7, 2014)

dianapersaud said:


> When it comes to erotica (and romance too), no under aged and certainly no blood incest.
> I think US Laws are the reason for that.


I don't know about erotica but there are tons of romance books with underage characters. I can think of three I've read in the past year that featured a 15 year old girl paired with an adult man, all taking place in present day US. And dark romance is filled with rape. With this book I have to think it was the incest or possibly a combination of all things, plus hype.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

AssanaBanana said:


> Um... I just finished reading it and I fit that demographic, lol. I write explicit paranormal romance that occasionally skirts the lines that Amazon has drawn (vague though they may be). This book definitely crosses a lot of lines, but it still manages to maintain some standards of romance. This book was NOT as horrific and shocking as others in this thread have made it out to be. One of the spoilery descriptions posted in this thread is clearly written by someone who hasn't read the book. All the sex was consensual, despite the girl being underage (17, not 16), the girl is never raped by the father (bar the statutory variety, but like I said... consensual), and there is a happy ending. The author certainly front-loaded the book with as much shock-factor content as she could, which kept ME turning the pages. If there's anything to learn from this it's a marketing lesson... But in the end I felt like the book definitely delivered a good read, especially for readers who really love to devour dark and twisted romances.
> 
> There've been FAR more shocking, unsettling books published than this one, seriously.


Age of consent in Alaska is 16, so it's not statutory rape. That came up in another discussion that pointed out the age of consent isn't 18 everywhere.


----------



## AssanaBanana (Feb 1, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> Age of consent in Alaska is 16, so it's not statutory rape. That came up in another discussion that pointed out the age of consent isn't 18 everywhere.


Ahah, I didn't know that. I bet the author did that on purpose, too... having her younger than 18 provides an even greater illusion of taboo (which this book is FULL of), without actually being illegal. It's still enough to get banned by Amazon, which doesn't surprise, nor enrage me. There's a reason I skirt around that type of content. I like getting paid and don't have the wherewithal to pull the kind of stunt this author did with her book.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Someone PMed me which book we're talking about. Not the one I thought it would be! It is clearly marketed at a specific crowd of readers to whom a ban by Amazon is practically a "buy me"-sticker. I agree that this was most likely a concerted marketing campaign. I've seen several of this kind over the past two years, many of which are playing on the "Amazon banned this book" thing. I'm always astonished that they manage to make any sales at all, as this ploy is so obvious. Kind of like the old horror movie dare.

I also agree with AssanaBanana that this is one of the lesser books as content goes. I've seen much, much worse and as per my latest check-in those are all still available on Amazon. The ones I thought about have eroticised rape and torture of children prior to puberty for instance, which is quite a distance from this one yet.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> Age of consent in Alaska is 16, so it's not statutory rape. That came up in another discussion that pointed out the age of consent isn't 18 everywhere.


That doesn't exactly matter. What matters is where the retailer or publisher is located and where the buyer lives.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Okay, my curiosity is piqued. Please PM me the title of this book. Thanks!


----------



## dgcasey (Apr 16, 2017)

Crystal_ said:


> well known that insect, nonconsensual sex


I'm not sure I've ever heard of insect, nonconsensual sex and I don't think I want to.


----------



## dgcasey (Apr 16, 2017)

Shelley K said:


> I'm not on board with the idea that stories about things people consider deviant fuel deviant behavior, even a little. Heavy metal music doesn't cause Satanism or suicide, and pornography doesn't make people rapists. Murder mysteries don't cause homicides. The most sexually violent societies on earth are also the most sexually repressed ones, not the ones where you can buy pornography on a street corner.


I remember getting into an internet discussion a few years back about whether freely available porn influenced the sexual habits of teenagers that watched it. I was of the opinion, and still am, that a lot of our young people are getting their sex ed from the porn videos that they find all over the internet. Young guys see a women getting choked and they think this is the way it's done. They see unprotected anal sex and think, "wow, I want to do that." They see guys pull over and pick up some "stranger" on the side of the road and go have wild sex with her and they think there are millions of women just like that in the world.

I had one woman, at least I think it was a woman, light into me and tell me that porn videos do NOT influence the sexual behavior of teens. Then she proceeded to tell me she was a psych major in college and she knew what she was talking about. I think she's an idiot and if that's the kind of thing they're teaching in college nowadays, this country is seriously circling the drain.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

dgcasey said:


> I remember getting into an internet discussion a few years back about whether freely available porn influenced the sexual habits of teenagers that watched it. I was of the opinion, and still am, that a lot of our young people are getting their sex ed from the porn videos that they find all over the internet. Young guys see a women getting choked and they think this is the way it's done. They see unprotected anal sex and think, "wow, I want to do that." They see guys pull over and pick up some "stranger" on the side of the road and go have wild sex with her and they think there are millions of women just like that in the world.


It is pretty obvious that porn does. At least if you go by the dozen or so cases of boys between 10 and 18 who've been convicted of raping other minors in the UK after watching porn and deciding to "try this out". A lot of sexual practices demanded nowadays were very uncommon just a decade or two ago. The question is how comparatively influential written fiction instead of visual material is.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

The age of consent is 16 in the UK. I assumed it was the same everywhere until I got some serious horror from American parents when my high school (age 17) romance had a scene that_ hinted _they had "done it". In the end I had to remove it. It's certainly normal in England to be sexually active at 16 +, but apparently totally unacceptable in the US.

However, while sex at 17 may be completely legal in the setting of this book, incest is illegal everywhere, right? So it is still glamorising illegal (and frankly sick) behaviour.



Gentleman Zombie said:


> I'm still shocked by what short memories people have. Was I the only one around during the early days of KU? The store was literally flooded with tons of "Do Me Daddy" types of erotica. Most of it targeted to women readers. And not just Amazon quite a few of the retailers were carrying it. Those readers didn't just suddenly vanish. And Amazon works really hard to suppress that sort of material. I'm not a particular fan of this particular brand of erotica. But I see the appeal of selfish, abusive "daddy" type. Its a kink quite a few people have. They imagine themselves as being subservient. It what tickles their fancy. And yeah that writer knew the ban was coming. IMHO it will drive Private sales plus paperback sales. Amazon typically ignores the Create space version of banned books.


That's different. I remember that glut well, but nearly all those books were about _step_-fathers (and step brothers) and all the girls were _supposed_ to be 18. (Though I am sure there were one or two that did cross the line but Amazon was pretty hot on stamping it out when it happened).


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Evenstar said:


> The age of consent is 16 in the UK. I assumed it was the same everywhere until I got some serious horror from American parents when my high school (age 17) romance had a scene that_ hinted _they had "done it". In the end I had to remove it. It's certainly normal in England to be sexually active at 16 +, but apparently totally unacceptable in the US.


There are quite a few romances around with characters younger than 18 having sex, usually between 16 and 18. A few historical romances with spouses aged 14 and 15, where you as of necessity know that the couple has sex before she or he is 18. It's also not that rare in romantic YA. I think a lot depends on how it is done.



> However, while sex at 17 may be completely legal in the setting of this book, incest is illegal everywhere, right? So it is still glamorising illegal (and frankly sick) behaviour.


No, incest is not illegal everywhere. Quite a few countries have no laws against it if both parties are officially adult when they first have sex.

Interestingly it appears as if this book has now also been banned on Smashwords.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Evenstar said:


> The age of consent is 16 in the UK. I assumed it was the same everywhere until I got some serious horror from American parents when my high school (age 17) romance had a scene that_ hinted _they had "done it". In the end I had to remove it. It's certainly normal in England to be sexually active at 16 +, but apparently totally unacceptable in the US.
> 
> However, while sex at 17 may be completely legal in the setting of this book, incest is illegal everywhere, right? So it is still glamorising illegal (and frankly sick) behaviour.
> 
> That's different. I remember that glut well, but nearly all those books were about _step_-fathers (and step brothers) and all the girls were _supposed_ to be 18. (Though I am sure there were one or two that did cross the line but Amazon was pretty hot on stamping it out when it happened).


The man in the story also wasn't her biological father. She was adopted.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Nic said:


> Interestingly it appears as if this book has now also been banned on Smashwords.


Yeah, and it's not easy to get a book banned on Smashwords.


----------



## BellaJames (Sep 8, 2016)

It's easy to find out more information or the identity of this book and author with a simple search. I found it in 2 minutes by searching for banned erotica book on facebook. There are authors talking about it or promoting it on Facebook. It has very mixed reviews on Goodreads.

There are a bunch of authors who are into writing books that glorify sexual abuse or underage sex and in my opinion they are out to shock shock shock. That's it. A lot of these books have no plot, it is just a series of graphic sex scenes with very detailed descriptions.

I think there were a few authors after FSOG became huge, who wanted to take it further and make it darker. It is all for shock value. 

If it wasn't for shock value, these books would delve deeper into the emotional, mental and psychological condition of this underage or barely legal girl and this man. 

There is a small group of authors who seem proud to say that they have been banned from Amazon on their Goodreads or facebook/twitter profiles because then readers are more curious about their books. 
Their book will be available somewhere else like Smashwords (this particular book has been removed now) or B&N. 

There is something going on on B&N today, some authors are seeing some of their books disappearing. It could be another erotica ban coming or there is a technical glitch.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

It's not the underage sex that bothers me (as a reader) about such books. It's the violence. Let's not confuse rape and sex. Anything that involves violence toward women who accept or welcome the violence turns my stomach.


----------



## Dhewco (Apr 10, 2016)

I thought statutory rape also took into account the power of the individual over the younger person and that it wasn't all about age. As an adoptive power, the father would have all kinds  of power over the young woman (girl). (this is also why teacher/student relationships are considered taboo...even when the age isn't part of the equation)


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> it is speech and I think it has to be protected


But, it is protected. As is Amazon's (or any other store's) right to not sell it. I don't see what everyone can't get about that. The government has not revived the obscenity laws and gone after the book. Amazon has simply enforced their TOS, which says sex with minors is not allowed, at least in romance and erotica. Are there books that have slipped through? I'm sure there are. Some people manage to get past every filter. They usually get caught at some point.

Age of consent in the real world doesn't matter (I think it's fifteen here in NC, but I haven't checked). Even if this were a real world case, the man is beyond the age where he is legally able to have sex with a person under age 18. He'd be prosecuted in most states, at least, and I believe all of them. A person under the age of consent can't legally agree to a sexual relationship with an adult. Remember all the teacher/student cases?

What matters is that Amazon says: no sex with minors (outside of YA books, where both parties are of a similar age). This book was written to sexually excite people by the details of the relationship. Personally, I don't care what turns people on. They can like what they want, within the boundaries of the law. But Amazon has said more than once that they won't allow this, the author makes her bank on doing it anyway, she got burned. It's not the first time, from what I've read. She's a serial offender.

When the next pornocalypse comes, you can look at her and writers like her who, despite all legal rights to free speech, continue to push the boundaries of what a retail store has said it will not allow. I have no pity for her at all. I hope she can sell it on her site, because it looks like no one else is going to have it.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm currently dealing with a (pen name, and non-erotica) book of mine that's been delisted, despite the fact that I've emailed Amazon saying "it's exactly like these _five_ other books that you've been selling for _years_, in some cases". The bottom line is someone reported my book (and I know this, because they left a one-star review saying they would), and obviously isn't aware of, and so didn't report, the others. I've made my case, and Amazon's reps seem to think my title will be restored, but it's been several days now, and the 30 day cliff approaches. Could have done without it.

So, bit of venting there, but basically it's often a question of what gets reported, rather than what's actually breaking rules. I am, I'm fairly sure, _not_ breaking rules, but if a customer complains about a book, Amazon steps in a lot quicker than we sometimes give them credit for.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> When the next pornocalypse comes, you can look at her and writers like her who, despite all legal rights to free speech, continue to push the boundaries of what a retail store has said it will not allow. I have no pity for her at all. I hope she can sell it on her site, because it looks like no one else is going to have it.


If those who complained to Amazon and Smashwords also complain to her webhost, she won't be able to do it there either. These days anything which even vaguely smacks of child porn gets shot first and asked about but afterwards. Every single service provider I know of has a TOS banning child porn of any kind, even your common ISP or the backbone the ISP is using will have such a TOS.


----------



## BellaJames (Sep 8, 2016)

This author, many of her fans and some very successful book bloggers see nothing wrong with the subject matter in this book. 

Someone argued (not on her facebook) that these things do happen in real life but behind closed doors. 

So do stories like this need to be told? If it was more about how this sensitive situation and relationship affected both of them, how they coped mentally and emotionally it would be a better story. It would work even better if it was told from both points of view years later and how they dealt with it internally and if the relationship continued, how other people treated them. How did this grown man deal with the internal battle going on. He must have known what he was doing was wrong, so that needs to be addressed. What scars remain. 


However looking at the authors other books, she likes to push buttons, although she does have some lighter romance books. 

I just really dislike the way these authors are using sensitive and controversial subjects in these erom's or erotic novels. The step-dad stories are going into darker waters. They went from innocent virgin flirting and messing with her step-dad's to being ganged on by his friends, menages with her step-bro & step-dad and now to an underage girl who is forced. There are even more disturbing ones on B&N and Smashwords featuring whole family members and animals. 

I don't think these things should be used as entertainment.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

The whole thing was brilliant marketing. 

She's made a name for herself, become the poster child for "banned books" and gotten a lot of people who would never condone or read this type of book to buy her book "for solidarity." 

The emotional "banned" word is being screamed throughout social media... but the government isn't telling you that you can't read it.  Retailers declining to sell it (as an ebook- you can still get the paperback!  Hurry and buy it quick!) is not "banning."  

If everyone started a social media crapstorm over their books that were delisted from Kindle, there'd be nothing else in your feeds.  Authors who write "taboo" know they are not guaranteed to be published.  She has been extremely successful with this launch.

Brilliant and lucrative.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> Age of consent in Alaska is 16, so it's not statutory rape. That came up in another discussion that pointed out the age of consent isn't 18 everywhere.


The idea that you can have "consensual" sex with your child, or that that child being adopted somehow makes it not pedophilia and incest, boggles my mind. That these ideas are being put forward by women disgusts me. The father first fingers the daughter's genitals at age 10. AGE TEN. What happens afterwards, the "romantic" relationship, the "special closeness"--that has a name too. It's called "grooming."

There can be no "consent" between a minor child and her father. By that token, how about a priest who first fingers a boy's genitals at age 10, and progresses to having sex with him at age 16? They're not related, right? And the boy thinks it's romantic! The priest has told him they have a special bond, and don't tell or the priest will get in trouble, and he loves the boy. How about reading that? I know I'd swoon in romantic ecstasy.

The fact that the father rapes his daughter WHILE SHE IS IN LABOR with his child, and she's calling him "Daddy" while he does it--let's hear you excuse that.

By defending this by saying it's "consensual," as if victims of incest can consent (that's why these laws exist--the vastly unequal power relationship), or that the child not being his biologically makes it fine--you are saying that child sexual abuse is fine. Do you somehow not realize that? I can tell you that this conduct would be prosecuted as criminal anywhere in the United States. The fact that the man is not her biological father does not make a whit of difference. Most girls' molesters are their stepfathers or mom's boyfriend. Trust me--it's still considered child abuse.

For anybody who's reading this discussion and thinking like me that they've entered some Twilight Zone--the discussion here doesn't reflect what I'm seeing elsewhere. One thing that's happened for myself and many other bestselling authors, in romance and otherwise, throughout this fiasco--we've been able to see who we never want to work with again.

Oh, and for the "but Lolita" people--Lolita wasn't billed as or written as a romance. It was written as the state of mind of a sick man. And yes, romance books in the 1970s and 1980s frequently had the "romance" begin with a rape. That's why lots of us can't read them now. The rest of you all sound like the worst of rape apologists. Congratulations.

I'm going back to work now. In my books, the rapist, the abuser is the bad guy. I'll never, ever understand books where he's the hero, or why any woman, especially a mother, would read or write it. This author says the book was about the "family finding closeness" because it can be "lonely" in the wilderness. I wonder if she'll say that (or you will) if her husband rapes their child. I pray none of your children ever have to feel the lifelong scars from Mommy's boyfriend (or their father) wanting to be "romantic" with them, because they're so "special."

You want to read sick stuff by authors who push the envelope into darker and darker territory? Go ahead and read sick stuff. But don't try to pretend the behavior would actually be OK and defend it. Doing that demeans and abuses real victims all over again.

I'm so disgusted and disappointed in so many authors and readers. One thing's come out of this, though--I'm getting a much clearer idea of why so many mothers pick the abuser over their own daughters (which they do all the time). I never could understand that mindset, but now I'm getting it.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> The idea that you can have "consensual" sex with your child, or that that child being adopted somehow makes it not pedophilia and incest, boggles my mind. That these ideas are being put forward by women disgusts me. The father first fingers the daughter's genitals at age 10. AGE TEN. What happens afterwards, the "romantic" relationship, the "special closeness"--that has a name too. It's called "grooming."....


It's been rare before, but in this instance I fully agree with everything you say.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

dgcasey said:


> I remember getting into an internet discussion a few years back about whether freely available porn influenced the sexual habits of teenagers that watched it. I was of the opinion, and still am, that a lot of our young people are getting their sex ed from the porn videos that they find all over the internet. Young guys see a women getting choked and they think this is the way it's done. They see unprotected anal sex and think, "wow, I want to do that." They see guys pull over and pick up some "stranger" on the side of the road and go have wild sex with her and they think there are millions of women just like that in the world.
> 
> I had one woman, at least I think it was a woman, light into me and tell me that porn videos do NOT influence the sexual behavior of teens. Then she proceeded to tell me she was a psych major in college and she knew what she was talking about. I think she's an idiot and if that's the kind of thing they're teaching in college nowadays, this country is seriously circling the drain.


Porn videos and movies aren't supposed to be teaching tools. If they become that, if parents don't make sure their kids are educated about safe sex and all a child's education about it comes from Mona Does the Mailman, of course there's going to be an influence. This discussion isn't about viewable pornography and neglectful parents/educators, however, so I stand by my points.



Usedtoposthere said:


> The fact that the father rapes his daughter WHILE SHE IS IN LABOR with his child, and she's calling him "Daddy" while he does it--let's hear you excuse that.


That's gross. But nobody here is excusing the acts depicted.



> The rest of you all sound like the worst of rape apologists.


It's words on a page. Nobody was raped.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> Porn videos and movies aren't supposed to be teaching tools. If they become that, if parents don't make sure their kids are educated about safe sex and all a child's education about it comes from Mona Does the Mailman, of course there's going to be an influence. This discussion isn't about viewable pornography and neglectful parents/educators, however, so I stand by my points.
> 
> That's gross. But nobody here is excusing the acts depicted.
> 
> Guess what, nobody was raped.


Rape doesn't have to be by physical force. A minor child is unable to consent to sex with her father. Look it up.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Huldra said:


> It's... it's fiction?
> Where are all the people up in arms whenever someone publishes a horrifically detailed thriller?
> 
> For the life of me I cannot understand why people, and authors especially, get so riled up about a work of fiction, just because it contains subject matters they find vile.
> ...


Except that most people here are doing exactly that. "But she wasn't biologically his child!" "But she was 16 when they actually had sex!" "But it was romantic and she wanted it!"

That's rape apology. It's called "minimizing."

People aren't supposed to be getting off on the horrific details in a thriller. They're written to shock, yes, but you're not supposed to be rooting for the bad guys to peel the person's skin back or whatever. This book wasn't written like Lolita, as an exploration of something terrible. It was written as a romantic tale of two souls destined to be together.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Huldra said:


> Fiction = not real = reading/writing it is not the same as condoning these things in real life.


Fiction isn't without effect, even if it is "just fiction".


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Nic said:


> Fiction isn't without effect, even if it is "just fiction".


This. Hence all the attempted shuffling and excusing of the father's behavior in this book. Take a look at the Stanford rape victim. "What were you wearing?" "How much were you drinking?" The idea that a woman "asks for it" is still pervasive and deadly. The idea that a young girl was being "seductive" and the man was "drawn in"? I just saw that a year or so ago when a narrator of mine, a man in his forties, was arrested, sentenced, and jailed, for sexual conduct with a child. You should have heard his banner author and her followers go after the girl online (she was 15 or 16). She must have been seductive. Girls that age can look 25. It went on and on.

