# "How Amazon cashes in on Kindle filth"



## WadeArnold (Sep 1, 2011)

Add this one to the list of why Amazon is targeting erotica....

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/exclusive/5961/how-amazon-cashes-in-on-kindle-filth/#

I noticed that their "investigation" as they called it consisted of browsing book titles. And this..."There is no evidence that Amazon is doing anything to police the smut being sold through its website, which in some cases appears perilously close to glorifying incest and child rape." I think some authors here would disagree with that statement.

(I'm not defending any content in these titles, by the way). Sorry if this was posted already.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

Well, poor Shannon got taken off the roster.


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

People download the stuff, if Amazon does not sell it they will go somewhere else and get it for free. Porn is the most popular topic on the internet, many people preach against it, and go home at night and download it on their own computers. The author on Amazon who make the most money sell the stuff, there will always be buyers. If not at Amazon than somewhere else.

Maybe the blame should be placed in the family's first, that is where it should be controlled and stopped first. If you stop it at Amazon you have accomplished nothing. The same effect as taking a hammer and striking it in a large bucket of water, the water will be displaced and go somewhere else, the volume of water is still the same.


----------



## WadeArnold (Sep 1, 2011)

What's funny is the same writer has a story titled "In defense of revenge porn".

http://www.kernelmag.com/comment/column/6000/in-defence-of-revenge-porn/

So it's okay to post nude or x rated content of _real_ people, that's free speech and people just being stupid, but it's terrible that Amazon sells written porn that is _fiction._


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Selling sexytimes is how VHS beat Beta and DvD beat Laserdisc.


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

Sex will always be the number one seller. I would write erotica If I could but it would end up being Dystopian or horror when I got finished with it, would not sell well.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Historical note:

PayPal got it's start in the early days of the internet, as a way for porn sites to verify someone was "old enough" to enter their adult content sites. Because at the time (and perhaps even now... no idea) you had to be 18 or older to hold a PayPal account. (For business reasons, not porn reasons.)

Well, early porn sites would charge you $1 to "gain access" because that helped them prove they had a "best practice" for age verification and preventing underage access to adult content. (Do they still do that?)

Anyway, there were articles about it at the time, arguing whether it was a solid way to age-verify or not. And I stayed away from PayPal for many years because of that kinda-creepy association. Creepy because I suspected they were a front for fake porn sites to gain access to your identity so they can do ID Theft on you. I found out over time that PayPal was legit and secure and a good way to protect yourself against ID Theft... but not at first.

Eventually, PayPal became more of a "the whole internet's preferred way to pay" sort of deal, and eventually I got an account, which actually opened up job prospects for me because my last couple jobs (and my current side-job, not to mention half of the places I publish) preferred to do payroll via PayPal.

So all that is background info to contextualize this:

The ironic part is that PayPal, a site once KNOWN as a way to get people access to internet porn, has for the last couple years been trying like crazy to freeze funds and cancel accounts on authors they personally deem to be writing "the dirtiest smut."

My, how the wheel turns, eh?  PAYPAL: From smut-enabler to anti-smut crusader, violating author and consumer rights, in less than a decade.

But not out of the ordinary: some of the biggest, most devout anti-smoking people are all former cancer-stick-addicts.


----------



## olefish (Jan 24, 2012)

I wish I could give a damn ... but it's time to write my lochness monster erotica.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

I'm always amazed at how vocal the anti-sex brigade is when it comes to books, films etc., but not so much the anti-violence brigade. It's all right to have books about murder, bombings et all, but have sex anywhere in your book and suddenly it's a terrible moral affront. I might be a bit biased here as I'm in the UK (where age of consent is 16) and reading about 18 and 19 year olds having sex does not scream underage to me, LOL! I met my husband when I was 19 (he was older than me) and we got married when I was 20, and we're still married 22 years later.

Fiction is fiction. Yes, rape, abuse, violence, incest, murder etc. are all bad in the real world, a writer who writes about them doesn't necessarily condone them in the real world either. Adults should be allowed to read adult material. Yes, keep it from the children if possible, but don't ban it from other adults who want to read it.

_Extreme material of this nature does not appear in search results on Amazon's website. Users must know a direct link to the page selling that title, or browse a directory on another website._

How did this moral crusader find all the filth then? ;-)


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

To sum it up, the world, to include me is full of a bunch of horny people.  S*X sells.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Craig -- Paypal was bought by eBay, and that's about when it started "cleaning" up.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't believe that rape (as erotica/porn), or any sex acts carried out on children (or suggested as being), belong anywhere online. That isn't 'sex'.


----------



## donnajherren (Mar 7, 2013)

Michael Buckley said:


> I would write erotica If I could but it would end up being Dystopian or horror when I got finished with it, would not sell well.