So yes, this is an attitude that seeps into real life all the time. The same things I've heard here are exactly the same things real rape victims face every single day in this country.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Rape doesn't have to be by physical force. A minor child is unable to consent to sex with her father. Look it up.


Don't need to. The characters in that book don't exist, therefore nobody was raped. And I am fully aware exactly what rape is, thanks.

Thrillers are called that for a reason. Stalking, plotting, murders, violence all used as entertainment. Often the murder of children (James Patterson) and often horrific kidnapping, confinement and rapes (James Patterson). I'm sorry, but if we're going to thought police what people make up and limit the outrage to things that women write to turn other women on, it's an incredible hypocrisy.

I think the things I'm told are depicted in that book are super gross and sketchy. *shrug* So I simply won't read it. Easy enough.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> Don't need to. The characters in that book don't exist, therefore nobody was raped.


I am discussing the excuses put forward in this thread by authors about why and how the romance between a father and a daughter in this book is OK because ... blood relation. Girl's age at first intercourse. She wanted it. It was romantic.

I am aware that it's fiction. I'm talking about the attitudes and opinions expressed about the actual behavior.

As far as the "controversy" itself--every retailer has limits on what it'll sell. The author knew those limits and crossed them. Her marketing plan was built around "Get it before it's banned!" She's done the same thing in the past. Then she set up a hue and cry about "banned books." The book isn't banned. It's just not being sold on stores whose TOS it violates.

Freedom of speech means the government can't tell you that you can't write a book. It doesn't mean anybody has to sell the book. I'm constantly astonished at the misunderstanding of the First Amendment. "Censorship' applies to the government. Amazon doesn't "censor," and neither does your local bookstore. They choose what they want to carry.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I am discussing the excuses put forward in this thread by authors about why and how the romance between a father and a daughter in this book is OK because ... blood relation. Girl's age at first intercourse. She wanted it. It was romantic.
> 
> I am aware that it's fiction. I'm talking about the attitudes and opinions expressed about the actual behavior.


Yeah, but this discussion is based on acts that didn't really happen. People do view things differently in fiction than in real life, so I don't think you should make judgments about people based on their defense of a book. If we were discussing this book as a news story that we read about, I genuinely believe horror would be the theme and we'd all want the guy behind bars.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> Yeah, but this discussion is based on acts that didn't really happen. People do view things differently in fiction than in real life, so I don't think you should make judgments about people based on their defense of a book. If we were discussing this book as a news story that we read about, I genuinely believe horror would be the theme and we'd all want the guy behind bars.


To repeat myself:

The idea that a young girl was being "seductive" and the man was "drawn in"? I just saw that a year or so ago when a narrator of mine, a man in his forties, was arrested, sentenced, and jailed for sexual conduct with a child. You should have heard his banner author and her followers go after the girl online (she was 15 or 16). She must have been seductive. Girls that age can look 25. It went on and on.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> To repeat myself:
> 
> The idea that a young girl was being "seductive" and the man was "drawn in"? I just saw that a year or so ago when a narrator of mine, a man in his forties, was arrested, sentenced, and jailed for sexual conduct with a child. You should have heard his banner author and her followers go after the girl online (she was 15 or 16). She must have been seductive. Girls that age can look 25. It went on and on.


I personally find the content of the book vile, disgusting, and a reflection of unequal power dynamics between men and women and how they have affected sexuality in modern femininity.

HOWEVER, they are words on pages and I highly doubt that any of the women reading the book actually think it would be a great thing to have happen to their daughters or themselves in real life.

People read all kinds of stuff because we have this capacity called imagination and imagining terrible things and even being excited by them is part of what makes us human.

Why do we like ripper movies that depict decapitation and murder? We love to be scared. Yet, none of us would be anything BUT horrified and disgusted if there was a decapitation murderer in our midst.

Why do we love to watch films like San Andreas where thousands of people die in seconds due to tsunamis and huge earthquakes? Do we really want those things to happen? No! If we met someone who survived the Japan Tsunami but lost their families, we wouldn't think it was a great thing.

We have these minds that make fantasies out of our fears and disgusts and desires. We shouldn't want anyone policing our minds. Except ourselves.

So, I personally loved watching World War Z where zombies killed millions of people in horrible ways. I think it's a great book. I love books like that. That DOES NOT MEAN I condone the horrific deaths of millions of innocent people by zombies.

I don't personally get off on stories like [this one], but I also don't want anyone telling me I can't. BECAUSE THEY ARE STORIES. FICTION.

Nor do I want people to force retailers to sell anything they don't want to sell.

Luckily, the only thing I can be told is that it might be hard for me to find that kind of book if that's my thing as a reader. And, if I'm an author, that I may not be able to publish that kind of book on Amazon or iBooks or Barnes & Noble.

_Edited to remove book's title. - Becca_


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> People do view things differently in fiction than in real life, so I don't think you should make judgments about people based on their defense of a book.


People don't view things so differently in fiction than in real life. That's the reason why fiction can influence how people think in real life. I'd like to point out that I'm not in favour of banning books. However, I also am always astounded by people believing that fiction doesn't influence people directly.

I would like to see more responsibility in authors. I believe one reason why so many were shocked by this book is the complete lack of a proper content warning, and the flippancy of the warning there was.

_Edited. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm not talking about the fact that readers can distinguish between reality and fiction. I'm talking about the excuses made for the content by writers in this thread. I'm not sure how to say that more clearly. These attitudes are also pervasive in society. Well, of course they are. That's why writers in this thread are espousing them. That's what is disgusting me.


----------



## AssanaBanana (Feb 1, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> The father first fingers the daughter's genitals at age 10. AGE TEN. What happens afterwards, the "romantic" relationship, the "special closeness"--that has a name too. It's called "grooming."
> 
> The fact that the father rapes his daughter WHILE SHE IS IN LABOR with his child, and she's calling him "Daddy" while he does it--let's hear you excuse that.


While I agree with your outrage in general, you've got the details wrong about this book. The girl is 16 (which we've established already is the age of consent in AK, regardless of anyone's definition of "consent") when he first touches her, and he thinks he's touching her mother when it happens. The sex while in labor was perhaps dubious consent, but if you read the scene it's kind of iffy (and he doesn't know she's in labor at the time). There's totally a "love/hate" thing going on in the moment in her head.

I'm not condoning that type of activity, but this is FICTION and the event was a suitable inciting incident for the continuing sexual relationship between the pair. Most readers of this book GET that it's fiction. And sure, it's perhaps irresponsible of a writer to suggest this type of activity is okay because there are outliers who don't know the difference, but those creeps are going to get aroused by the MOST innocuous things regardless.

I had a "fan" who wrote me a letter once telling me how much he loved a particular book of mine. I thought his particular choice of words was odd, and he had a very unusual name (I wasn't sure whether he was a "he" based on this name) so I looked him up. Turned out he was a repeat sex offender serving time in Texas for paedophilia. The book that he loved so much happened to have a very innocent prologue featuring a five-year-old girl playing hide and seek with her stepdad. I can't help but think that the reason he loved my book so much was because of THAT scene more than any of the more explicit sex scenes later in the book (that featured the girl as a 20-something adult).

But I'm NOT going to adjust my writing to avoid potentially salacious material for people like him. I write books to turn on my readers, and my readers are by and large a particular demographic who knows better. I've even opened up a discussion in my fan group about the book and everyone in there who's read the book agrees - they loved it but they are suitably squicked out by the age difference. But they get that it's not a true story so we can accept the book and enjoy it on its fictional merits and based on general standards of craft, it's actually a decent book.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I still think people see fiction and real life differently. For instance, dubious consent in fiction--she doesn't want it (but secretly does) and is resistant but all into it by the end. In real life, that's rape. There is no dubious consent in real life, but it's a mainstay in romance fiction, always has been, and probably always will be (unless we lose to the thought police). There isn't anyone I know who doesn't understand the difference between a book containing dubious consent, and how in real life that would be unacceptable. Do I just have particularly enlightened and intelligent friends and family? I suppose that's possible.  But it seems more likely to me that people, unless they have problems, fully understand the difference between fiction and reality.

Someone could and probably will point out that in real life rape victims are often blamed for their own attacks and use fictional dubious consent as an example of why that happens. But compare the treatment of rape victims historically to those today and look at the improvements. We still have a long way to go, but it's better than it used to be. Dubious consent in fiction has never stopped, and in fact I suspect more people read it today than ever before, because more people can read and there are more books available. Yet we are more aware than ever of rape culture and consent. If people thought everything in fiction was fine, that wouldn't be so.

I guess it boils down to the fact that I don't have the time or energy to be outraged by what people say about things that never happened when there are real-life things to be outraged by instead. And I think, and will always think, free speech trumps it all. I'm fine with the retailers removing the book. What Sela said pretty much sums up how I feel. "I don't personally get off on stories like ____, but I also don't want anyone telling me I can't. BECAUSE THEY ARE STORIES. FICTION.

Nor do I want people to force retailers to sell anything they don't want to sell."

But I'll defend people's right to write or read it.

_Edited to removed quotation. Drop me a PM if you have any questions. - Becca_


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Because this keeps coming up: the age of the perpetrator and the relationship establish the criminality. 

In Alaska, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree is defined as, among other things: if the offender is 18 or older, the victim is under 18, and the offender is the vidtim's natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian. Consent is immaterial due to the offender being in a position of authority. 

So no, it isn't ok because she's 16. And the fact that you all think so, that you wouldn't understand that a father can't legally have sex with his 16 year old daughter, just boggles my mind. Seriously?


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> The idea that you can have "consensual" sex with your child, or that that child being adopted somehow makes it not pedophilia and incest, boggles my mind. That these ideas are being put forward by women disgusts me. The father first fingers the daughter's genitals at age 10. AGE TEN. What happens afterwards, the "romantic" relationship, the "special closeness"--that has a name too. It's called "grooming."
> 
> There can be no "consent" between a minor child and her father. By that token, how about a priest who first fingers a boy's genitals at age 10, and progresses to having sex with him at age 16? They're not related, right? And the boy thinks it's romantic! The priest has told him they have a special bond, and don't tell or the priest will get in trouble, and he loves the boy. How about reading that? I know I'd swoon in romantic ecstasy.
> 
> ...


I didn't intend to imply that anything in _Lolita_ or those 80's rape-romances was okay, or that I think any of the content of the book in question is okay. I read the entire book, and it is exactly what many have said: graphic rape, child sexual assault, and it depicts completely illegal and immoral acts for the sole purpose of titillation. I do not understand how readers could classify the clear episodes of grooming, rape, and abuse as something consensual or romantic.

My personal opinion of the content is one thing; the topic itself brought up at lot of questions for me. How much is too much in fiction? Why is it illegal to distribute child porn, but it's okay to graphically depict it in a book and distribute it? Would I want my teenage daughter to read this book and somehow think that anything it contained was normal, acceptable, legal, or permissible? Was I messed up by reading all those Stephen King and Kathleen Woodwiss novels when I was too young to understand the meaning of _consent_? Is writing a bloody, graphic murder scene any different ethically than writing a child rape scene? Why aren't people screaming from the rooftops over Jamie and Cersei? Why isn't Woody Allen in jail? How these same topics are covered in the industry, other genres, related ethical/legal issues, and how those implications shape our job as authors are all things that are on my mind.

I've been around here long enough to know that you are someone I admire and respect, and I hope you might know enough about me to know I don't condone any of the content of the book in question. If I've offended you, I apologize, as that was not my intent. Yes, reading the book sickened me. I've read a lot of books that sickened me, some of them award winning books and classics. And yes, it is quite shocking to read reviews of those defending the *content* of that particular book, and I can't comprehend how the *content* is defensible. I think many authors are having a hard time balancing their personal disgust of the content vs the desire to support an author's right to write it.

Do I condone, agree with, or support the content in any way? Absolutely not.
Do I find it entertaining, romantic, or beautiful? Absolutely not.
Do I _wish_ authors would not write stories that graphically depict child abuse, sexual assault, and pedophilia as a love story intended to sexually gratify the reader? Absolutely.
Do I _want_ to restrict a the rights of authors to write what they choose? Absolutely NOT.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm not talking about laws. I'm not talking about freedom of speech. People can read and write whatever they like. I reserve the right to be disgusted, but disgust isn't law. Amazon can refuse to sell the book, but that isn't law either. 

And yes, many people throughout this thread have said it isn't rape because it was consensual and she's 16. Over and over. The "age of consent is 16" is right here on this page, and on every page before it.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I'm not talking about the fact that readers can distinguish between reality and fiction. I'm talking about the excuses made for the content by writers in this thread. I'm not sure how to say that more clearly. These attitudes are also pervasive in society. Well, of course they are. That's why writers in this thread are espousing them. That's what is disgusting me.


I am honestly not seeing anyone "making excuses" for the behaviors portrayed in the book. I'm seeing people trying to clarify what's actually in the book, which most of us have not read. Does a 10- or 11-year-old actually get touched sexually? Does incest actually take place, or are the characters not biologically related? Is the behavior illegal statutory rape, or is it grossly unethical without being illegal? Is there clear consent, clear refusal, or something ambiguous? Trying to understand whether and how this author may or may not have threaded her way around through the details is not the same as making excuses for her, and having an argument about the book based on a misunderstanding of what's actually in it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Everyone else, let's leave religion out of the picture. I'll need to do some trimming of posts on that front.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> But I'll defend people's right to write or read it.


There are texts you cannot read or write in the USA, and texts you can't read or write outside the USA. It has been happening all the time. Just the context differs from time to time. However, this is a typical direction of discussion for this topic with American authors and readers, for some reason I have to yet understand. The influence of media, whether audio-visual or written, is an established fact. Why is it so hard to accept that this is so? People have committed suicide and attempted murder after watching movies and reading books.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Huldra said:


> People have pointed out that she was 16. And that yeah, it's statutory rape but it's consensual statutory rape. NO ONE has said that that makes the content completely okay, nor that they would condone it in the real world. They've just corrected misinformation. It's not the same as thinking fathers shagging their teenage daughters IRL is a-okay. It's really, really not.


It is not statutory rape. It is first degree sexual assault and consent is immaterial. It is sexual assault by definition. There is no such thing as consent in these cases. That is why there's a term called "grooming"--the preparation of a child by a predator to be sexually assaulted, to be made to feel that it is romantic and ok.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> There are texts you cannot read or write in the USA, and texts you can't read or write outside the USA. It has been happening all the time. Just the context differs from time to time. However, this is a typical direction of discussion for this topic with American authors and readers, for some reason I have to yet understand. The influence of media, whether audio-visual or written, is an established fact. Why is it so hard to accept that this is so? People have committed suicide and attempted murder after watching movies and reading books.


Nic, I do think there's disturbing inconsistency on this issue, and you're right not to want to just let it go. I don't want to open a whole new can of worms by raising other topics, but speaking generally, I can think of a few areas where the effects of art on society are assumed to be powerful, and there's an attempt to use that power to shape attitudes for the better by managing the ways they're portrayed (usually on screen). If art can shape attitudes for the better, it follows that it might also be able to shape attitudes for the worse. I guess it's possible that the former works and the latter doesn't, but that kind of odd difference needs to be established with careful research, not just assumed. IMO.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Nic said:


> There are texts you cannot read or write in the USA, and texts you can't read or write outside the USA. It has been happening all the time. Just the context differs from time to time. However, this is a typical direction of discussion for this topic with American authors and readers, for some reason I have to yet understand. The influence of media, whether audio-visual or written, is an established fact. Why is it so hard to accept that this is so? People have committed suicide and attempted murder after watching movies and reading books.


Everything we see, hear, read and experience affects us. I don't think anybody denies that. But what of all the people who watch movies and read books and don't do horrific things? People have committed suicide and attempted murder after not reading certain books or watching certain movies. The Beatles aren't responsible for the way Charles Manson interpreted their music, right? Anyone who commits suicide or murder after watching a movie has issues that the movie and its creator can't have anticipated or prevented.

I think American authors and readers prize our first amendment, and don't try to hold artists responsible for the individual perceptions of those who consume the art. Media in general, particularly the propaganda that passes for news, is a very different story. But artists need to be free to create without worrying if some disturbed person might see patterns in the words or brushstrokes that weren't intended.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> I guess it's possible that the former works and the latter doesn't, but that kind of odd difference needs to be established with careful research, not just assumed. IMO.


Yes, and of course. That's why I told Shelley to google "experience-taking". There is research being done on this and similar topics, and so far it points towards direct influence.

I'm not in favour of censoring, I repeat that. Two days ago I argued against PC vocabulary for a reason. But the refusal to acknowledge that negative impact is possible isn't helpful to anyone. And the comparison fits, even. If the used (non-PC) language is so important, because it allegedly influences how we think, why is that suddenly not the case, when we talk about books which portray acts as romantic which are indefensible?


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> I'm seeing people trying to clarify what's actually in the book, which most of us have not read. Does a 10- or 11-year-old actually get touched sexually? Does incest actually take place, or are the characters not biologically related? Is the behavior illegal statutory rape, or is it grossly unethical without being illegal? Is there clear consent, clear refusal, or something ambiguous?


I haven't read it, just tracked down the reviews on Goodreads. SPOILER ALERT: From what I read in the reviews, she thinks he's her father when they become sexually involved. Supposedly it's a big twist towards the end of the book when she finds out that he isn't her biological father. From what I can tell he's been her father figure since she was about two years old. One of the reviews has a direct quote about him having very forceful sex with her as she's in labor with his child. Multiple reviews make reference to flashbacks that there had been sexual interest/contact prior to the escape to the wilderness.


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

I'm not sure why people are talking about horror here. The books where horrific serial-killing crimes happen are not presented as romance. Different topic.

Amazon would not ban a memoir written someone describing sexual abuse at the hands of her father. We all know that, right?

This is a _romance_ depicting sexual abused between his father and his daughter. If you want to write it and present it as a story about an evil man who abused his child, don't put it in romance.

But what we are talking about here is a romance with an HEA that legitimizes child abuse.

Also, I'm getting annoyed with the implications that adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Genetics aren't the crucial factor here.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

CN_Crawford said:


> Also, I'm getting annoyed with the implications that adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Genetics aren't the crucial factor here.


SO beyond annoyed over here. My oldest daughter's father adopted her when we got married. She was 4. We did not include a clause where he could start banging her once she was 16.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

From what I've read on this thread, I have no desire to read this book. It would make my stomach churn. I don't understand how the word romance even gets attached to such books. Maybe they should be called predator grooming books.

I also have no desire to stop/ban a writer from writing whatever s/he feels the compulsion to write. And I have no problem with a retailer choosing not to storefront certain products. Their call.

What I would like--cuz I is a dreamer--is every possible warning-type disclaimer stamped on such books--preferably by the author. You know, this kind of thing: incest, incest with a minor, sexual violence, rape, extreme violence . . . probably a few more I can't think of. All this, so I as a reader can avoid downloading things I don't want to read. I'd be okay with that. And really if an author writes such things and, I assume, has pride in their work, they should have no problem telling the readers what they've written. They can find their niche and I can read a mile outside it.


----------



## dgcasey (Apr 16, 2017)

CN_Crawford said:


> This is a _romance_ depicting sexual abused between his father and his daughter. If you want to write it and present it as a story about an evil man who abused his child, don't put it in romance.


There is nothing romantic about it.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

From the descriptions of this book, it sounds like it might not even be protected "free speech" in the US. See New York v. Ferber. Not sure this would even pass the Miller test though (does it have "serious literary value"?).


----------



## Allyson J. (Nov 26, 2014)

I read some of this book last night. Spoilers ahead:


Spoiler



It has a lot of flashbacks where the dad is lusting over his _young_ adopted daughter, and flashbacks where the daughter has been trying to seduce her dad for years, apparently. The contact between the dad and daughter is "consensual", but there is a rape scene where the daughter is violently attacked by a band of inbreds while the dad is forced to watch. (Ticking all the shock value boxes...)



I don't agree that books should be banned, but man, there is a lot of questionable stuff going on in this one. The author makes everyone seem happy and well-adjusted, and even the neighbors in the book come to accept this incestual relationship. I just can't see how this story is romantic or healthy.



EC Sheedy said:


> What I would like--cuz I is a dreamer--is every possible warning-type disclaimer stamped on such books--preferably by the author. You know, this kind of thing: incest, incest with a minor, sexual violence, rape, extreme violence . . . probably a few more I can't think of. All this, so I as a reader can avoid downloading things I don't want to read. I'd be okay with that. And really if an author writes such things and, I assume, has pride in their work, they should have no problem telling the readers what they've written. They can find their niche and I can read a mile outside it.


There is a disclaimer on this book, but it basically says if you can't handle this, you are not open-minded enough. Defintely playing up the 'banned' aspect.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Shelley K said:


> Yeah, but this discussion is based on acts that didn't really happen. People do view things differently in fiction than in real life, so I don't think you should make judgments about people based on their defense of a book. If we were discussing this book as a news story that we read about, I genuinely believe horror would be the theme and we'd all want the guy behind bars.


Haven't read this book so I don't want to comment on it, but I'm a big believer in the power of fiction (and media in general). The stuff we read, watch, and hear, has a big impact on how we view ourselves and others. How much is debatable. No one is arguing that reading one book with romanticised rape will turn someone into a rapist, but I works certainly argue that repeatedly reading that kind of content will affect the way a person views sexual assault, even if subtly.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

EC Sheedy said:


> What I would like--cuz I is a dreamer--is every possible warning-type disclaimer stamped on such books--preferably by the author. You know, this kind of thing: incest, incest with a minor, sexual violence, rape, extreme violence . . . probably a few more I can't think of. All this, so I as a reader can avoid downloading things I don't want to read. I'd be okay with that. And really if an author writes such things and, I assume, has pride in their work, they should have no problem telling the readers what they've written. They can find their niche and I can read a mile outside it.


That is the thing though. This was all part of the authors marketing strategy. All the ARC/street team/bloggers were told in very stern words to not put anything in the reviews that says what the "taboo" is. They were not allowed to hint at it or anything. The author did this on purpose. Then prefacing it all with, you don't like it you are not open minded. The so called "warnings" were insulting and didn't really warn of anything. No trigger warning. 
Because there are plenty of "dark" romances out there, plenty of romances that go to the edge. I read plenty that others would not touch. But this is very very different. Usedtoposthere said it really best for me.

I do have to say I am appalled at some of the defending and justifying I been seeing from readers, other authors. It sure opened my eyes about a lot of folks. Its the, you'll only "get" it when you read it that is so annoying. Plenty read it, there is nothing to get. Its this rallying around that author by some in the romance community that I am so appalled by. Not that it was published. Its how it was done on purpose with no warnings, how gleefully the author now is. There is a certain pool of readers that are circling the wagons around the "poor poor" author that has gotten pushback. Poor widdle thing. Some authors too. They don't want to miss that spot near the cash cow and the readers don't want to miss their spot in being "special" and close to those authors. Its that justifying and defending of the acts in the book that are so disgusting. The rallying. The way this was done as nothing but a publicity stunt. Planned from the beginning.

Its why I wanted to know the name. And now because of how this is going down, I have added a few more names to the never read list. I can't support an author that defends and justifies the actions in such a book. The twisting of what it actually about. This isn't about having fantasies that anyone can have. This is about misconstruing and justifying pedophilia, rape and abuse. That is what I have an issue with. And the comments I see, not just here, mostly other places that because they weren't blood related, makes it so romantic. She did not know, nor does that matter. They are father and daughter, period. And in addition, since the sexual abuse started even earlier, that wouldn't even matter. It just makes it even more disgusting to see the justifying.

It has been very enlightening I must say to see the reactions everywhere.


----------



## dgcasey (Apr 16, 2017)

Allyson J. said:


> I don't agree that books should be banned, but man, there is a lot of questionable stuff going on in this one.


I don't agree with banning books either, but I will defend Amazon's right to say, "Not here." That is their right and prerogative. It has nothing to do with censorship.



Allyson J. said:


> There is a disclaimer on this book, but it basically says if you can't handle this, you are not open-minded enough. Defintely playing up the 'banned' aspect.


Ya gotta love the idea that if I don't like the kind of crap this writer is producing, I'm the one that's wrong.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Atunah said:


> That is the thing though. This was all part of the authors marketing strategy. All the ARC/street team/bloggers were told in very stern words to not put anything in the reviews that says what the "taboo" is. They were not allowed to hint at it or anything. The author did this on purpose. Then prefacing it all with, you don't like it you are not open minded. The so called "warnings" were insulting and didn't really warn of anything. No trigger warning.
> Because there are plenty of "dark" romances out there, plenty of romances that go to the edge. I read plenty that others would not touch. But this is very very different. Usedtoposthere said it really best for me.
> 
> I do have to say I am appalled at some of the defending and justifying I been seeing from readers, other authors. It sure opened my eyes about a lot of folks. Its the, you'll only "get" it when you read it that is so annoying. Plenty read it, there is nothing to get. Its this rallying around that author by some in the romance community that I am so appalled by. Not that it was published. Its how it was done on purpose with no warnings, how gleefully the author now is. There is a certain pool of readers that are circling the wagons around the "poor poor" author that has gotten pushback. Poor widdle thing. Some authors too. They don't want to miss that spot near the cash cow and the readers don't want to miss their spot in being "special" and close to those authors. Its that justifying and defending of the acts in the book that are so disgusting. The rallying. The way this was done as nothing but a publicity stunt. Planned from the beginning.
> ...


Just gonna put this here so it's up twice.

Yep.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Allyson J. said:


> I read some of this book last night. Spoilers ahead:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Wow. . . That's a lot of writer arrogance.

Since when did a reader have to prove their creds by bowing down and paying for the privilege to read about a sick/incestuous relationship to prove how "open-minded" they are.  Again, I'm saddened and appalled that this kind of subject matter gets anywhere near the romance genre. I can't see where romance plays any part in it.

My disclaimer, I haven't read the book and don't intend to waste time clicking to it.


----------



## Huldra (Nov 7, 2013)

.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Author has a post on her website of a toddler girl wearing a T-shirt that says something like, "I Love My Daddy" with the caption, "Too soon?" 

There you go. You can think that's funny if you want. Your brain. Your thoughts. Your choice.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> Haven't read this book so I don't want to comment on it, but I'm a big believer in the power of fiction (and media in general). The stuff we read, watch, and hear, has a big impact on how we view ourselves and others. How much is debatable. No one is arguing that reading one book with romanticised rape will turn someone into a rapist, but I works certainly argue that repeatedly reading that kind of content will affect the way a person views sexual assault, even if subtly.


I've read a lot of rape fantasies and a lot of dubious consent. I guarantee you that reading those haven't shaped my view on real-life rape. There are very clear lines in my mind about consent. How is that explained? Why don't I think women secretly want it if I've read millions of words of that very thing? Not being stupid helps. Reading a wide variety of things helps. Thinking helps. Stupid or easily persuaded readers exist, I'm quite sure, but there's a point where people talking about author responsibility are really talking about writing for the lowest common denominator. It's another facet of the many-sided die of PC speech. Don't offend, don't challenge, don't put a bad idea into someone's head. It's really a shame we're talking about a book written solely for shock value in this context.

But I think people don't give readers enough credit. Most aren't stupid and understand the difference between fantasy and reality whether in books, movies or any type of entertainment. They're not accepting real life rape because of [crap] they've read in salacious novels. The fact that the author has some sycophants and other writers who write the same stuff justifying the acts in the book doesn't mean many or even most people feel that way or are too stupid to distinguish fact from fiction.



Usedtoposthere said:


> Author has a post on her website of a toddler girl wearing a T-shirt that says something like, "I Love My Daddy" with the caption, "Too soon?"
> 
> There you go. You can think that's funny if you want. Your brain. Your thoughts. Your choice.


I don't think it's funny, but the beauty of freedom is that nobody needs permission from you or anybody else to think it is, no matter how loudly people disapprove. Her bad taste on her site is pretty irrelevant to the discussions in this thread anyway. Though it's just more marketing, and outrage plays right into it.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

"Attention economy" ... very apt, Markus.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> I've read a lot of rape fantasies and a lot of dubious consent. I guarantee you that reading those haven't shaped my view on real-life rape. There are very clear lines in my mind about consent. How is that explained? Why don't I think women secretly want it if I've read millions of words of that very thing? Not being stupid helps. Reading a wide variety of things helps. Thinking helps. Stupid or easily persuaded readers exist, I'm quite sure, but there's a point where people talking about author responsibility are really talking about writing for the lowest common denominator. It's another facet of the many-sided die of PC speech. Don't offend, don't challenge, don't put a bad idea into someone's head. It's really a shame we're talking about a book written solely for shock value in this context.
> 
> But I think people don't give readers enough credit. Most aren't stupid and understand the difference between fantasy and reality whether in books, movies or any type of entertainment. They're not accepting real life rape because of [crap] they've read in salacious novels. The fact that the author has some sycophants and other writers who write the same stuff justifying the acts in the book doesn't mean many or even most people feel that way or are too stupid to distinguish fact from fiction.


One swallow does not make a summer. Like everything else this is a numbers game.

Just because you - one individual - aren't influenced, doesn't mean others aren't either. People are swayed by subliminal messages daily. I know for example that I never bought anything advertised on TV. Not because TV advertising doesn't work, it works and very well so. It's because I have made it a conscious effort not to do so. That doesn't change the fact that millions of people buy a specific brand of coffee or go and try the new chocolate bar seen on TV because they are way more susceptible to this than I am.

The effect of such books probably is not that people will go about and rape someone, or welcome father-daughter incest. The changes may be much more subtle than that. Maybe condoning infractions which someone with an uninfluenced opinion would reject as not acceptable? Or not springing to the help of someone, because they believe what happens to someone is okay, when it isn't? Maybe it is as "inconsequential" as laughing at a girl who was touched inappropriately by a teacher or a boyfriend and telling her not to be such a bore?

I do not think that not writing such books would solve the whole problem. Refusing to acknowledge it doesn't do so, either.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Usedto,

Just wanted to say how glad I am that you posted. I thought I'd fallen into another dimension.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

[quote author=Markus Croft]

Part of this author's plan, surely, is the moral outrage that would follow and garner her more attention. Our lives are online now, there's an attention economy, and by giving this author attention, by arguing about their book, by admonishing anyone who doesn't share your opinion about the book or the content within, you are driving eyeballs toward the very thing you despise. This isn't to say your opinions don't have other value. This thread gave me a lot to think about that I wouldn't think about on my own, but you are giving this person exactly what they want.[/quote]

Quoted. For. Truth.

Lots of things get my red up, but if got judgmental about entertainment I find vile and the people who enjoy it, without even delving into what kinds of sexual fantasies they might have (oh god), my pointy finger would be cramped up all the time.



Nic said:


> The effect of such books probably is not that people will go about and rape someone, or welcome father-daughter incest. The changes may be much more subtle than that. Maybe condoning infractions which someone with an uninfluenced opinion would reject as not acceptable? Or not springing to the help of someone, because they believe what happens to someone is okay, when it isn't? Maybe it is as "inconsequential" as laughing at a girl who was touched inappropriately by a teacher or a boyfriend and telling her not to be such a bore?


But everything you're putting forward has always happened, long before this book or any books like it. How many schoolchildren have read enough of this kind of fiction (or any) that they've been influenced into thinking their friend getting touched by a teacher is funny. Having sex with children used to be accepted in many cultures. It still is in some. Most of the world is a long way from that now, and things keep improving, despite such literature. It wasn't that long ago that marital rape was thought to be an oxymoron. Most people recognize it now. And when a rape victim is treated poorly by a judge, scores of people raise the roof over it, because more and more people than ever before recognize how wrong it is to blame the victim.

If fictional dubious consent or outright rapes in romance have so much negative affect, how do we keep progressing in this area? The only argument that can really be made is that without that type of fiction (or media in general) we might have made even faster progress than we already have, but I personally think that's shaky ground, because we can never know.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Monique said:


> Usedto,
> 
> Just wanted to say how glad I am that you posted. I thought I'd fallen into another dimension.


I know, right? For what it's worth, a lot of authors I know are talking about this, and everybody's disgusted. (Including people who write suspense and bad things happening. Which aren't perpetrated by the heroes.) I'm just the only one banging my head against the wall.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

For people who are assuming that I condone incest and child molestation because I'm trying to be accurate about what's in the book as far as I'm aware, you should probably know I've experienced the things you're suggesting I'm okay with. I know firsthand the devastation caused by rape and abuse. Years of being on anti-depressants, therapy twice a week, a decade before I could stand to be touched. I know the reality of what we're talking about and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy let alone any random child.

But these books aren't reality, they are so far from reality, I can read them and not even be triggered. It's nothing like that. 

A couple months ago, my mother died, and several of my family members insisted I call my father and let him know. After all, he was once her husband and /deserved/ to know. My response was a hard no. They thought I was being petty, and that whatever issue I had needed to be put in the past at a time like this. We were blood, and that's all that mattered.

I would read every book in that woman's catalog thirty times over if it meant not having that conversation. So it's not that I condone child abuse, it's that I can tell the difference between reality and fiction. 

But please, don't let this change your mind about blacklisting me. The last thing I need is a bunch of reviews calling me a rape apologist.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> But everything you're putting forward has always happened, long before this book or any books like it. How many schoolchildren have read enough of this kind of fiction (or any) that they've been influenced into thinking their friend getting touched by a teacher is funny. Having sex with children used to be accepted in many cultures. It still is in some. Most of the world is a long way from that now, and things keep improving, despite such literature. It wasn't that long ago that marital rape was thought to be an oxymoron. Most people recognize it now. And when a rape victim is treated poorly by a judge, scores of people raise the roof over it, because more and more people than ever before recognize how wrong it is to blame the victim.


Do you progress? And how favourably do you compare to the progress of other countries? That is the question. Last time I looked at related statistics, the USA were still at the lowest end of all western democracies, with quite a distance to New Zealand or the United Kingdom. And we are again quite a distance from other countries and could do much better. The next question is where things could have been without the influence of books telling girls that they are worthless or that submitting to assault, rape and stalking is romantic? How much influence has the combined tempering with people's minds by all the media? Contrary to you I'm regularly shocked by the amount of people not recognising the lack of consent, both in fiction and in reality.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Shelley K said:


> I've read a lot of rape fantasies and a lot of dubious consent. I guarantee you that reading those haven't shaped my view on real-life rape. There are very clear lines in my mind about consent. How is that explained? Why don't I think women secretly want it if I've read millions of words of that very thing? Not being stupid helps. Reading a wide variety of things helps. Thinking helps. Stupid or easily persuaded readers exist, I'm quite sure, but there's a point where people talking about author responsibility are really talking about writing for the lowest common denominator. It's another facet of the many-sided die of PC speech. Don't offend, don't challenge, don't put a bad idea into someone's head. It's really a shame we're talking about a book written solely for shock value in this context.


How can you really know you haven't be influenced by something? There's no way to be sure of that unless you somehow studied your thought process before and after subjecting yourself to something.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of adult women being able to read any shade of dark romance without shame. (I do wish Amazon would implement a proper trigger warning system). Rape is a common fantasy and being able to play that fantasy out through fiction is generally a good thing. But no one really knows how it affects us long term. It might be a positive change, like a therapy of sorts. It may make us more likely to victim blame or sweep stuff under the rug. We really don't know.

I know a lot of dark romance authors who complain about kink shaming then suggest that people who aren't into dubcon or noncon are just uptight. We should all be free to read and write what we want. And to criticize what other people write. And Amazon should be free to pull books or not. Free speech goes in every direction.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> One swallow does not make a summer. Like everything else this is a numbers game.
> 
> Just because you - one individual - aren't influenced, doesn't mean others aren't either. People are swayed by subliminal messages daily. I know for example that I never bought anything advertised on TV. Not because TV advertising doesn't work, it works and very well so. It's because I have made it a conscious effort not to do so. That doesn't change the fact that millions of people buy a specific brand of coffee or go and try the new chocolate bar seen on TV because they are way more susceptible to this than I am.
> 
> ...


That seems right to me, but I do think the effect might be knotty, complex, and varied. One thing that springs to mind is that awareness of, conversation about, and push-back against "rape culture" seems to have blossomed in the U.S. over the past decade, a period that coincides with the mainstreaming of erotica, as facilitated by ebooks. Rape remains hideously common here, but it has declined somewhat. Is that a chance correlation, or are the two effects amplifying one another somehow? That's the difficulty with teasing out causes and effects -- there are always all these influences bouncing through culture(s) like cue balls, and sometimes they interact in unexpected ways. Maybe the conversation/controversy the more disturbing areas of erotica provoke has given it a very different real-world effect than those old-style dubcon romances someone mentioned upthread. Maybe subtle rapeyness is normalizing, whereas extreme rapeyness stands out as obviously fantastical and helps illuminate the distinction in readers' minds. Who knows?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> How can you really know you haven't be influenced by something


I meant I haven't been influenced by it into thinking that rape's okay, or that consent isn't necessary, or whatever crap in that dubious consent is supposed to make people think now. I haven't been negatively influenced by it. I know what rape is, and no amount of fiction is going to color my perception of that. I don't believe I'm anything special, so I have confidence that plenty of other people can make up their minds independently of their entertainment choices.



Nic said:


> Do you progress? And how favourably do you compare to the progress of other countries? That is the question. Last time I looked at related statistics, the USA were still at the lowest end of all western democracies, with quite a distance to New Zealand or the United Kingdom. And we are again quite a distance from other countries and could do much better. The next question is where things could have been without the influence of books telling girls that they are worthless or that submitting to assault, rape and stalking is romantic? How much influence has the combined tempering with people's minds by all the media? Contrary to you I'm regularly shocked by the amount of people not recognising the lack of consent, both in fiction and in reality.


Yes, we progress. The number of people who get up in arms over rapey fiction is just one indicator of that. Flashback to attitudes just from childhood, and they were vastly different. There are absolutely people who don't understand consent. I have every reason to believe that number is smaller every day. And I know for a fact in my lifetime the progress has been vast. Almost every female I know, and I include myself, has been sexually assaulted at some point in our lives in some way to varying degrees, usually before the age of 20. Some men I know have been as well.

Child me could tell you at length how things are different today, and how it would have been far better if things had been the way they are now, then. We still have a long way to go. But yes, we progress.

@kcmorgan I'm so sorry you felt attacked in this thread.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Markus Croft said:


> Is it genre fiction's responsibility, and the authors that write it, to solve societal problems even part way?


I think that as a first step you'd really need to read a couple of the books we talk about here. Not to be an arse, but you really have to see first-hand what is being discussed here.

Regarding your question, I can't speak for others. However, I can't so easily shake the feeling of responsibility I sense everyone has for one's actions. How I or others shoulder that responsibility is of course a totally different topic. What bugs me is this _après moi, le déluge _stance so many seem to be taking. Sell the goods, take the money, run and don't care about what you've done. But if it ever is considered good, then of course it's all fine and banana-sized smiles.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> Yes, we progress. The number of people who get up in arms over rapey fiction is just one indicator of that.


Oh my. Far less people get up in arms over rapey and obscene fiction than a decade or two ago, that is sure.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Nic said:


> Oh my. Far less people get up in arms over rapey and obscene fiction than a decade or two ago, that is sure.


We'll have to agree to disagree. It has gone in phases, and the type of fiction you're talking about in this particular book didn't even get published the way it does today a decade or two ago for people to flip out over. Religious groups and movements trying to exert control are also a separate issue. Super disturbing stuff existed in fiction and mostly went unnoticed, but it wasn't in books written by women and marketed to women. That's a whole nother discussion you'll doubtlessly disagree with me about.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Atunah said:


> That is the thing though. This was all part of the authors marketing strategy. All the ARC/street team/bloggers were told in very stern words to not put anything in the reviews that says what the "taboo" is. They were not allowed to hint at it or anything.


"Taboo," when used in erotica or romance this side of the last pornocalypse, is code for PI (pseudo incest) or I (actual incest on BN or Smash or places that allow it. Or used to, I'm out of the erotica loop and have been for quite some time.) Readers looking for that kind of read look for the word taboo. Just FYI. If you find 'A Taboo Romance' or 'Taboo Erotica' in a description, you're getting a 'family' read. Just saying.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

There appear to be two big forces motivating us -- a desire for safety and for freedom. They are often in conflict. We desire to be safe, but we also want freedom.