I don't know, dystopian erotic romance sells pretty well... LOL


----------



## donnajherren (Mar 7, 2013)

tkkenyon said:


> Some of the also-boughts for my books made me throw up in my mouth, like "The Brutal Rape of a Mother and Virgin Daughter", with a cover more suited to a horror novel. Ewwww.


'Kay, then. Off to take a bleach shower and sift my brains until this falls out. *cry*


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Anya said:


> I don't believe that rape (as erotica/porn), or any sex acts carried out on children (or suggested as being), belong anywhere online. That isn't 'sex'.


See, I don't think that a fictitious depiction of certain acts is equal to the act itself.

Lotta people knock Alan Moore's Lost Girls, which is an erotic comic book/graphic novel that has depicts incest and involves children. (Alan Moore, for those who don't know, is the author of stuff like Watchmen and V for Vendetta, and is one of the most daring and intelligent storytellers of our time--that most people have never heard of.) In the graphic novel the story is fiction... sort of a fiction within a fiction. One character tells it to the other characters.

One of the characters protests (after admittedly being aroused by the story) that the subject matter is abhorrent, and another character responds, "This is the idea of incest, no? [...] It is quite monstrous... expect that they are fictions [...] Fiction and fact: only madmen and magistrates cannot discriminate between them. [...] You see, if this were real, it would be horrible. Children raped by their trusted parents. Horrible. But they are fictions. They are uncontaminated by effect and consequence."

I don't think it's a given that a person who enjoys taboo erotica a) wants to actually do it in real life b) doesn't understand that it is a fantasy c) doesn't understand that real world consequences would remove the eroticism from the act.

So, I think fiction of all kinds should be allowed and protected.

But that's just me.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Historical note:
> 
> PayPal got it's start in the early days of the internet, as a way for porn sites to verify someone was "old enough" to enter their adult content sites. Because at the time (and perhaps even now... no idea) you had to be 18 or older to hold a PayPal account. (For business reasons, not porn reasons.)
> 
> ...


Which brings to mind an anecdotal response of mine.

Years back, when the Internet was new, I was a web designer for a lot of companies that were just discovering this whole Internet thing was probably not going away. I started off by creating sites for churches and then people saw my work and started recruiting me to do their sites as well. In a few months, I discovered that the majority of my clients were basically porn sites and call girls (that got their references from the church staff they contacted looking for a "web guy").

That's where my story starts. At first, I found shopping cart companies and domain site providers who would do anything for my business, often holding meetings with me where they indicated that they welcomed the adult business stuff. A few years down the line, I started to notice that these companies that went out of their way were becoming larger and doing everything possible to distance themselves from smut. My clients were thrown off their sites and had their shopping carts discontinued by some of the rudest people I've ever encountered who seemed to think that being rude to adult businesses was acceptable because they were adult businesses. These same people were begging for our business a short time before they turned into public enemy number one.

I wish I could say these were isolated incidents, but after awhile, the drama of this business was dealing with some corporate mid-level nimwit that would then decide that porn was bad and suddenly find religion (which was usually the reason why they became public enemy number one). Instead of send a nice letter indicating that they would be discontinuing after a certain date, they almost always shut us off completely with no notice, convinced that respect wasn't due to an organization that had been respectful and never once was late with a payment. It got to the point where I was surprised when it didn't happen.

Over the years, we had to change providers and cart services endlessly until I started designing php scripted carts for clients instead (so no one could shut them off) and then provided so that their Internet hosting services were served by themselves, so they also couldn't be shut off.

This is why Amazon and Paypal don't surprise me. In the beginning, for turn key operations, Paypal was the place to go for adult services. Then they became the enemy, forcing adult businesses to have to scramble at the last minute because Paypal would cut someone off without warning, knowing that NO ONE would come to the rescue of someone displaced by them. The industry loves adult businesses when they're trying to get their own start, but once they've used them and don't need them any more, they're so quick to screw over the people who helped get them started.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I'm always amazed at how vocal the anti-sex brigade is when it comes to books, films etc., but not so much the anti-violence brigade. It's all right to have books about murder, bombings et all, but have sex anywhere in your book and suddenly it's a terrible moral affront. I might be a bit biased here as I'm in the UK (where age of consent is 16) and reading about 18 and 19 year olds having sex does not scream underage to me, LOL! I met my husband when I was 19 (he was older than me) and we got married when I was 20, and we're still married 22 years later.
> 
> Fiction is fiction. Yes, rape, abuse, violence, incest, murder etc. are all bad in the real world, a writer who writes about them doesn't necessarily condone them in the real world either. Adults should be allowed to read adult material. Yes, keep it from the children if possible, but don't ban it from other adults who want to read it.


Amen!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

justsomewriterwhowrites said:


> This. ^^
> 
> I also think it's common to shame people for the fantasies their minds come up with because it doesn't fit some list of what's acceptable.