Those who focus on safety often try to achieve it by controlling our behavior, our thoughts and our desires. We fear violence and so we think that outlawing violent video games or song lyrics or literature or films will make us safer. There are those who focus on freedom -- expanding it, and protecting our personal freedoms, such as the freedom to think and to speak and to create art as we see fit. Some defend all speech, no matter how vile or horrifying. They fear any restriction on freedom means the end to it.

I am all about the gray. Not because I'm a moral relativist but because I've seen both sides and realize how hard finding a healthy balance is.

I want maximum freedom but I also want maximum safety. Dang but that's hard to achieve.

Human happiness and the good life are somewhere in between these two, in the very messy gray areas, but that's hard to deal with. It's far easier to rail against violent videos or against censorship.

In the end, a lot of it isn't black and white. It would be so easy if it were. It isn't easy. These issues are hard. As someone who dealt with the system in place to protect women and children, I know how hard. I was a play therapist for children who were abused and neglected under the age of five and saw the effects of child sexual abuse at a very early age. There is nothing romantic about it.

Yet, as vile as I might personally find [this book], I would say that a novel like [this one] is not the cause of a three-year-old child being raped any more than it is the cause of a forty-year-old man who adopts that child and sexually abuses it. It's not novels that create pedophiles. I'd wager most don't read romance novels -even ones with content like [this one's].

So, to me, it's really hard to find the happy place between safety/security and freedom.

In the end, we have to ask how much we want to restrict our freedoms in order to protect us from evil. Will outlawing a book like [this one] and pillorying its author and its readers really prevent a 40-year old man from sexually abusing a 3 or 4-year-old -- or 16 year old he has adopted?

How far do we want to go in restricting art and speech to protect ourselves against evil? What is the price we will pay for doing so?

I don't have the answers but I think it's important that we ask the questions.

_Edited to remove the book's title. - Becca_


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Throughout this whole episode, there is this weird entitlement thing happening.

"I can write whatever I want and Amazon is required to distribute it." 
*
No, they are not. *

I will defend to the end of my days your right to write whatever twisted fantasies you want to write and I will defend other people's right to read said fantasie... but getting it into their hands is no retailer's responsibility.

This isn't* banning*. This isn't a "rights" issue. It doesn't meet their guidelines, they don't have to sell it on your behalf.

Amazon isn't telling anyone they can't write what they want and it isn't telling anyone what they are allowed to read.

This isn't the only book that's ever been rejected due to content issues. But the author has certainly made the most of it.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Nic said:


> Oh my. Far less people get up in arms over rapey and obscene fiction than a decade or two ago, that is sure.


I don't know. My mom had stacks of Harlequin Romances from floor to ceiling and half of them were about pirates/sheiks/secret agents/princes (powerful, dangerous men) whisking a woman away from her life and ravishing her. These books have been around for as long as I can remember and make up a fair amount of the market. The terminology has changed, but plots have remained pretty much the same except the millionaires have become billionaires. Maybe it's important to look at /why/ these kinds of stories sell so well. I mean if it's just horrible disgusting stuff that no one should think of, then why are so many women reading them? I mean they are basically stories where a guy sweeps in, solves all a woman's problems, overcomes her hangups and makes her happy forever. How anyone could think this could be misconstrued with actual rape is beyond me. It's nothing like it. And if we think that men will read these and be influenced by them, do we also think that they'll go around buying the women they rape houses and cars and trying to die for them because that's in these books too?

I think action/adventures where female characters serve as little more than a reward for completing the quest would have more influence on rape culture than dubcon does. (I don't mean all action/adventure does this, I'm just talking about the ones that do). When I see cases of date rape, it seems like the rapist didn't get that the woman was a feeling/thinking human being. But Romance, even dubcon, centers on the woman's thoughts and emotions, so much so that sometimes the men don't even get viewpoint chapters. And what I understand about the psychology of rapists leads me to believe they'd have zero interest in reading dubcon, it actually goes against what rapists find appealing about rape. You can see this in the contrast of rape porn, where often the woman is crying, tortured [redacted because I was going waaay too deep, lets just say it gets bad]. Rape victims are more likely to read dubcon than rapists, so I doubt it's having a serious impact on influencing rape culture.



Shelley K said:


> @kcmorgan I'm so sorry you felt attacked in this thread.


It's okay. I've been called worse. And threats to blacklist me don't phase me because no one reads my books anyway.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

I haven't seen anyone saying she shouldn't be allowed to write this, and I haven't seen anyone saying no one should be allowed to read this. 

This whole tempest is over Amazon delisting the book and the torch-and-pitchfork crowds screaming "Banned books!  Don't take our liberty!"  

But as far as I know, the government hasn't issued a ban on this book or made it illegal.  So which "rights" are we arguing over?


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I don't really see any author in this thread attacked. Unless I missed that post or was deleted as I did read the whole thread. In case the "blacklisting" comment is in regards to my post about putting authors on a list. I don't know who you are kcmorgan, nor do I know what you write or have seen your books. Nor have I seen you out there as far as I can tell buddying up to that author in question. 

I am putting authors on a list that are known authors, no offense meant. Known authors that have acted in a way in the aftermath I find repulsive. These are authors known to me by the genres they write, goodreads feeds, twitter feeds, etc. 

Nobody has said anything about blacklisting a specific author at all. I am not naming them. Some I have already read some of their books, I will no more. 

Just wanted to clear this up before it keeps spreading in this thread about a suppose blacklisting of a specific author that never happened. Its one of those things that bugs me a lot when stuff like that gets said. 

There are also readers I have unfollowed over this. I can't trust their recommendations anymore.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

MyraScott said:


> This isn't the only book that's ever been rejected due to content issues. But the author has certainly made the most of it.


I do find it incredibly disingenuous for her to post on FB how this backlash has her in tears, but there's now a tab at the top of her website labeled BANNED and her addressing of the problem on her website and in replies to various Facebook posts involve a lot of Haha and LOL. And now this thing Rosalind's posted, about her "Too Soon?" post? It's just ridiculous. DOn't tell me you only intended it to ever be for its (normally) niche audience, and then milk the controversy and "bullying" for every penny you can get while literally laughing all the way to the bank.

And I too will defend to the death her right to write it, and to have it read, but it should NEVER have been in the Romance category on Amazon. The state of the Romance category on Amazon these days is ****ing APPALLING.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

MyraScott said:


> I haven't seen anyone saying she shouldn't be allowed to write this, and I haven't seen anyone saying no one should be allowed to read this.
> 
> This whole tempest is over Amazon delisting the book and the torch-and-pitchfork crowds screaming "Banned books! Don't take our liberty!"
> 
> But as far as I know, the government hasn't issued a ban on this book or made it illegal. So which "rights" are we arguing over?


Yeah, basically this. I find it tiresome how rarely people who complain about their freedom of speech being stomped on are really trying to say something brave or meaningful. It's usually people reaffirming the status quo. Again, I'm not discussing this book but this phenomenon of content being pulled or edited bc of a large co's policies/decision.

This isn't a liberty thing. It's capitalism.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Markus Croft said:


> This whole tempest might have started over that, but there's more layers to it. Laws and state vs. federal were mentioned, but where the thread has gone is definitely a moral direction, not a legal one. I think we entered a gray area when we started talking about creative works being responsible for the actions of the people who consume them or not, but I don't think anyone thinks Amazon isn't within their right to unpublish anything. But again, I might be wrong.


I think that's more the Facebook conversation and the authors' followers. I haven't really followed that, though. It's marketing, so expect the flames will be fanned for a while.

I feel like the case of this specific book is just shock marketing that did spark a broader argument. And after stepping away for a bit and thinking about responsibility, particularly in romance fiction which surely means people want less dubious consent and outright rape, definitely the stuff in this book, my feeling really boils down to the distasteful truth that once again, the default is victim-blaming. Rape and rape culture is being laid at the feet of women as their responsibility for the fantasies they have and the stuff they write and read. I'm sure it's not intentional, but there it is. When are the men who actually commit rapes going to be the ones blamed instead of the women who might write or read something considered deviant in a fantasy novel?

Like I said, there's progress, but we still have a ways to go.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Atunah said:


> I don't really see any author in this thread attacked. Unless I missed that post or was deleted as I did read the whole thread. In case the "blacklisting" comment is in regards to my post about putting authors on a list. I don't know who you are kcmorgan, nor do I know what you write or have seen your books. Nor have I seen you out there as far as I can tell buddying up to that author in question.
> 
> I am putting authors on a list that are known authors, no offense meant. Known authors that have acted in a way in the aftermath I find repulsive. These are authors known to me by the genres they write, goodreads feeds, twitter feeds, etc.
> 
> ...


My point being that you can't know how a person feels about rape and child abuse based on their feelings about a book. Assuming they support those things is like assuming people who liked Dexter are pro-serial killing.

The reason why I shared info about my personal life is to show it's quite possible to have no problem with the existence of this book, while having all the reasons in the world to hate rape and child abuse and the people that commit those crimes.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

lilywhite said:


> And I too will defend to the death her right to write it, and to have it read, but it should NEVER have been in the Romance category on Amazon. The state of the Romance category on Amazon these days is ****ing APPALLING.


This!

Ye olde categorization issue has once again raised its misshapen head. From my second-hand info about what the book that started this thread is about, it is NOT even close to being a romance. Maybe there should be a category called Deviant Attractions. That sounds fair--unless there's a mob out there who think incestuous relationships aren't deviant. The more I read about this the less I know for sure.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

EC Sheedy said:


> This!
> 
> Ye olde categorization issue has once again raised its misshapen head. From my second-hand info about what the book that started this thread is about, it is NOT even close to being a romance. Maybe there should be a category called Deviant Attractions. That sounds fair--unless there's a mob out there who think incestuous relationships aren't deviant. The more I read about this the less I know for sure.


Yet another situation that would never have happened if Amazon would:
1) Give customers an ADULT switch/filter
2) STOP hiding/dungeoning erotica once that filter is off
3) Police its damn categories.

I'm not excusing the miscategorization -- I'll straight-up say that I think putting something like this in Romance was an absolutely sh*t-tastic idea -- but Amazon has set up the situation where people who write this kind of thing feel that the only way they can get any visibility is to get it into the regular romance categories.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Markus Croft said:


> I find it strange to see some pushing back or judging those of us that are attempting to make a broader point that moves beyond this one book. You're making a broader argument yourself, one that isn't tied solely to the book this thread was created for. Why should I be disqualified from doing the same because I have no interest in reading it? I haven't made any arguments about that specific book.


That was what I told you to do: read this book and read a few others just like it, to get an idea what people are talking about here. What I am saying is inherent to the type of book we speak about. If you don't know the content of these books, you've no idea what you are responding to.



> Especially considering no one knows what she's done. I mean, we know she wrote a book and many find it beyond tasteless, but no one knows how that will affect any individual who reads it or their actions thereafter. Like Shelley said, you can't know. It's a little Minority Report-ish to think there is a solution to the problem at hand.


And I said finding a solution is a different discussion entirely. To engage in it, you first have to own up to being responsible. That is what I am reacting to: people who state they aren't responsible in the slightest, yet rake in the money and claim responsibility only, and absolutely only, if they happen to have done good. In all other instances they conveniently push it at the customer. The funny thing is that were any other producer or retailer to behave just so and sold defective or harmful wares, the screaming could be heard beyond the orbit of Mars. I see no reason why authors should be entirely exempt from product liability.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> I'll straight-up say that I think putting something like this in Romance was an absolutely sh*t-tastic idea


I disagree. This book is correctly placed in dark romance and dark erotica. All these books are considered romances, erotic romances or erotica by their readers. They are not considered anything else, so they are right where they belong according to their authors and readers.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

EC Sheedy said:


> This!
> 
> Ye olde categorization issue has once again raised its misshapen head. From my second-hand info about what the book that started this thread is about, it is NOT even close to being a romance. Maybe there should be a category called Deviant Attractions. That sounds fair--unless there's a mob out there who think incestuous relationships aren't deviant. The more I read about this the less I know for sure.


I'd argue it is clearly a Romance. It might be an f-ed up Romance, but it's still a Romance. The genre is defined as stories about a developing relationship between two or more people with a HEA or HFN ending. All the obstacles they overcome are obstacles to them being together. Sure those obstacles are things like...her mother...and that might make some people nauseated, but it's still an obstacle to their developing relationship. It also has an HEA ending. And there is already a subcategory in Romance for the "deviants", it's called Dark Romance.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> I don't know. My mom had stacks of Harlequin Romances from floor to ceiling and *half of them were about pirates/sheiks/secret agents/princes (powerful, dangerous men) whisking a woman away from her life and ravishing her. *These books have been around for as long as I can remember and make up a fair amount of the market. The terminology has changed, but plots have remained pretty much the same except the millionaires have become billionaires. Maybe it's important to look at /why/ these kinds of stories sell so well. I mean if it's just horrible disgusting stuff that no one should think of, then why are so many women reading them? I mean they are basically stories where a guy sweeps in, solves all a woman's problems, overcomes her hangups and makes her happy forever. How anyone could think this could be misconstrued with actual rape is beyond me. It's nothing like it. And if we think that men will read these and be influenced by them, do we also think that they'll go around buying the women they rape houses and cars and trying to die for them because that's in these books too?
> 
> I think action/adventures where female characters serve as little more than a reward for completing the quest would have more influence on rape culture than dubcon does. (I don't mean all action/adventure does this, I'm just talking about the ones that do). When I see cases of date rape, it seems like the rapist didn't get that the woman was a feeling/thinking human being. But Romance, even dubcon, centers on the woman's thoughts and emotions, so much so that sometimes the men don't even get viewpoint chapters. And what I understand about the psychology of rapists leads me to believe they'd have zero interest in reading dubcon, it actually goes against what rapists find appealing about rape. You can see this in the contrast of rape porn, where often the woman is crying, tortured [redacted because I was going waaay too deep, lets just say it gets bad]. Rape victims are more likely to read dubcon than rapists, so I doubt it's having a serious impact on influencing rape culture.
> It's okay. I've been called worse. And threats to blacklist me don't phase me because no one reads my books anyway.


I don't really have a dog in this fight, but something struck me regarding your example. You briefly touch on this later in your post, but I'm pretty sure that these Harlequin romances didn't explicitly describe the "ravishing" of the women. On one hand, that really doesn't matter: ravishment (or rape) is ravishment (or rape). On the other hand, though, describing the violent act in lurid, explicit (and violent) detail makes it a whole different ball game. IMHO. YMMV.


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> I do find it incredibly disingenuous for her to post on FB how this backlash has her in tears, but there's now a tab at the top of her website labeled BANNED and her addressing of the problem on her website and in replies to various Facebook posts involve a lot of Haha and LOL. And now this thing Rosalind's posted, about her "Too Soon?" post? It's just ridiculous. DOn't tell me you only intended it to ever be for its (normally) niche audience, and then milk the controversy and "bullying" for every penny you can get while literally laughing all the way to the bank.
> 
> And I too will defend to the death her right to write it, and to have it read, but it should NEVER have been in the Romance category on Amazon. The state of the Romance category on Amazon these days is ****ing APPALLING.


Wow. Unbelievable. 
I keep starting to reply here & then I erase it. 
The effort that appears to have been put into orchestrating this is unbelievable. I feel foolish for looking at it as anything but a publicity stunt at this point. &#128545;


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Nic said:


> I disagree. This book is correctly placed in dark romance and dark erotica. All these books are considered romances, erotic romances or erotica by their readers. They are not considered anything else, so they are right where they belong according to their authors and readers.


What? There's no dark romance category on Amazon.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Jena H said:


> I don't really have a dog in this fight, but something struck me regarding your example. You briefly touch on this later in your post, but I'm pretty sure that these Harlequin romances didn't explicitly describe the "ravishing" of the women. On one hand, that really doesn't matter: ravishment (or rape) is ravishment (or rape). On the other hand, though, describing the violent act in lurid, explicit (and violent) detail makes it a whole different ball game. IMHO. YMMV.


Those old books definitely described these things in vivid detail. Sometimes flowery language was used that would make us giggle today, but it was definitely details. The scenes haven't changed much at all actually.

Which is why I want to ask about your next point, you say "violent", do you mean in a way that rape is violent by default or are you imagining the women in these stories are being physically harmed? Because most of the time they aren't. They are either blackmailed, or coerced, sometimes held down, but I can't think of examples where they are physically harmed by the MMCs. Usually these MMCs will kill anyone that attempts the harm the FMCs.

And we are almost always in the FMC's head during these scenes, and they are usually thinking about how good it feels. Even if the book we're discussing, we're in her head, and she's thinking about how he's doing this to establish his dominance, and she likes it, and it's not like /real/ rape. I actually LOLed when I read that because from that line alone the book sounded more like a parody of dark romances than an actual one.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Huldra said:


> People have pointed out that she was 16. And that yeah, it's statutory rape but it's consensual statutory rape. NO ONE has said that that makes the content completely okay, nor that they would condone it in the real world. They've just corrected misinformation. It's not the same as thinking fathers shagging their teenage daughters IRL is a-okay. It's really, really not.


OMG. There is no consent in this circumstance (if it were real life). More than one person has said they think this is romantic, that they think the author is awesome and Amazon is a big old meanie for blocking the book. Look at the authors FB, or site. It's all there. People here may be holding back, due to forum decorum, but it's a sad state when someone admits they think molesting and raping a child for sexual gratification is okay. My ignore list is going to be full before the end of this matter.

I'm with Usedtoposthere and ebbrown, there are some disgusting attitudes being shown, and that it's mostly from women is astounding. It would be one thing to commiserate because the book was blocked, but to praise the author for writing this stuff? For deliberately pushing the limits to deliberately get the book "banned"? I think some of you need to sit back and think this through. If you agree it's terribly sexy and romantic, keep it to yourself and run to the author's site and buy the book to support her.

There is an issue here which the defenders want to gloss over, when they bring up rape fantasies and the like: these involve grown women, not children who are groomed by predators. That is called child porn, in case you don't get the difference. None of those Harlequin books were about children being raped. For God's sake. If you're (in general, no one in particular) turned on by dub con or non con, go for it. If you think it's okay between a grown man and a child, you need help. Seriously. Pull out the cattle prod if you please, mods, but that's the unvarnished truth. There is something sick in defending someone writing a romance about a man grooming and raping a child.


----------



## RedFoxUF (Nov 14, 2016)

Jena H said:


> I don't really have a dog in this fight, but something struck me regarding your example. You briefly touch on this later in your post, but I'm pretty sure that these Harlequin romances didn't explicitly describe the "ravishing" of the women. On one hand, that really doesn't matter: ravishment (or rape) is ravishment (or rape). On the other hand, though, describing the violent act in lurid, explicit (and violent) detail makes it a whole different ball game. IMHO. YMMV.


Yeeeah I'm gonna guess you weren't reading those books. They were pretty raunchy. They still are. And they have all sorts of TOS violations in them that they can get away with.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> OMG. There is no consent in this circumstance (if it were real life). More than one person has said they think this is romantic, that they think the author is awesome and Amazon is a big old meanie for blocking the book. Look at the authors FB, or site. It's all there. People here may be holding back, due to forum decorum, but it's a sad state when someone admits they think molesting and raping a child for sexual gratification is okay. My ignore list is going to be full before the end of this matter.
> 
> I'm with Usedtoposthere and ebbrown, there are some disgusting attitudes being shown, and that it's mostly from women is astounding. It would be one thing to commiserate because the book was blocked, but to praise the author for writing this stuff? For deliberately pushing the limits to deliberately get the book "banned"? I think some of you need to sit back and think this through. If you agree it's terribly sexy and romantic, keep it to yourself and run to the author's site and buy the book to support her.
> 
> There is an issue here which the defenders want to gloss over, when they bring up rape fantasies and the like: these involve grown women, not children who are groomed by predators. That is called child porn, in case you don't get the difference. None of those Harlequin books were about children being raped. For God's sake. If you're (in general, no one in particular) turned on by dub con or non con, go for it. If you think it's okay between a grown man and a child, you need help. Seriously. Pull out the cattle prod if you please, mods, but that's the unvarnished truth. There is something sick in defending someone writing a romance about a man grooming and raping a child.


I'll admit, I haven't read the book, but from my understanding from summaries it contains pseudo-incest, noncon with bad guys, dubcon with the MMC who is a 40 year old man and she's a seventeen year old girl. If she was one year older would you be calling it "child porn"? I think it's disingenuous to suggest dubcon with a seventeen year old is the same as the rape of a prepubescent child. And I personally find that comparison harmful. I don't want people imagining consenting seventeen year olds when they hear the term "child molester" because at that point it loses all meaning.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> I'd argue it is clearly a Romance. It might be an f-ed up Romance, but it's still a Romance. The genre is defined as stories about a developing relationship between two or more people with a HEA or HFN ending. All the obstacles they overcome are obstacles to them being together. Sure those obstacles are things like...her mother...and that might make some people nauseated, but it's still an obstacle to their developing relationship. It also has an HEA ending. And there is already a subcategory in Romance for the "deviants", it's called Dark Romance.


Color me stupid. I did not know Dark Romance was where a reader goes for rape fantasy, incest stories, or perhaps extreme kink. I've learned something. I guess I always thought Dark Romance encompassed horror elements, life-threatening events, suspense elements, or deeper angst (back story). Like I said, I've learned something. Thanks.

I must reexamine my concept of love and romance, which I always associate with old words like commitment to the other, sacrifice, honor, and fidelity. Gadzooks, I'm old.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

> it's a sad state when someone admits they think molesting and raping a child for sexual gratification is okay.


Who said they think raping a child for sexual gratification is okay? Who? I'll bet you a million bazillion dollars not a single person has said that.

The rape of a child and things happening to a character that doesn't exist in a book are not the same thing.

You can think it's gross that some people write it or read about it, I might even agree with you, and you can express that--free speech applies to criticism of free speech. I am all for all of that. But for the love of god please stop projecting acceptance or desire for the real-life acts onto the people defending _fiction_.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

EC Sheedy said:


> Color me stupid. I did not know Dark Romance was where a reader goes for rape fantasy, incest stories, or perhaps extreme kink. I've learned something. I guess I always thought Dark Romance encompassed horror elements, life-threatening events, suspense elements, or deeper angst (back story). Like I said, I've learned something. Thanks.
> 
> I must reexamine my concept of love and romance, which I always associate with old words like commitment to the other, sacrifice, honor, and fidelity. Gadzooks, I'm old.


You're not stupid. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the contents of books you've have no interest in reading. I couldn't tell you what's in most Westerns.

And while Romance has to be about a developing relationship, there is no requirement that it has to be a healthy one. For one, we'd never agree on what qualifies (though we are pretty much on the same page about what certainly doesn't). And also, I find the unhealthy ones to be more interesting.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

she-la-ti-da said:


> OMG. There is no consent in this circumstance (if it were real life). More than one person has said they think this is romantic, that they think the author is awesome and Amazon is a big old meanie for blocking the book. Look at the authors FB, or site. It's all there. People here may be holding back, due to forum decorum, but it's a sad state when someone admits they think molesting and raping a child for sexual gratification is okay. My ignore list is going to be full before the end of this matter.
> 
> I'm with Usedtoposthere and ebbrown, there are some disgusting attitudes being shown, and that it's mostly from women is astounding. It would be one thing to commiserate because the book was blocked, but to praise the author for writing this stuff? For deliberately pushing the limits to deliberately get the book "banned"? I think some of you need to sit back and think this through. If you agree it's terribly sexy and romantic, keep it to yourself and run to the author's site and buy the book to support her.
> 
> There is an issue here which the defenders want to gloss over, when they bring up rape fantasies and the like: these involve grown women, not children who are groomed by predators. That is called child porn, in case you don't get the difference. None of those Harlequin books were about children being raped. For God's sake. If you're (in general, no one in particular) turned on by dub con or non con, go for it. If you think it's okay between a grown man and a child, you need help. Seriously. Pull out the cattle prod if you please, mods, but that's the unvarnished truth. There is something sick in defending someone writing a romance about a man grooming and raping a child.


Thank for for saying this. And I hope this stays up because it needed to be said. Again it seems. Holy moly I am hitting head on desk along with usedtoposthere. The length to go to defend this stuff is just, I don't have words. I can't even.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

RedFoxUF said:


> Yeeeah I'm gonna guess you weren't reading those books. They were pretty raunchy. They still are. And they have all sorts of TOS violations in them that they can get away with.


Might depend on how far back you're talking. I doubt the 1960s Harlequins talked about the man's c*** and her "wet place." But they published thousands of books over the decades, so I guess anything's possible. I just know the romance and sexual tension was what all the readers loved.


----------



## RedFoxUF (Nov 14, 2016)

Jena H said:


> Might depend on how far back you're talking. I doubt the 1960s Harlequins talked about the man's c*** and her "wet place." But they published thousands of books over the decades, so I guess anything's possible. I just know the romance and sexual tension was what all the readers loved.


Probably not useful to apply a 1960s filter to this b/c romance is not stuck in a time warp and there was a heck of a lot of offensive porn published in the 60s as well btw...that was how you got it before the internet. I've seen the books as I have a relative who sells vintage books and those are, apparently, collectible. Horrible misogynistic stuff, full of rape.

Look up some Beatrice Small. Romance has always been full of dark kinks. There's less hiding/sugarcoating now but all these elements have been present in romance for decades. At least now it's out in the open.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

she-la-ti-da said:


> There is an issue here which the defenders want to gloss over, when they bring up rape fantasies and the like: these involve grown women, not children who are groomed by predators. That is called child porn, in case you don't get the difference. None of those Harlequin books were about children being raped. For God's sake. If you're (in general, no one in particular) turned on by dub con or non con, go for it. If you think it's okay between a grown man and a child, you need help. Seriously. Pull out the cattle prod if you please, mods, but that's the unvarnished truth. There is something sick in defending someone writing a romance about a man grooming and raping a child.


Exactly. If what is being said about this book is true, the author could be/likely is in violation of laws and could face criminal charges for disseminating it. Free speech is not as "free" as some people think it is. The Supreme Court ruled that states can ban selling material that portrays children in sexual situations. Might want to check the Miller test as well. And that's in the US, land of free speech. Other countries I'd think would be more strict.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Nic said:


> I disagree. This book is correctly placed in dark romance and dark erotica. All these books are considered romances, erotic romances or erotica by their readers. They are not considered anything else, so they are right where they belong according to their authors and readers.


I don't know why I'm even getting involved here because emotions are high.

But... I think Nic brings up a valid point when it comes to categorization. Whether we like it or not, I think modern publishing including both authors and readers are changing the scope and definitions of romance. We've been conditioned to believe that romance is something, and there are rules to that something that seem to be becoming murky.

Now, as for this book. I have no interest in reading it. I personally think it's gross, and am rather infurtiated at the justification the author decided to use as if it lessens the degree of perverseness in any way. As an adopted child, the implication that adoptive parents are not really parents is enough to make my blood boil.

At the end of the day, this just is not something I have any interest in reading or really discussing. I think it's important though to not use one's opinions on this book to form a basis for who that person is. It's important to not write narratives about other people by filling in the blanks.

Just for clarity; I think it's gross. I think the entire marketing strategy centered on the idea that controversy would equal sales. I think it's tasteless to release this book with only a vague warning, practically begging for people to read it like some kind of macabre dare. Based on the title, cover, and blurb, I was actually looking forward to this book. Not now. Not ever. But can we please stop tearing each other apart over this?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

> There is something sick in defending someone writing


See, the sentence ends there for me. I don't care what the writing is about. I don't care if I think it's the grossest and most disturbing thing imaginable, because it's not real, and art has to be protected. The stuff I like doesn't need first amendment protections, after all, only offensive speech does. I don't have to read it, nobody has to sell it, but the writer has the right to create it until the jackboots come out and laws are passed and enforced saying otherwise. That'll probably happen one day, and what can be written will get narrower and narrower over time. It's not about defending fictional rape. It's about defending _fiction_, period. I remain amazed that writers and readers who love words don't understand that.

If defending free speech makes me a sicko like so many people here in this thread have implied or stated, welp, think what you want, I'll hold my right to free speech against my bosom until that right's stripped away. Of course, it probably won't need to be stripped at all. People will hand that right over in exchange for never being offended or disgusted, and by the time people realize what's happened there'll be nothing left but the crying.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Shelley K said:


> See, the sentence ends there for me. I don't care what the writing is about. I don't care if I think it's the grossest and most disturbing thing imaginable, because it's not real, and art has to be protected. The stuff I like doesn't need first amendment protections, after all, only offensive speech does. I don't have to read it, nobody has to sell it, but the writer has the right to create it until the jackboots come out and laws are passed and enforced saying otherwise. That'll probably happen one day, and what can be written will get narrower and narrower over time. It's not about defending fictional rape. It's about defending _fiction_, period. I remain amazed that writers and readers who love words don't understand that.
> 
> If defending free speech makes me a sicko like so many people here in this thread have implied or stated, welp, think what you want, I'll hold my right to free speech against my bosom until that right's stripped away. Of course, it probably won't need to be stripped at all. People will hand that right over in exchange for never being offended or disgusted, and by the time people realize what's happened there'll be nothing left but the crying.


Nobody has suggested that any author should have their freedom of speech limited. Freedom of speech = you can write whatever you want (with some legal exceptions, libel, etc). Freedom of speech /= no one should criticize your writing or retailers need to sell your writing or no one can call you a sicko pervert for your writing.

I see this all the time in the geek community. Some company will change a story or character to make it less sexist or racist, sometimes because of outrage, sometimes because and people will be up in arms about censorship and freedom of speech. Just try criticizing all the sexual violence in GoT and see the comments you get. This is exactly the same thing, just in a different community.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> Exactly. If what is being said about this book is true, the author could be/likely is in violation of laws and could face criminal charges for disseminating it. Free speech is not as "free" as some people think it is. The Supreme Court ruled that states can ban selling material that portrays children in sexual situations. Might want to check the Miller test as well. And that's in the US, land of free speech. Other countries I'd think would be more strict.


I don't know about other nations, but here in the U.S., I think child pornography is pretty strictly defined as visual images, not written description ... right (source)? Whether there are state laws that apply, or some other possible illegality, I don't know.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Shelley K said:


> See, the sentence ends there for me. I don't care what the writing is about. I don't care if I think it's the grossest and most disturbing thing imaginable, because it's not real, and art has to be protected. The stuff I like doesn't need first amendment protections, after all, only offensive speech does. I don't have to read it, nobody has to sell it, but the writer has the right to create it until the jackboots come out and laws are passed and enforced saying otherwise. That'll probably happen one day, and what can be written will get narrower and narrower over time. It's not about defending fictional rape. It's about defending _fiction_, period. I remain amazed that writers and readers who love words don't understand that.
> 
> If defending free speech makes me a sicko like so many people here in this thread have implied or stated, welp, think what you want, I'll hold my right to free speech against my bosom until that right's stripped away. Of course, it probably won't need to be stripped at all. People will hand that right over in exchange for never being offended or disgusted, and by the time people realize what's happened there'll be nothing left but the crying.


You know, I want to defend people's rights to say and write what they want, but I think there have to be limits. When a story crosses the line into being harmful and exploitative and when we're talking about violent underage sex between a father figure and his daughter that's written for titillation I can't support that. Argue that fiction and real life are two different things all you want but I'd argue that it's very rare to see something like this held up as an ideal, positive situation even in fiction and that doing so repeatedly would be harmful long-term to people's attitudes about these sorts of things. But that's just me. This is one of those areas where I'm not gonna convince the "anything should go" crowd and they're not going to convince me.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Becca Mills said:


> I don't know about other nations, but here in the U.S., I think child pornography is pretty strictly defined as visual images, not written description ... right (source)? Whether there are state laws that apply, or some other possible illegality, I don't know.


That's federal law only. The SCOTUS decision gives states leeway to make stricter laws about disseminating this stuff, and it's not limited to visual images as far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Ferber Material depicting children in those situations can be written or visual. Someone mentioned it was in violation of an Ohio law. I don't know about others.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> I don't know about other nations, but here in the U.S., I think child pornography is pretty strictly defined as visual images, not written description ... right (source)? Whether there are state laws that apply, or some other possible illegality, I don't know.


It looks like Canada includes written material in its definition: http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.163.1.html


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> I'll admit, I haven't read the book, but from my understanding from summaries it contains pseudo-incest, noncon with bad guys, dubcon with the MMC who is a 40 year old man and she's a seventeen year old girl. If she was one year older would you be calling it "child porn"? I think it's disingenuous to suggest dubcon with a seventeen year old is the same as the rape of a prepubescent child. And I personally find that comparison harmful. I don't want people imagining consenting seventeen year olds when they hear the term "child molester" because at that point it loses all meaning.


Sexual activity started before the girl was sixteen. And she was his daughter. Yes, when you have sex with your daughter at age sixteen or seventeen, you're a child molester. Because you've met the criteria for first-degree sexual abuse. It's not just her age. It's yours, and it's your relationship--and how you've groomed her to accept it.

This is coming very, very close to John Grisham's defense of his good friend who went to prison for possession of child pornography, because he "didn't hurt anyone" (never mind that child porn is available because there is a market for it--that you are literally paying for that child to be raped) and that the girls he was watching were teenagers, not little girls. So it's OK for 15 and 16 year olds to be raped for old white men's pleasure. Well, maybe not "OK," but not BAD like it was a toddler. Not so the guy should have to go to PRISON or anything.

Yes, I understand that in this case, we aren't talking about the actual bad things happening to the actual person. That isn't my point. My point is that what Grisham was saying (at length) was that, because these girls were 15 or 16, they were "close enough" that it "wasn't that bad." Is it WORSE when men rape toddlers or preteens? Creepier, anyway. But in life, and in this book, a father doesn't suddenly decide, "You know what, I'd like to bang my sixteen-year-old daughter." He's started a long time ago. That's grooming, and it's a crime, too.

See, I just don't see any shades of gray here. To me, this is all black and white. White and black. Perhaps I have Child Sex Spectrum Disorder, or perhaps somebody else does. Who knows.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I, personally, find the content as described (I haven't read it nor do I have any interest in doing so) disgusting and vile. I've outlined my experiences with the issue of child sexual abuse. I think it's wrong and objectionable to romanticize it. Period.

I am not clear on whether the book in question violates any laws and so that is where I would draw my own red line. 

If it is determined to be unlawful, then by all means, it deserves to be treated as such. My support of freedom of speech isn't absolute. 

But if it doesn't violate any laws, then, it's really a matter of individual opinion.

If it's not unlawful, then it's our own freedom to read or not read the material. It's also within our rights to have an opinion on it. I support people's rights to have opinions yay or nay even if I disagree with one side. 

I am personally fine with Amazon and other retailers refusing to sell it regardless of whether it violates any laws because that's their right.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> See, I just don't see any shades of gray here. To me, this is all black and white. White and black. Perhaps I have Child Sex Spectrum Disorder, or perhaps somebody else does. Who knows.


There are no shades of gray when it comes to what constitutes child sexual abuse. It's pretty clear in law.

Where the shades of gray come into play is whether the book in question violates laws and thus should be censored and whether those who write it and those who read it be censured. So it comes down to whether written depictions of child sexual abuse meant to be romantic fiction violate laws.

I honestly don't know. I know that in Canada, written child pornography can be deemed a violation of the Act prohibiting child pornography.

"(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offense under this Act."

Does the book in question "advocate or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years"? If so, it may be deemed in violation of the Act in Canada at least. I am unclear whether it would be deemed as such in the US.

I don't know. I haven't read it. Does it cross over into advocacy or is it merely a dark story? Or is it a cautionary tale? Would any of us want our daughters to have this experience? I think not.

If it does violate laws, then the legal system should deal with it. If not, then it comes down to our individual preferences and opinions. Like I say, I am unclear whether the written depiction of an act "counsels or advocates" the sexual abuse of children or rape.

What about Daenerys and Drogo? She was 13 when they were married and she most definitely didn't want to be married to him. She gave no consent but then, women didn't have the right to consent in the book. That was surely rape even if it was within the context of a legal marriage. She ends up falling in love with Drogo - a known rapist and murderer. Does that depiction condone child sexual abuse? Rape?

Should Game of Thrones be sold if that's the case?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I'm mystified by the level of anger I'm seeing directed at some posters in this thread. I've read the entire thread fairly carefully, and I don't see any sort of groundswell of support for this book or author. I see people

- correcting factual details about the book,
- underling the value of defending repugnant speech,
- questioning the likelihood that books like this one have significant negative real-world impact, 
- defending women's right to consume whatever they want in the way of sexual fantasy,
- and in a few cases, saying that some condemnations of the book are too extreme, such as kcmorgan's assertion that suggesting "dubcon with a seventeen year old is the same as the rape of a prepubescent child" is "disingenuous."

Exactly one person on the thread, so far as I'm remembering, posted that she had read the book and thought it was okay. So, one tepid endorsement, out of dozens of posters.

So I'm not really seeing much "defense" of the book in question (beyond the author's right to write it, which we all agree on), much less praise of it or support for the author (we all also seem to agree that Amazon has every right to take the book off sale). Quite the contrary, just about everyone has said they haven't read the book and would never want to, find such material gross or distressing, and so forth. No one here has applied the word "awesome" to this book; no one has called it "sexy" or "romantic." No one here is a fan of this book or author, so far as I can tell. That may be going on elsewhere, but it's not going on here.

Being interested in discussing the larger philosophical/ethical/legal issues raised by this book does not mean one thinks the book is good or right. Correcting misinformation about the book is not an endorsement of the book. Thinking a particular condemnation is too extreme does not mean one thinks the book not worthy of condemnation in a larger sense or in other ways. Not being extremely angry about the book doesn't mean one thinks the book is okay. And so forth.

Let's please give one another the benefit of the doubt in conversations like this one.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the author's Facebook page, which has--what? Two hundred seventy-three comments on it? Telling her how awesome and romantic the book is, how unfair Amazon is, how this is censorship . . . you get the picture. Nobody here on this thread was saying the book is awesome, I agree. 

Issues of whether Amazon or other stores should allow or disallow books--that falls into my category of "not my circus." Stores will do what they want in this and in all areas, and I don't spend too much time worrying about it, since I can't change it one iota. 

In the beginning of this thread, I observed quite a bit of "shades of gray-ing"--people arguing that it wasn't that bad because the girl was 16, because she wasn't in fact the blood daughter of the father, because she wanted to have sex too. (Which is a big part of the abuser's story, how his daughter/girlfriend's daughter "came on" to him.) That is what I objected to. Others have said they didn't see anybody excusing the content in this way. I guess I read those comments differently, because that's how they came across to me. When you start talking about how the girl is 16 and the "age of consent" is 16, you're certainly implying that the sex wasn't illegal, and hence excusing the content. That was why I was at some pains to explain how sexual abuse laws work with parents and children--that there is no consent possible between a minor child and her parent. 

And yes, I was surprised that so many people didn't seem to understand that--a basic concept that consent depends on people having the full ability to consent. 

But I'm done anyway. Got a conference to go to tomorrow, and it starts early.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> I'm mystified by the level of anger I'm seeing directed at some posters in this thread. I've read the entire thread fairly carefully, and I don't see any sort of groundswell of support for this book or author. I see people
> 
> - correcting factual details about the book,
> - underling the value of defending repugnant speech,
> ...


Well I did call her a smart lady. But not only did she get her audience to buy her book, but people that would never buy her book in a million years bought it to rail over it's contents, and those angry reviews probably caused another ten people to buy the book that never would so they could rail too. Then there are the people with no interest in the book who buy it to support an author they feel is being victimized by the people railing. This book is being discussed on every social media platform I spend time on. If she's not smart, I don't know who is.

People have brought up GOT several times which does include most of the same themes and then some. Yet no one has ever accused me of wanting to burn cities and feed random people to dragons for liking Dany. Plenty of books have protagonists that murder, steal and other things we find immoral. Why does only this book reflect our personal morals to the point where we should stop associating with anyone that doesn't wholly condemn it's existence?


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

Like it or not these kinds of books are extremely popular. I'm a male but count me in the "women's right to choose" camp. The vast majority of readers buying this book are women. And yup they are imagining themselves in the female MC's role. Now this book is extreme in how far it goes. Not my cup of tea at all. I don't even want to read it. But many people find the idea of being sexually dominated very arousing. Dubcon and violence in romantic lit and erotica isn't going away. Whether or not any one individual approves. Nice sweet suburban women do buy this sort of lit.  Again not my thing. But I wouldn't call these women sick or depraved. They are pretty normal actually.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Nic said:


> I disagree. This book is correctly placed in dark romance and dark erotica. All these books are considered romances, erotic romances or erotica by their readers. They are not considered anything else, so they are right where they belong according to their authors and readers.


There is no "dark romance" or "dark erotica" category on Amazon. And the book in question, while it was listed on Amazon, was not listed as Erotica. Amazon insists on making erotica difficult to browse/search on the store, so people who write this sort of thing put it in places like Romantic Comedy and Sports Romance, witty sh*t like that.

I'm in this category everyday, both as a writer and a reader. I know how it works, and I'm telling you the people writing this stuff don't feel they have any other way to get eyeballs on their stuff than to categorize it wrong.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

kcmorgan said:


> And there is already a subcategory in Romance for the "deviants", it's called Dark Romance.


I'm starting to feel like I'm going mad. Can someone please point me to this category? Because I have never seen it, and I just spent several minutes trying to find it.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Cassie Leigh said:


> When a story crosses the line into being harmful and exploitative and when we're talking about violent underage sex between a father figure and his daughter that's written for titillation I can't support that.


We're on the same side Cassie, so I'm not attacking you, I'm really not BUT OMG PEOPLE STOP SAYING "FATHER FIGURE."

He. 
Is.
Her. 
Father.

In every sense of the word other than genetics, he is her father. He has been her father since she was TWO. There is NO clause in the adoption papers that allows you to start shagging the kid once you decide they're old enough to look good. Oh. my. God. He's her father.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Here's the relevant clause in the Canadian statute on Child Pornography:

"(6) Where the accused is charged with an offense under subsection (2), (3), or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose."

One could then get into an argument about whether the work has artistic merit.

That's a can of worms... How does one define artistic merit?

It's clear that the 40-YO was the girl's _father_ as in he adopted her, and was her only father for 98% of her life up to the start of the story.

That's quite different from, say, an 18+ YO woman whose mother remarries a man much younger than herself (hey, it can happen -- look at the President of France) and who is technically her "stepfather". That would be PI vs I.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> I'm starting to feel like I'm going mad. Can someone please point me to this category? Because I have never seen it, and I just spent several minutes trying to find it.


It's a category on bookbub but not Amazon, I don't think.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Going Incognito said:


> It's a category on bookbub but not Amazon, I don't think.


Ohhhhh. Okay, good point. Thanks!


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> Ohhhhh. Okay, good point. Thanks!


And goodreads, too.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Going Incognito said:


> And goodreads, too.


I was gonna say "Clearly I need to spend more time at Goodreads," but clearly I don't. 

What I need to do is stop thinking about this and go to bed. Cheers!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> Like it or not these kinds of books are extremely popular. I'm a male but count me in the "women's right to choose" camp. The vast majority of readers buying this book are women. And yup they are imagining themselves in the female MC's role. Now this book is extreme in how far it goes. Not my cup of tea at all. I don't even want to read it. But many people find the idea of being sexually dominated very arousing. Dubcon and violence in romantic lit and erotica isn't going away. Whether or not any one individual approves. Nice sweet suburban women do buy this sort of lit. Again not my thing. But I wouldn't call these women sick or depraved. They are pretty normal actually.


Of course women have a right to read whatever we want. However, retailers have a right to refuse to sell products and I defend Amazon's right not to sell this.

There are several issues you ignored such as that he was her father (and an adoptive father is in fact a father) and that the sex starts before any possible definition of the age of consent. The first may be merely distasteful and repugnant. In at least some places, the latter is illegal even in print and not only do retailers have the right not to sell, they have the responsibility not to sell.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> What? There's no dark romance category on Amazon.


There are romance and erotica categories, though. There and elsewhere. I was responding to people saying that these books do not belong into those categories.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Not just here, and on either side of this debate, if I hear or see the words "father figure" once more as it pertains to this book, I'm going to explode.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> In the beginning of this thread, I observed quite a bit of "shades of gray-ing"--people arguing that it wasn't that bad because the girl was 16, because she wasn't in fact the blood daughter of the father, because she wanted to have sex too. (Which is a big part of the abuser's story, how his daughter/girlfriend's daughter "came on" to him.) That is what I objected to. Others have said they didn't see anybody excusing the content in this way. I guess I read those comments differently, because that's how they came across to me. When you start talking about how the girl is 16 and the "age of consent" is 16, you're certainly implying that the sex wasn't illegal, and hence excusing the content. That was why I was at some pains to explain how sexual abuse laws work with parents and children--that there is no consent possible between a minor child and her parent.


I should probably clarify myself too. I was being more specific not because I think it's okay to rape teenage girls (which I just assumed would be a given), but because in a discussion that ranges from if the book violates Amazon's TOS to if the author has violated the law by writing it, I think it's important to be as accurate as possible about the content of the book that almost none of us have read.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

lilywhite said:


> We're on the same side Cassie, so I'm not attacking you, I'm really not BUT OMG PEOPLE STOP SAYING "FATHER FIGURE."
> 
> He.
> Is.
> ...


Yes, definitely. But apparently many readers who like the book have latched onto the adoption twist as a reason not to reject the book's events. Based on what people have said here about the story, I think the author worked in a number of anxiety-release mechanisms -- easy ways for readers to say, in essence, "Phew. I was starting to feel uncomfortable with all this, but now I realize it's okay because ________________." And fill in the blank with "they're not biologically related" or "sixteen is the age of consent in that state" or "he didn't know she was in labor" or "he thought he was touching his wife" or whatever. Add enough little release mechanisms and mix in the blurb's messaging that this is a book for open-minded people, and you create a situation that continuously defuses moral objections. It's like turning the heat up slowly on a frog in a pot. Add all that to the marketing bonanza the author's enjoying right now, and I think kcmorgan's right about her being smart.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Markus Croft said:


> I don't have to read this specific book to talk about the broader points I and others, including yourself, have brought up in this thread. You circling back and repeating what you think I need to know in order to have a valid point about the broader issue makes as little sense as it did the first time. But okay.
> 
> Our back and forth is going nowhere fast. I realize that now. I'm out.


You want to broaden the issue? Then let's liken these books to racist speech and books. Not only is it then really clear that harm is being done, it also ought to be crystal clear that the perpetrator is doing the harm, and not the unfortunate reader who happens to be too sensible. Are such books legal in the USA? Yes, they are. Curiously though, few people if any are in doubt about who is the culprit when the shit has hit the fan and they will freely name and shame them. They will also at least actively try to counteract that harm.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Yes, definitely. But apparently many readers who like the book have latched onto the adoption twist as a reason not to reject the book's events. Based on what people have said here about the story, I think the author worked in a number of anxiety-release mechanisms -- easy ways for readers to say, in essence, "Phew. I was starting to feel uncomfortable with all this, but now I realize it's okay because ________________." And fill in the blank with "they're not biologically related" or "sixteen is the age of consent in that state" or "he didn't know she was in labor" or "he thought he was touching his wife" or whatever. Add enough little release mechanisms and mix in the blurb's messaging that this is a book for open-minded people, and you create a situation that continuously defuses moral objections. It's like turning the heat up slowly on a frog in a pot. Add all that to the marketing bonanza the author's enjoying right now, and I think kcmorgan's right about her being smart.


This nails my personal pain with these books, and they all - practically to the last and I do read them - do this. It is one thing to read a rape fantasy, which should not be a problem and I agree with Shelley K there, and a different thing to romanticise, normalise and actively EXCUSE that which you are writing about. That's where the harm is happening, especially if then these characters are also described as hot and desirable.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

sela said:


> What about Daenerys and Drogo? She was 13 when they were married and she most definitely didn't want to be married to him. She gave no consent but then, women didn't have the right to consent in the book. That was surely rape even if it was within the context of a legal marriage. She ends up falling in love with Drogo - a known rapist and murderer. Does that depiction condone child sexual abuse? Rape?
> 
> Should Game of Thrones be sold if that's the case?


No, but this rape wasn't written to titillate, normalise and romanticise. It was written to be horrific. That's a different thing.

Edited to clarify: No, that depiction in GoT does not condone child sexual abuse. This rape wasn't written to titillate, normalise and romanticise.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

ebbrown said:


> Wow. Unbelievable.
> I keep starting to reply here & then I erase it.
> The effort that appears to have been put into orchestrating this is unbelievable. I feel foolish for looking at it as anything but a publicity stunt at this point. &#128545;


If you look at her concerted efforts, at how the website is set up, how she works Facebook and Twitter, and how she markets and packages her books in general, I'd say she is a participant or lurker on this forum. These are all market strategies right out of the book.


----------



## C. Gold (Jun 12, 2017)

Nic said:


> No, but this rape wasn't written to titillate, normalise and romanticise. It was written to be horrific. That's a different thing.


OK just to clarify, DROGO DIDN'T RAPE DANY IN THE BOOK. That was an HBO fabrication to increase the drama levels and really pissed me off because I love Drogo and he didn't deserve that vilification.

Quoting from the book: (after giving her a long massage and assuaging her fears, plus I removed some steamy bits where the ellipsis are):

He stopped then, and drew her down onto his lap. Dany was flushed and breathless, her heart fluttering in her chest. He cupped her face in his huge hands and she looked into his eyes. "No?" he said, and she knew it was a question.
..."Yes," she whispered...

I've exonerated Drogo, but there are plenty of other brutalities in the books by other people, but they are never glorified or excused. The scenes are done to show just how depraved some of these mental cases are. The torturers and rapists have no redeeming qualities, and are depicted as terrible people who will die in spectacular ways either already or eventually. The scenes are downright uncomfortable to imagine - no titillation at all. Only the murderers get the grey treatment since well written antagonists have reasons why they do what they do and everyone is at war with someone in these books, so if you hated all murderers, then there'd be nobody left to root for.

I haven't read the book in question, nor do I have a desire to, but it sounds like excuses were being made in the story to justify a child having sex with her father. Just eww! I worry that this might be taken as an enabler for people doing this to their kids. Hope not. We have enough bad parents in the news this month. Anyway, if it is romanticizing this scenario then that would most likely be why it got pulled while GoT remains.


----------



## AssanaBanana (Feb 1, 2014)

What if it were, say, a Catholic priest who had sadistic predilections and was attracted to a fifteen year old girl, yet despite her repeated advances managed to avoid actually f*cking her until she's over twenty? He still wants her, by any standards he's still a filthy pervert, but the story is romanticized like many situations in romance are (the priest is hot, the girl is precocious and older than her years, etc). Even though she's fully an adult when it happens, you could argue that he'd groomed her in this scenario and everyone would be up in arms over that story just as much because he's a f*cking *priest* and he should be celibate and certainly not crave sex with a fifteen-year-old girl. The story I just summarized (which is also fiction) is far more complicated than my brief description, as is the one being discussed. If a hero tears a man limb from limb because he threatened the heroine, that's every bit as dark and abhorrent... at least it would be in real life, but powerful alpha heroes get a pass for gratuitously violent acts. It should be enough to simply say, "Ugh, that book's too incesty/violent/etc. It isn't for me," and just let it be.

In a ton of recent erotic fiction much of the allure is about the power dynamic. This is why Dom/sub romance is so damn popular. This book capitalizes as much on the popularity of that kind of story as it does on the trainwreck quality that the potential incest provides. There's plenty of Daddy Dom erotica out there that scratches the same itch but the fictional characters happen to only be acting out the same scenario - it's fiction within fiction in that case, but still, it's all fiction. Pretend. Make believe. Nobody was harmed.



Nic said:


> This nails my personal pain with these books, and they all - practically to the last and I do read them - do this.


You know if you hate it so much you don't HAVE to read it. It is optional. Life's too short to read books you can't stand. Unless you just get off on being outraged.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

AssanaBanana said:


> What if it were, say, a Catholic priest who had sadistic predilections and was attracted to a fifteen year old girl, yet despite her repeated advances managed to avoid actually f*cking her until she's over twenty?


If this is the story I think it is, it has the grooming of a male minor and warden by that girl when she is adult. Yes, that made me very uncomfortable, because it was romanticised and made inconsequential.



> You know if you hate it so much you don't HAVE to read it. It is optional. Life's too short to read books you can't stand. Unless you just get off on being outraged.


I stated I read dark erotica and romance, because unlike a lot of people in this thread I actually do read them.

I would avoid the books we talk about here, if I could. Given the marketing ploys of this special set of authors that's quite impossible to ascertain.

No, I wouldn't keep quiet even then, because I care about and dislike the effects of these books.

Your last argument would logically mean that no one should ever call out anyone for being racist, sexist or in other manners making people miserable, causing them harm or taking them down. I'm not sure you want to really say that, but please enlighten me.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

[quote link=topic=254084.msg3540961#msg3540961 date=1502355907]
The man in the story also wasn't her biological father. She was adopted.
[/quote]

My step father has been my dad since I was five. This is still stomach turning.

However...

I think that most people on this thread are agreeing about the content of the book, and it has moved on to acceptability of disseminating/reading and whether it should be in romance. Let's try to keep it within the context of our business.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

I don't know. GTA V lets you simulate a mass murder rampage if that's what you want to experience. While that may be enjoyable for gamers, it has to be extremely, extremely rare for anyone to want to commit murder in real life (as a result, inspired by).

The book should definitely be restricted to an adult audience, though it wouldn't surprise me if the content is classified illegal in many countries. 

Saying it shouldn't be in romance is an argument - sure - But really it's romance readers who are reading it and giving five star reviews so obviously the author knows her target audience. I assume the book is written as a romance, but it's just the small details with age and the parental relationship between the two main characters that has people up in arms. 

As an author, while I don't understand the merits of such a book or why it has a large readership, I'm not barracking for the book, the author or the readers having their heads cut off, because I know that horror / thriller authors are next. That's how censorship works. You give them an inch, they take a mile.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

> the MMC who is a 40 year old man and she's a seventeen year old girl. If she was one year older would you be calling it "child porn"? I think it's disingenuous to suggest dubcon with a seventeen year old is the same as the rape of a prepubescent child. And I personally find that comparison harmful. I don't want people imagining consenting seventeen year olds when they hear the term "child molester" because at that point it loses all meaning.


Actually, yes, I would consider a 40 year old who has isolated a child and groomed them to accept sexual advances as child porn. The acts in this book, according to people who have read it, starts when the girl is eleven. How are you missing that? Who's being disingenuous when they claim the book is "romantic", an awesome love story, and all the other things people are saying, not just here, but elsewhere on the web? Instead of defending the author's right to write the story they want to write, they're bragging about how great the book is, how sexy and moving it is, to read about a man who takes a child - for whatever reason - and moves away to a state where he can keep her away from other family who might have some interest in seeing she is taken care of properly, not molested and raised to believe her "father" is a valid sexual partner.



> I'll bet you a million bazillion dollars not a single person has said that.


You don't read very well, I'm thinking. It's been said more than once that this story, which by the reports of people who read it indeed contains acts of molestation and rape, beginning at age eleven, is not only okay, but is a wonderful romance. People are rallying around this book solely because it's being presented as a romance, rather than the story of a pedophile who groomed his daughter -- adopted, step or biological makes no difference -- deliberately. If a man had written this book, I wonder if you'd feel differently?

It doesn't matter that it isn't a true story, though many girls and women go through this sort of thing daily, because it's written in this way to get just this reaction. Apparently, it was known before publication that the book would be blocked. This book wasn't written as a protest, or to bring attention to a social issue, but simply to push Amazon's buttons and also to push readers' buttons, simply to use it as a promotional gag.

Amazon had a book up once that was supposedly a guide on how to groom and sexually abuse young boys. It was not fiction. People were up in arms over this, and demanded the book come down. Where were some of you when this was going on? Were you justifying the author's right to write whatever they wanted, and to have it published? I'd bet not. I bet you were like the rest of us and were appalled at the book being on a legitimate web site, looking like it was an approved child care manual.

What romance books were like back in the olden days has no relevance here. The only relevance is that this book was against TOS, and was blocked. There's no campaign to restore the author's "right" to free speech. Remember, freedom isn't free. There's a price to pay, and when you push too hard against what society has deemed is not allowed, like books that glorify child rape, then you're going to get pushback.



> Freedom of speech /= no one should criticize your writing or retailers need to sell your writing or no one can call you a sicko pervert for your writing.


Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. My free speech says I can criticize your writing, and I can call anyone a sicko or pervert for writing these things. Free speech is like censorship, in that it is meant to prevent the government from stopping legitimate protests, and stopping the press from reporting on things that might make them look bad. It does little to stop average citizens from expressing opinions. All I need to worry about is libel and slander, and frankly, I doubt I'd have any problems winning should I be sued for either regarding this situation especially.

So, one may have the dubious "right" to write what they please, but they also have the right to be vilified, hated, talked about in ways that are not good, and in some cases to be prosecuted for breaking the law. My understanding is that statutory rape also includes sexual acts between what might be someone of the age of consent but the other partner is more than X number of years older. At 40 and 16, this would qualify as being illegal. There are men on the sex offender registry for having sex with their younger girlfriends, when they were as young as 18, if the girl was younger.

Usedtoposthere, more than one person has agreed that the book belongs in "dark" romance and erotica. For a grown man having sex with a child in a book that tries to justify and romanticize his actions! I don't care how romance is evolving, or whatever excuse someone just posted, this is not romance. It's child porn.

And now, I'm going to spend some time adding to my ignore list, because frankly, the stuff some of you continue to push about this horrible book and horrible writer is sickening and not good for my blood pressure.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> ...
> As an author, while I don't understand the merits of such a book or why it has a large readership, I'm not barracking for the book, the author or the readers having their heads cut off, because I know that horror / thriller authors are next. That's how censorship works. You give them an inch, they take a mile.


Your response is what I would expect the author to do and acknowledge, truth be told. If the author was that self-reflective and upfront, as well as honest about the content, that would fully satisfy me, both as a reader and as another author. That is what I am talking about when I say "take responsibility".

So if she sat down and seriously announced the book 

being only for provenly adult readers, 
romanticising against better knowledge activities which shouldn't be seen in a romantic light,
containing elements a, b, c and d,
and added a list of links or a reading list of books for more information about a, b, c and d,
and an informative page at the back linking and listing organisations helpful to abuse and incest victims

then I'd say, she would at least have acknowledged the danger of glorifying step-incest and rape, and provided her readers with a means to learn about the reality of such abuse. None of this would detract from the book, none of it would mean less sales, and it would do away with the image of someone sitting there gloating about how she tricked a readership into a frenzy, or how little she cared about the effect she has on society in general. It really doesn't take that much to behave in an adult manner.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

Nic said:


> Your response is what I would expect the author to do and acknowledge, truth be told. If the author was that self-reflective and upfront, as well as honest about the content, that would fully satisfy me, both as a reader and as another author. That is what I am talking about when I say "take responsibility".
> 
> So if she sat down and seriously announced the book
> 
> ...


I doubt she would want to take responsibility because it demonizes her audience. The moment she says that what she's writing is depraved, then she is calling out the readers who like it, also depraved.

Judging by the peripheral aspects of the book, who wrote it, what the rest of their books are; it seems like an experimental voyage into a dark trope as a means to stand out from the crowd.

I don't think that was the correct move for her, and I'm certainly not on board ethically, but at the same time she's probably only in it for the money and not for glamorizing sick themes or content.

To be honest, I was just as surprised when I found out there were all these readers out there who wanted to fantasize about animals shifting into people in an erotic nature. Now that shifters are swamped, as is BDSM, Billionaire Romance, perhaps the readers are just taking the natural spiral downwards towards the next forbidden taboo.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

She ADVERTISES these books with how depraved they are. There are reader groups on facebook and Goodreads which specialise on such books, and the more depraved and daring the better a book is received. This author isn't new at that game. None of them are writing this in ignorance, and few readers could overlook as what these books get peddled.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Actually, yes, I would consider a 40 year old who has isolated a child and groomed them to accept sexual advances as child porn. The acts in this book, according to people who have read it, starts when the girl is eleven. How are you missing that? Who's being disingenuous when they claim the book is "romantic", an awesome love story, and all the other things people are saying, not just here, but elsewhere on the web? Instead of defending the author's right to write the story they want to write, they're bragging about how great the book is, how sexy and moving it is, to read about a man who takes a child - for whatever reason - and moves away to a state where he can keep her away from other family who might have some interest in seeing she is taken care of properly, not molested and raised to believe her "father" is a valid sexual partner.
> 
> You don't read very well, I'm thinking. It's been said more than once that this story, which by the reports of people who read it indeed contains acts of molestation and rape, beginning at age eleven, is not only okay, but is a wonderful romance. People are rallying around this book solely because it's being presented as a romance, rather than the story of a pedophile who groomed his daughter -- adopted, step or biological makes no difference -- deliberately. If a man had written this book, I wonder if you'd feel differently?
> 
> ...


I read several summaries of the book, most were written by people who gave it one star and were offended by it's content. None of them mentioned her being molested at 11. I flat out asked a friend who just finished the book if that was in there. She told me it isn't.

At this rate I'm going to have to be another indifferent person who buys this book and reads it cover to cover just the verify what is and isn't in it.

Think about that for a moment, you're declaring people irredeemable for thinking a book is awesome when you've only heard what's in it. What if you are blocking people over a book that doesn't actually have child molestation in it?


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2017)

Nic said:


> She ADVERTISES these books with how depraved they are. There are reader groups on facebook and Goodreads which specialise on such books, and the more depraved and daring the better a book is received. This author isn't new at that game. None of them are writing this in ignorance, and few readers could overlook as what these books get peddled.


Well, I guess I meant in the context that depraved is a bad thing, that it has a negative connotation. If she ladens the books with Abuse Helpline Phone Numbers and calls to seek out these Incest Survivor websites, it kind of kills the mood for these people. They don't think of themselves as doing anything wrong. Judge them and they will judge back.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

lilywhite said:


> We're on the same side Cassie, so I'm not attacking you, I'm really not BUT OMG PEOPLE STOP SAYING "FATHER FIGURE."
> 
> He.
> Is.
> ...


Becca summed up why I'm being careful with my language and why when a question was asked earlier in the thread I answered about what is in the book according to the reviews without giving my personal opinion of those facts.

To me it doesn't change it if he's her biological father or her adopted father, that's why I used the broader term father figure. My biological father adopted my older brother when he was four and in our family he was my brother's father. Full stop. But since the book was structured to give that out/excuse I figured saying "father" would then lead to people saying, "but it's okay because he wasn't her biological father" which I don't agree with. Step-father, biological father, adopted father, father through marriage, man who has been part of her life just like a father since she was little...None of those scenarios would work for me.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Well, I guess I meant in the context that depraved is a bad thing, that it has a negative connotation. If she ladens the books with Abuse Helpline Phone Numbers and calls to seek out these Incest Survivor websites, it kind of kills the mood for these people. They don't think of themselves as doing anything wrong. Judge them and they will judge back.


Such things are strictly leave or take. The readers you talk about will flip past such information, but it could be useful to those who stumble into such a book with little background information or no better knowledge. To them it might be the statement they'd need to orientate themselves. It's not that much to ask or do. Basic.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

she-la-ti-da said:


> Actually, it doesn't mean that at all. My free speech says I can criticize your writing, and I can call anyone a sicko or pervert for writing these things. Free speech is like censorship, in that it is meant to prevent the government from stopping legitimate protests, and stopping the press from reporting on things that might make them look bad. It does little to stop average citizens from expressing opinions. All I need to worry about is libel and slander, and frankly, I doubt I'd have any problems winning should I be sued for either regarding this situation especially.
> 
> So, one may have the dubious "right" to write what they please, but they also have the right to be vilified, hated, talked about in ways that are not good, and in some cases to be prosecuted for breaking the law. My understanding is that statutory rape also includes sexual acts between what might be someone of the age of consent but the other partner is more than X number of years older. At 40 and 16, this would qualify as being illegal. There are men on the sex offender registry for having sex with their younger girlfriends, when they were as young as 18, if the girl was younger.


That's actually exactly what I said. /= Is shorthands for does not equal (at least if I remember algebra correctly).


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

C. Gold said:


> OK just to clarify, DROGO DIDN'T RAPE DANY IN THE BOOK. That was an HBO fabrication to increase the drama levels and really p*ssed me off because I love Drogo and he didn't deserve that vilification.
> 
> Quoting from the book: (after giving her a long massage and assuaging her fears, plus I removed some steamy bits where the ellipsis are):
> 
> ...


This is where you and I depart because I think George RR Martin took what should be considered -- by us moderns -- as rape (adult male having sex with underage female) and made it romantic by having him caress her a bit before and having her say yes. He wrote it in such a way as to make the reader feel okay about the age difference because Drogo took his time and allayed her fears blah blah blah. When I read that scene, I was disgusted as I imagine I'd be if I was to read this recent banned book -- which I won't.

Martin, IMO, should not have described the scene in detail and in that way because he made acceptable something that shouldn't be. In my mind, that scene in the books was no different than romance fiction doing it underage sex. It disgusted me, but I kept reading because of the rest of the story. I preferred the HBO version because it portrayed it as a rape, which I think it would be under our laws, and it's our laws that matter to me. Martin turned it from a rape to acceptable just like this author whose book we can't mention. At least in the HBO version, Dany overcomes the horrific circumstances she had no choice in and so she is a survivor.

YMMV


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Well shut my mouth. I guess I can't read, and I also am a horrible person. Thanks for opening my eyes. I mean when the words say that people think it's a good idea to rape kids, I take those words at face value. That doesn't say they think it's okay in fiction, when it's not happening to real people, but that people think it's a good idea to rape kids. Is the reader or the writer the one that's mistaken there? I guess it's the reader, because being okay with something in fiction means you're okay with it, period. I never knew.

Dany was 13 in the book. I don't care how it was written, that's rape, right? She was a child. So by the logic in this thread, anyone who thought Dany and Drogo's relationship was okay-to-fantastic must be a rape apologist and must think it's okay to rape 13-year-olds. In the show, it went even beyond the book. But I also guess that showing her bare boobies before she was pushed to her knees and raped was supposed to be _not_ titillating, especially not for any men who were watching. Hang on while I go to my laughing place.

Oh, that's another thing. I got that concept from Stephen King's Misery, a book I loved. Loved the movie, too. So once again, following the logic people are using in regards to the book in question, which surely must mean that's how they feel about all fiction, because it's all made up, I must be a fan of both mental illness and torture for enjoying that book. Those setting my posts to ignore are really right to do so because if every book I've enjoyed is filled with things that I enjoyed reading about, I must also (secretly, since I never knew it), condone those acts in real life. I am a sick twist, and everyone should block me now. I think _I_ should block me, if I can. I probably shouldn't show my face in public _or_ in forums, not now that I realize fantasy and reality are actually the same thing.

I never knew until today that's how fiction worked. Color me educated.


----------



## Dhewco (Apr 10, 2016)

I agree with Shelley here. When I read Needful Things as a teen, I didn't think it was okay to fantasize about my teacher like that teen in that book. When I read the book It, it didn't make me want to have orgies with my buds. It didn't 'normalize' it. Maybe if that was the only thing I read, or if I ignored my upbringing, or if I .... no, I just don't see it. 

Speaking of 'seeing', I think I'd have to actually read this book to know what everyone is talking about and I don't read romance. I don't think I ever have...unless Phyllis Whitney is romance. Or VC Andrews. Still, you could have 10 people read the same story and get 10 different opinions about what to focus on in the story. You could even get 10 people who glass over a scene about the daughter being 11yo when it first started. They might not even remember it being in the story. As writers, you can't control what part of your story the reader finds important. You can lead them, but they have to take that step and it doesn't always work the way you wish. 

I know that personally. 

David


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

But GoT isn't set in modern day, right? Is it even set in our world?

I'm not trying to explain away sex with a minor, but it has been normal at points in history, and so I can understand it happening in GoT in a way I can't accept in contemporary romance.

In one of my books a girl of 15 marries a man in his forties. But it is set in biblical times, and their ages were appropriate for the era.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Shelley K said:


> Well shut my mouth. I guess I can't read, and I also am a horrible person. Thanks for opening my eyes. I mean when the words say that people think it's a good idea to rape kids, I take those words at face value. That doesn't say they think it's okay in fiction, when it's not happening to real people, but that people think it's a good idea to rape kids. Is the reader or the writer the one that's mistaken there? I guess it's the reader, because being okay with something in fiction means you're okay with it, period. I never knew.
> 
> Dany was 13 in the book. I don't care how it was written, that's rape, right? She was a child. So by the logic in this thread, anyone who thought Dany and Drogo's relationship was okay-to-fantastic must be a rape apologist and must think it's okay to rape 13-year-olds. In the show, it went even beyond the book. But I also guess that showing her bare boobies before she was pushed to her knees and raped was supposed to be _not_ titillating, especially not for any men who were watching. Hang on while I go to my laughing place.


It's not really you're okay with that scene, so you're a rape apologist. It's all a part of the broader rape culture. Culture isn't one book or movie or TV. It's an accumulation of things, and of attitudes people have. Media doesn't work one way. It influences our opinions, and then media creators go and create media with those opinions, and people view it, and its popularity influences whether there's more of it and what direction it goes.

As for GoT, I've never read the books, but I have seen the show, and it absolutely includes incest and rape scenes that are meant to titillate. I stopped watching because of all the sexual violence. If I want to see bad things happen to women, I'll watch Law and Order SVU. At least there I get Olivia Benson telling victims it's not their fault.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> It's not really you're okay with that scene, so you're a rape apologist. It's all a part of the broader rape culture. Culture isn't one book or movie or TV. It's an accumulation of things, and of attitudes people have. Media doesn't work one way. It influences our opinions, and then media creators go and create media with those opinions, and people view it, and its popularity influences whether there's more of it and what direction it goes.


This. It's not about an individual book or video. It's about the masses of them.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Evenstar said:


> In one of my books a girl of 15 marries a man in his forties. But it is set in biblical times, and their ages were appropriate for the era.


I'd have no problem with this if it isn't done in any exploitative manner. Juliet was what? Thirteen? It's a completely different thing when compared to rape of minors in contemporary fiction written for titillation. That is also - I think - the definition retailers use, and why underage sex in YA or historicals or other genres is generally no problem.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

You can write whatever you want. You can read whatever you want. But a private business choosing not to sell a book is _not_ censorship, people saying they think this book is disgusting and goes too far is _not_ censorship, and shame on the author and all her followers for beating this victimhood drum of "WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED AND KINK-SHAMED AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH US ISN'T OPEN-MINDED!"

There's also a world of difference between depiction and romanticization. Just having child sexual abuse in a book doesn't mean it's being romanticized (I've never read GOT so I can't speak to that specific example). I haven't read the whole book, but I've read some of the excerpts and plenty of summaries from supporters and detractors, and it's truly stomach-churning to see people on Facebook and Goodreads speak glowingly about how romantic it is.

I just don't think there's any situation in which a father grooming and then banging his daughter, impregnating her, and then banging her as she's in labor because she needed to be "claimed" as his can be deemed romantic. And if that makes me old-fashioned or a closed-minded kink-shamer, then I'm fine with that.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

For some reason all this hype is bringing to mind The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer.

Twin Peaks was huge when I was at school, and when David Lynch released the book to go with it, we all rushed out to buy it. The fact that our school banned it and confiscated any found copies only made it more desirable.

Then I read it.... I was fifteen at the time I think, but when I discovered that it was in fact the harrowing account of a young girl being sexually abused by her adored father I was physically sick. She was so twisted by it and her mind so warped by what was happening to her that she created the whole Bob character to deal with that side of her father, before eventually descending into drugs and prostitution.

Many many moments of the book are written as erotic and the first time she has sex with her boyfriend is very romantic. But the main difference is that it was NEVER branded as a romance. It was a tragedy in every sense... And ended the only way it could really.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Evenstar said:


> But GoT isn't set in modern day, right? Is it even set in our world?
> 
> I'm not trying to explain away sex with a minor, but it has been normal at points in history, and so I can understand it happening in GoT in a way I can't accept in contemporary romance.
> 
> In one of my books a girl of 15 marries a man in his forties. But it is set in biblical times, and their ages were appropriate for the era.


Yeah, but that's equivocating, isn't it?

Slavery was also legal in the past but only an ignoramus would portray it romantically. They used to draw and quarter people who were guilty of crimes and burn witches at the stake and stone adulterers in the past. Those were all lawful acts. That doesn't mean those acts should be romanticized in fiction and portrayed as something good. Today, we recognize the exploitation involved in marrying off 13-year-old girls to 40-year-old men and the abuse of their inherent rights and inability to consent at that age.

The fact that people in biblical times didn't recognize this doesn't make what they did back then right. If those acts are depicted as morally superdeduper in fiction or romanticized, that's just wrong. They should be presented realistically, sure, but not romanticized, glossing over the issues.

Slavery was never romantic and IMO shouldn't be portrayed that way in fiction. Nor should marrying off 13-year-old girls to 40-year-old men, which is in itself a kind of slavery.

Now, I don't want to ban that sh*t, so people are free to write it and read it and love it. Just as I am free to not do so.

The truth is that most people don't spend a lot of time thinking about the stuff they like. They just like it.

And that's fine, I guess. If they did think a bit more deeply about why they like first-person shooter games where they drive around killing prostitutes and raping, robbing and crashing cars, they might not enjoy it quite so much. Same goes for these dark romances.


----------



## Allyson J. (Nov 26, 2014)

Zuri said:


> Although the events in the wilderness take place when she's 16 and then 17, there are a number of flashbacks that show the inappropriate nature of the father and daughter's relationship before they got there. This, in my opinion, completely destroys any 'outs' the author was trying to give the reader to justify this behavior since the father was effectively grooming her. Even if she was the one giving him inappropriate attention, he never properly dealt with it or rejected it. They even discuss some of those past instances and how they wanted to bang each other at the time, at one point recreating the moment and taking it exactly where they wanted it to go.


Yes, absolutely. The flashbacks were terribly inappropriate. Especially


Spoiler



the hot tub scene, where he is lusting after his daughter's newly developing body in her bathing suit, and then goes upstairs to bang his wife while fantasizing about the daughter just downstairs. Also, in a separate flashback, they go on a daddy-daughter date, and dance up on each other. If I'm not mistaken, he gives her alcohol both times.


 In these scenes, the mom/wife is very much alive and sexually available (if not emotionally). When she dies in a tragic accident, they don't even mourn her. They just say "eh, it's time to let her go", push her into the river, and start enjoying their new life together.

For the record, I don't have a problem with dark rom or erotica. Perfectly fine for grown ups. But I started reading romance at a young age, and I would really hate for a girl/teen to read this and think something like this is appropriate behavior between a man and any girl. Sadly, everyone I know who has been sexually abused was abused by a family member or trusted adult (growing up, I was very close to someone who was molested by their adopted father for years--well into college. She never once spoke up, or reached out for help). What if some young, impressionable person read this and thought _'this is what's happening to me, and they are in love/it's so romantic, so it must be ok.'_ ??


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Allyson J. said:


> Yes, absolutely. The flashbacks were terribly inappropriate. Especially
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


My friend, who was sexually abused by her father, learned soon enough that it was not normal and okay because she was threatened in order to keep it secret. She was kept from having friends because of their big family secret. She knew it was not okay and struggled with it for years. So I'm really not concerned that a book like this will encourage girls to think being sexually abused by a father is okay and romantic. Most sexual abuse goes on behind closed doors in secret and is the result of adult behavior, not the ideas or beliefs or actions of a 13-YO child. Most of the readers of these books are adult women. It's fantasy, even if it is romance, and most of us can keep the two separate. We know this is not a good healthy thing, but sometimes, people enjoy reading dark tales even so.

This doesn't mean I defend the story. I think it's [crap] and wrong.

But if we want to get to the root cause of child sexual abuse, it isn't going to be via outlawing books like the one in question or shaming the author and readers. Understanding why people would find this story romantic might help us understand some of what's wrong in our society.

But then, I'm a former academic type, so I find questions like this to be intellectually absorbing rather than morally outrageous. Being a stoic, I tend to think there are far more significant things to get my panties in a twist about than the portrayal of a taboo relationship in romance fiction... But there are useful learnings from discussing it.

That may be just me, though,


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

sela said:


> Yeah, but that's equivocating, isn't it?
> 
> Slavery was also legal in the past but only an ignoramus would portray it romantically. They used to draw and quarter people who were guilty of crimes and burn witches at the stake and stone adulterers in the past. Those were all lawful acts. That doesn't mean those acts should be romanticized in fiction and portrayed as something good. Today, we recognize the exploitation involved in marrying off 13-year-old girls to 40-year-old men and the abuse of their inherent rights and inability to consent at that age.
> 
> ...


About 80% of what I write is slave romance...I just can't win here. Thank goodness this community doesn't get to decide what I can and can't write, I'd be down to nothing but grocery lists.

I've spent a fair bit of time on self-reflection and understanding my own psychology, but I'm interested in what you think would sour me on dark romance if I thought about it more deeply.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> About 80% of what I write is slave romance...I just can't win here. Thank goodness this community doesn't get to decide what I can and can't write, I'd be down to nothing but grocery lists.
> 
> I've spent a fair bit of time on self-reflection and understanding my own psychology, but I'm interested in what you think would sour me on dark romance if I thought about it more deeply.


Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that an author can't write a romance about slaves. I mean if an author portrays slavery _romantically_, removing the elements of exploitation and abuse, glossing over the bad reality.

It's all in how it's done, isn't it? It comes down to the skill of the author in writing their story. Some will write such a novel in a ham-fisted manner and some will do it with skill and sensitivity.

It's the difference between portraying the reality of a bad thing (incest, sexual abuse, slavery) and glossing over the reality and making it something that it is not. Making it the opposite of what it is in reality -- degrading, exploitative, abusive, harmful.

Maybe nothing would sour you on dark romance. I don't know you. I don't know what kind of dark romance you prefer and why. I don't even care if you like dark romance or that dark romance is a genre with a large readership. I don't read it and don't care if others do, frankly. Like I have said, I'm all for free speech and for minimal censorship. That means I can have the opinion that dark romance represents a dark undercurrent in our psyches. I'm not saying to ban it or censor it. I'm just making an observation. You may disagree. I support your right to disagree. I don't take offense if you do.

I think that a lot of the entertainment we consume is a mindless past time. Some of it reflects the underlying cracks in the foundation of our civilization along class, gender, race and sexual lines. A man playing Grand Theft Auto, raping and pillaging like a modern day Viking -- what underpins that? It certainly isn't an enjoyment of driving fast cars. It's a lot of very negative emotions and desires.

Maybe it's a healthy outlet for those emotions and desires. Most men can play the game without any negative effects, but for some, it may reflect certain sexist, racist and homophobic impulses simmering under the surface. Same may go for some dark romances.

Frankly, I think most people just want to _feel_.

Something. _Anything_.

Anything other than the existential angst that creeps in when they focus too much on the reality of their existence.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

sela said:


> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean that an author can't write a romance about slaves. I mean if an author portrays slavery _romantically_, removing the elements of exploitation and abuse, glossing over the bad reality.
> 
> It's all in how it's done, isn't it? It comes down to the skill of the author in writing their story. Some will write such a novel in a ham-fisted manner and some will do it with skill and sensitivity.
> 
> ...


Interesting guess. But I don't have trouble feeling. Actually I'm very empathetic to the point where if I see someone in pain I feel sympathy pains. And I'm not trying to block out anything. Sure at the moment I'm sad because I lost my mom, but in general my life isn't something I need to be distracted from.

As for the books being an outlet for negative emotions...that might make sense in the GTA example, but in dark romances, the reader identifies with the person that's suffering, not the one causing it. So for that to be true I'd have to be a masochist and I hate pain, both physically and emotionally, so nope.

Comparing the stories I like to the ones I dislike, light fluffy romances with shiny happy people, the difference in feelings I have are interest verses boredom. A perfectly stable woman getting with a perfectly stable man with the biggest thing keeping them apart is he wants to turn her bakery into a parking lot is just boring to me. A woman falling in love with the vampire that slaughtered her village and held her captive as a food source may be messed up, but at least it's interesting. There is more drama, higher stakes, I just like it more.

It doesn't mean I believe women should date mass murderers in real life. I think they should get with the guy that wants to turn their bakery into a parking lot and read about the evil sexy vampire. I think that's true for most genres. There are entire series of mysteries that revolve around things like who stole the cookies and there are people who love those and there are people who aren't interested in a mystery that doesn't open with a mangled corpse. No one considers the cookie mystery people more well-adjusted and moral than the murder mystery people.


----------



## Hope (Nov 28, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> You can write whatever you want. You can read whatever you want. But a private business choosing not to sell a book is _not_ censorship, people saying they think this book is disgusting and goes too far is _not_ censorship, and shame on the author and all her followers for beating this victimhood drum of "WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED AND KINK-SHAMED AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH US ISN'T OPEN-MINDED!"
> 
> There's also a world of difference between depiction and romanticization. Just having child sexual abuse in a book doesn't mean it's being romanticized (I've never read GOT so I can't speak to that specific example). I haven't read the whole book, but I've read some of the excerpts and plenty of summaries from supporters and detractors, and it's truly stomach-churning to see people on Facebook and Goodreads speak glowingly about how romantic it is.
> 
> I just don't think there's any situation in which a father grooming and then banging his daughter, impregnating her, and then banging her as she's in labor because she needed to be "claimed" as his can be deemed romantic. And if that makes me old-fashioned or a closed-minded kink-shamer, then I'm fine with that.


I completely agree. I don't even have words to express how horrific it is to sensationalize sexual abuse in anyone, particularly children.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

kcmorgan said:


> Interesting guess. But I don't have trouble feeling. Actually I'm very empathetic to the point where if I see someone in pain I feel sympathy pains. And I'm not trying to block out anything. Sure at the moment I'm sad because I lost my mom, but in general my life isn't something I need to be distracted from.
> 
> As for the books being an outlet for negative emotions...that might make sense in the GTA example, but in dark romances, the reader identifies with the person that's suffering, not the one causing it. So for that to be true I'd have to be a masochist and I hate pain, both physically and emotionally, so nope.
> 
> ...


First of all, I'm not guessing anything about you personally. I don't know anything about you. I'm taking in generalities and there is only so much applicability to the individual case when you do so.

That said, I completely agree with most of what you have written. I, too, get those empathy pains. I can't watch people actually experiencing pain because I get sympathetic pains down the backs of my legs. Go figure. I don't write because I need to feel something. I write because I love to create new imaginary worlds, scenarios, and mostly because I like being a writer for a living, drinking coffee and making sh*t up.

I'm not saying that writers write in order to feel. Some might. Others just may be like me and enjoy making sh*t up. I'm saying that readers often read because they want to feel something beyond their daily lives. I'm not saying that all readers read for that reason. But some do. There is probably a lot of deeper philosophical discussion to this as well -- why do we like stories, fiction, etc. Not everyone wants to delve that deep, so I won't bother.

Readers often like really intense fiction that exposes them safely to experiences they would never want in real life. That's the beauty of fiction. I personally like apocalyptic fiction where billions of people die from plagues or earthquakes or alien invasions. Do I want to actually live through that? No way.

We writers get to insert ourselves into any number of horrible points of view. Most of us are quite able to go on with our very mundane lives quite well, despite writing a serial killer scene or a rape scene. I'm sure that readers are the same. They can read a horrific scene and know they would never want to experience it in real life. It's the power of our imaginations, which is everything.

I have no problem with people reading what turns their crank (as long as it's not illegal). I also agree that some of the dark romances up the stakes and make things more exciting because the stakes are so high.

But I guess I _personally_ draw the line in romance when it wipes out all the bad things the hero does for the sake of an HEA. He's a murderer and rapes her and abuses her and then they live happily ever after? He's her father (by any definition) and molests her and then rapes her and it's all golden because they love each other OMG? That crosses my personal line of both unbelievability and morality. I'm not a moral relativist. There are some things that cross lines, legal and/or moral. To romanticize them is unhealthy. In my view.

YMMV.

Like I say, to each his or her own as long as it isn't illegal. For some people, it might be therapeutic. I'm not going to call for a ban on such fiction - unless it is illegal. I may, however, offer my opinion of it and think it suggests something at base is [expletive] up about our society's notions of what constitutes desirable relationships or romance.

_Edited [expl*tive].  PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod

Nope. I know, my bad! _


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> You can write whatever you want. You can read whatever you want. But a private business choosing not to sell a book is _not_ censorship, people saying they think this book is disgusting and goes too far is _not_ censorship, and shame on the author and all her followers for beating this victimhood drum of "WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED AND KINK-SHAMED AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH US ISN'T OPEN-MINDED!"
> 
> There's also a world of difference between depiction and romanticization. Just having child sexual abuse in a book doesn't mean it's being romanticized (I've never read GOT so I can't speak to that specific example). I haven't read the whole book, but I've read some of the excerpts and plenty of summaries from supporters and detractors, and it's truly stomach-churning to see people on Facebook and Goodreads speak glowingly about how romantic it is.
> 
> I just don't think there's any situation in which a father grooming and then banging his daughter, impregnating her, and then banging her as she's in labor because she needed to be "claimed" as his can be deemed romantic. And if that makes me old-fashioned or a closed-minded kink-shamer, then I'm fine with that.


I'm with you. Over the past few days, as I've heard authors and readers justify and defend this book and have thought about the lovely friend whose father went to prison for raping her as a child, and whose mother blamed her for it, as I've seen authors I know sharing painful personal stories, I've found myself muttering one thing in my head over and over:

I judge.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Markus Croft said:


> Wow. You quoted my post, but did you read more than one word of it? Where did I say I wanted to broaden the issue further? This thread is already about broader issues. I'll quote myself.


Well, if you keep going on about how broad your points are, people will look for them and see the lack. I was just trying to be helpful.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> About 80% of what I write is slave romance...I just can't win here. Thank goodness this community doesn't get to decide what I can and can't write, I'd be down to nothing but grocery lists.


I don't think anyone on this thread supported policing what others can write. As someone else above said, nothing shelters authors from others stating what they think about their works, and nothing truly should do that either.

Regarding slavery: are you writing stories of purely fictional slavery (i.e. your example of a vampire keeping someone as a food resource), or are we talking about actual, historical slavery of black people as it happened? I'd think the latter would run into grave problems, the former needs to be written to a narrow ethical line to be palatable by most, but would be far less of a problem to me.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> I judge.


As Cersei would say, "We do what feels good."



Nic said:


> Regarding slavery: are you writing stories of purely fictional slavery (i.e. your example of a vampire keeping someone as a food resource), or are we talking about actual, historical slavery of black people as it happened? I'd think the latter would run into grave problems, the former needs to be written to a narrow ethical line to be palatable by most, but would be far less of a problem to me.


Fictional slavery. But following the logic that fictional incest causes fathers to start looking at their kids funny, my books should be getting someone collared as we speak.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> Fictional slavery. But following the logic that fictional incest causes fathers to start looking at their kids funny, my books should be getting someone collared as we speak.


There's a difference between fictional slavery and incest however. The comparison would be romanticising incest/child sex/rape to romanticising the slavery of black people in the USA, not to your fictional slavery of the victim of some vampire.

You write m/m, so you ought to remember the m/m story of the affair between a slave owner and his black slave which caused a huge kerfuffle for romanticising the slavery in the USA. The difference between this story and your stories about vampire slaves should be obvious. It would be as much a strawman argument as the one about GoT vs. the book we were talking about.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

It seems to me that authors want to be able to write whatever they want, which is great and fine, but they don't want people to judge their work. It's a perennial problem. Like, no one is allowed to judge them -- criticizing their choice of subject and tone is seen as beyond the pale when it comes to criticism. 

Well, sorry. If you have the freedom to express yourself in writing, so does everyone else. They go hand in glove. 

We all get to express our opinion on genres, categories, and subject matter. And authors get to respond, but they're foolish if they do. If you want free speech, you have to take accept it on the part of others.

Fictional slavery in a fantasy world (vampires enslaving humans for feedstock) is a bit different than romanticizing actual slavery in our actual world. One is par for the course given the subject matter and the other is insulting. 

ETA: Why can't people (authors and readers alike) just accept that there are different tastes and preferences and choices when it comes to fiction and as long as it doesn't break the law, go for it? Enjoy it? Write it? 

This book, in particular, crossed the line and as such, is fair game and provides a way for the community to understand the limits of freedom of speech. But for most books? We should really focus on what we love rather than what we hate or find inferior. 

Life is short.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> Comparing the stories I like to the ones I dislike, light fluffy romances with shiny happy people, the difference in feelings I have are interest verses boredom. A perfectly stable woman getting with a perfectly stable man with the biggest thing keeping them apart is he wants to turn her bakery into a parking lot is just boring to me.


Sounds right up my alley though! Where can I get the bakery owner/parking lot villain story?


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

sela said:


> It seems to me that authors want to be able to write whatever they want, which is great and fine, but they don't want people to judge their work.


To me, the problem doesn't seem to be that authors are averse to folks judging their work. The problem that raises people's hackles is that some folks question the morality of the authors (and those who defend them).

For example, I don't think anyone is bothered by the criticism "_I didn't like that story. It contained elements that I don't enjoy._"

But something like "_That author should be ashamed of herself. The material is disgusting and putting it in a book is unconscionable. I don't understand how women can be okay with this. Just shows you what type of people they are..._"

That's passive-aggressive ad hominem.

I can understand why people get upset. If someone tells me, "_Your book is terrible_," I'm fine.

If someone tells me, "_Your book is terrible, and I think you're a terrible person_," I'm going to push back.

Bottom line: when things get personal, people get upset.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Anarchist said:


> To me, the problem doesn't seem to be that authors are averse to folks judging their work. The problem that raises people's hackles is that some folks question the morality of the authors (and those who defend them).
> 
> For example, I don't think anyone is bothered by the criticism "_I didn't like that story. It contained elements that I don't enjoy._"
> 
> ...


For the most part, I agree.

However, someone who writes a book that is racist deserves to be called out as such and if readers like that kind of work, them as well. Someone who writes a clearly sexist work deserves to be called out as do the readers. And if one romanticizes rape and child sexual abuse, they deserve to be called out as do their readers.

There are lines and when authors and readers cross those lines, it's not just a matter of opinion about the _content_ of the work. It reflects on the author and reader.

I have absolutely no reluctance to condemn, for example, authors who write child porn and readers who consume child porn.

But in general, I agree that for the most part, if authors love to write X and readers love to read X, and X is not abhorrent to community standards and laws, then we should limit our criticism to the book and not the author or readers.

Sometimes books do cross those lines. They're fair game.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Anarchist said:


> To me, the problem doesn't seem to be that authors are averse to folks judging their work. The problem that raises people's hackles is that some folks question the morality of the authors (and those who defend them).
> 
> For example, I don't think anyone is bothered by the criticism "_I didn't like that story. It contained elements that I don't enjoy._"
> 
> ...


Exactly. This isn't about not liking a book. It's about a movement to shun an author and anyone who doesn't also shun that author over a book no one has read. This is some Hester Prynne type mess.

We're talking about blocking and blacklists and passing judgement and over what? "Well a friend of a friend of a friend said it's child porn."


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

sela said:


> For the most part, I agree.
> 
> However, someone who writes a book that is racist deserves to be called out as such and if readers like that kind of work, them as well. Someone who writes a clearly sexist work deserves to be called out as do the readers. And if one romanticizes rape and child sexual abuse, they deserve to be called out as do their readers.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Only everyone thinks their line should be THE line.


----------



## Atlantisatheart (Oct 8, 2016)

***********************************************************************************************
Content removed due to new owners; VerticalScope Inc. TOS Change of 2018. I received no notification of a change to TOS, was never asked to agree to their data mining or sharing of my information, including sales of my information and ownership of my posts, intellectual rights, etc, and I do not agree to the terms. 

************************************************************************************************


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Anarchist said:


> To me, the problem doesn't seem to be that authors are averse to folks judging their work. The problem that raises people's hackles is that some folks question the morality of the authors (and those who defend them).
> 
> For example, I don't think anyone is bothered by the criticism "_I didn't like that story. It contained elements that I don't enjoy._"
> 
> ...


If people can write what they want, other people can criticize however they want.

Freedom of speech goes in all directions. You can criticize the criticisms, but don't tell people how they should react to material they find abhorrent. (Again, speaking in general terms, not about this particular book).


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> If people can write what they want, other people can criticize however they want.
> 
> Freedom of speech goes in all directions. You can criticize the criticisms, but don't tell people how they should react to material they find abhorrent. (Again, speaking in general terms, not about this particular book).


All true.

I'm just an observer in this mess.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> If people can write what they want, other people can criticize however they want.
> 
> Freedom of speech goes in all directions. You can criticize the criticisms, but don't tell people how they should react to material they find abhorrent. (Again, speaking in general terms, not about this particular book).


Freedom of speech only applies to unwarranted government restriction. I can tell people exactly how they should react to material I find abhorrent. And they can tell me to go to hell.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

This thread brings Lolita to mind. I've long thought it was a pedophile apologist book but my writerly friends who love it strongly differ on my stance. "It's a classic," they say. "It shows the dangers of being obsessed with a girl."

Uh...no. The book does not have a happy ending nor CAN it with such a subject. Personally, I think anything sexual involving children is wrong, immoral, and absolutely sick. I've seen first hand the aftermath of such abuse in the life of someone I love. It's unacceptable. I'm glad this book was banned.



brkingsolver said:


> It all depends on whether it's "literature" or not. I refer you to V.C. Andrews' "Flowers in the Attic". If I wrote that and tried to publish it, Zon would probably ban me for life.


I forgot about this one! Ugh! I watched the movie and it was hard to get through!


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

She has a right to write it. She is certainly entitled to sell it to those who want it. But for anyone who feels like she's been unfairly treated, here's what she posted in the midst of all the uproar:










She's a savvy marketer, not a poster child for freedom.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> She has a right to write it. She is certainly entitled to sell it to those who want it. But for anyone who feels like she's been unfairly treated, here's what she posted in the midst of all the uproar:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I heard about this, but I was told that it was a toddler tee. See what happens when we make moral judgments about people based off a game of telephone?

I'm not debating freedom. I'm debating the wisdom of judging entire groups of people by what genre they read or individuals by their feelings on a book neither you nor they have read. (Not saying you're doing that, just explaining my stance).


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

Yeah, well, the size of the shirt makes a _huge_ difference. If it's an XXL, it's not in poor taste, right?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2017)

That post seems like it's just making fun of all the haters. I haven't seen anything where she says incest relationships are okay in real life.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

MyraScott said:


> Yeah, well, the size of the shirt makes a _huge_ difference. If it's an XXL, it's not in poor taste, right?


If size didn't matter, why did the person telling me about it lie? Or why did someone lie to them? The implication of the lie is this writer was okay with raping toddlers.

The reality of this entire situation is an author toed the line of what people find acceptable in fiction to sell a crapload of books. She swapped step father to adoptive father, eighteen to seventeen and instead of yet another PI book we would have all forgotten about, she's caused a social media storm that has hundreds of authors more concerned with her career and her books than their own.


----------



## anotherpage (Apr 4, 2012)

ebbrown said:


> My newsfeed is full of controversy about the latest book banned by Amazon. Erotica/Taboo subject
> (Daddy/Daughter)= banned. This particular book is just one out of thousands of the same subject matter listed on Amazon, which is literally stuffed out the wazoo with the same topic books.
> 
> Why did this one get the ban hammer while thousands like it are left up? Why has this particular book caused such an uproar in the community? Curious to hear discussion and thoughts. (Let's keep it civil, though, please!)


Daddy/daughter. That's sick. I hope they remove their KDP accounts as well.

_edited out personal remarks. PM me if you have any questions. Evenstar (Moderator)_


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

Too be fair Amazon does a fairly good job of policing erotica. I remember when those Daddy \ daughter books were regularly in the top 100. Every now and then a taboo erotica book sneaks into the top charts. But Amazon is quick to squash them. Amazon is so strict with erotica that's its all but impossible too make any money selling it.Unless you disguise it as romance.

Yup there are some of the old "Daddy" books left up. But people are forgetting how immensely popular they were.  And like it or not 
they continue to be popular. Which is why some writers take the risk and publish them. Its also why Amazon watches erotica like a hawk. If they didn't the store would be flooded with taboo erotica in a matter of days. Which was the case before many of the rules we have now were put in place.

This is pretty much a tempest in a teapot. Mostly because the writer community has very short memories. Amazon has removed the book. The writer is free to sell it privately or with other retailers.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

kcmorgan said:


> I heard about this, but I was told that it was a toddler tee. See what happens when we make moral judgments about people based off a game of telephone?
> 
> I'm not debating freedom. I'm debating the wisdom of judging entire groups of people by what genre they read or individuals by their feelings on a book neither you nor they have read. (Not saying you're doing that, just explaining my stance).


If that was (or supposed to be) a toddler tee, that makes the 'joke' that much worse. Or tasteless, or whatever word one chooses. There isn't a single word that implies "she knows what she's doing, it's not an innocent accident," or I'd use that.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## Dhewco (Apr 10, 2016)

I think the way the author puts it into her feed is the only reason to hate the shirt. Her 'joke' is very wrong. It takes an innocent phrase a proud dad might use on a shirt for his daughter and turns it naughty/evil. If I had a daughter, I'd probably buy her this shirt...but I would be hoping it would be showing my skills as a provider, a guide, and a protector. I wonder what the designer of the tee would think to see her/his work put in such a position.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2017)

Dhewco said:


> I think the way the author puts it into her feed is the only reason to hate the shirt. Her 'joke' is very wrong. It takes an innocent phrase a proud dad might use on a shirt for his daughter and turns it naughty/evil. If I had a daughter, I'd probably buy her this shirt...but I would be hoping it would be showing my skills as a provider, a guide, and a protector. I wonder what the designer of the tee would think to see her/his work put in such a position.


It's only wrong in the sense that it's designed to inflame those who are calling her and her readers disgusting monsters.

Their argument has to be it's only a book, a story, some dumb fantasy that a whole bunch of people are into - if you don't like it, go away, leave us alone. And they're not being left alone, so then she fights fire with fire.

On the subject of the shirt itself - I wouldn't be surprised if said daughter refused to wear the shirt you bought for her with that slogan on it. No matter how much of a provider, guide or protector you think you are, no one likes someone blowing their own trumpet.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Going Incognito said:


> Only everyone thinks their line should be THE line.


I agree but that's largely because of ignorance.

Luckily, we do have _laws_ and we do have _TOS_ that can help guide the lines our community as a whole has set. Those lines, although not perfect, are good to go by when we need to adjudicate these issues.

Not just because we personally don't feel comfortable with the material. If that's the case, we all have the freedom to not read such material.

We can even get on high hobby horses and rail against books that cross our personal lines but may be "legal" and within TOS, but that seems like a waste of time.

There are a lot of books, subcategories, trends and tropes that I find cross my personal lines of taste, intelligence and value but I just don't read them. It's simple.

It's when books cross the legal lines and the lines retailers set, that it can be justified at least in law and TOS.

Even then, I highly doubt that the whole kerfuffle did anything more than get a lot of people's blood pressure up, make many lose friends, cross authors off their lists, and sell a whole lot of the offending author's books.


----------



## Spinneyhead (Nov 4, 2010)

sela said:


> Even then, I highly doubt that the whole kerfuffle did anything more than get a lot of people's blood pressure up, make many lose friends, cross authors off their lists, and sell a whole lot of the offending author's books.


I wish I could sell loads of my books by causing a big enough fuss about them. Unfortunately(!!??), my erotica involves consenting adults in equal relationships, even the one written to highlight genuine government censorship.


----------



## restlessthoughts (Aug 10, 2017)

So I usually try to stay away from controversial topics. I hate conflict except the carefully scripted kind im my fiction. But I haven't seen mentioned yet. I read most of the post, but I might have missed it in the 12+pages.

Their has been a bit of talk about this as simply shock value marketing and I stumbled across something that relates to this. 

If my google detective skills have led me to the correct book, the author is going to be one of two launch authors in a new digital short naughty erotica line from a traditional publisher that starts in September.

I don't think its an accident that we're all talking about this book right now.


----------