It is also common to talk trash/try to shame/flat out lie about a person because they are doing what you only fantasize about.

Now for the fiction stuff, yes Amazon should have a place for all of it or a filter that one can turn on or off so that it doesn't get in with the halloween costumes. (Do not get me started on some of the costumes for kids.)
Yahoo/Google/ereaderiq all have filters that I can turn on or off for the adult stuff. Amazon could do the same thing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

So Amazon sells stuff that is "barely legal". Let's translate that. 'Barely' legal as a class does not exist. It either is or it isn't. In that case it IS legal and if he/she/it doesn't think it should be, talk to the Congress (*coughs and restrains snarky comments about Congress*) and then try getting the law past the Supreme Court when it is challenged.

Booo hooo hoo The world doesn't work the way the author thinks it should.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

clickbait

clickbait

clickbait










Do not feed the clickbait.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

valeriec80 said:


> "*** Fiction and fact: only madmen and magistrates cannot discriminate between them. [...] You see, if this were real, it would be horrible. Children raped by their trusted parents. Horrible. But they are fictions. They are uncontaminated by effect and consequence."


I find it utterly amazing that authors are certain great literature can inspire and uplift, but garbage can't inspire and degrade. Also self-serving.

Without reading it, I tend to believe that (assuming stuff like dino porn is true and not a joke, which I haven't bothered to check out) the beasts are performing on women, probably unwilling women. However, men are not busy screwing giant lizards. Yes, I find it offensive.

Amazon is obviously doing what it can to police this stuff in an automated system. I hope it doesn't decide to get rid of us all because of the few.


----------



## Paranormal Piper (Sep 24, 2012)

Annette_g said:


> Extreme material of this nature does not appear in search results on Amazon's website. Users must know a direct link to the page selling that title, or browse a directory on another website.


That's not actually true. If you do a search for something like weredog, dinosaur sex, or pseudo incest, there will be all kinds of interesting titles popping up.


----------



## Paranormal Piper (Sep 24, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> So Amazon sells stuff that is "barely legal". Let's translate that. 'Barely' legal as a class does not exist. It either is or it isn't. In that case it IS legal and if he/she/it doesn't think it should be, talk to the Congress (*coughs and restrains snarky comments about Congress*) and then try getting the law past the Supreme Court when it is challenged.
> 
> Booo hooo hoo The world doesn't work the way the author thinks it should.


Yeah, I think 'barely legal' was a term dreamed up by someone in marketing to make smexy stories and movies seem more taboo than they actually are. It's like pseudo-incest, a term that only exists within the realm of indie authors and readers of that niche. Since Amazon doesn't sell incest, they (possibly unintentionally) created the fake incest category... which is sort of lame if you think about it because, like the term 'barely legal,' it's either incest or it isn't.

Disclaimer: Yes, I have written some of that lame fake incest. Why? Because the demand for it is beyond imagining.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

mjshaw said:


> Yeah, I think 'barely legal' was a term dreamed up by someone in marketing to make smexy stories and movies seem more taboo than they actually are. It's like pseudo-incest, a term that only exists within the realm of indie authors and readers of that niche. Since Amazon doesn't sell incest, they (possibly unintentionally) created the fake incest category... which is sort of lame if you think about it because, like the term 'barely legal,' it's either incest or it isn't.
> 
> Disclaimer: Yes, I have written some of that lame fake incest. Why? Because the demand for it is beyond imagining.


I kind of like the term "barely legal" though it should be sometimes legal. Age of consent actually varies by state.
Odd thing about one state is a girl can have consentual sex at 17 but if she is asleep/drunk/on drugs and gets woken for sex/taken advantage of then it is "rape of a minor". Note as a biography I could get it on amazon because it would be a memoir, but it would get kicked if I wrote it as erotica. Someone please figure out the logic of that one.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

Michael Buckley said:


> Sex will always be the number one seller. I would write erotica If I could but it would end up being Dystopian or horror when I got finished with it, would not sell well.


You might pleasantly be surprised! Who could have seen dinos coming? Maybe you should consider erotica about rocks.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

Annette_g said:


> I'm always amazed at how vocal the anti-sex brigade is when it comes to books, films etc., but not so much the anti-violence brigade. It's all right to have books about murder, bombings et all, but have sex anywhere in your book and suddenly it's a terrible moral affront. I might be a bit biased here as I'm in the UK (where age of consent is 16) and reading about 18 and 19 year olds having sex does not scream underage to me, LOL! I met my husband when I was 19 (he was older than me) and we got married when I was 20, and we're still married 22 years later.


Very good point, and probably why you don't see as much violence in Europe.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> I find it utterly amazing that authors are certain great literature can inspire and uplift, but garbage can't inspire and degrade. Also self-serving.
> 
> Without reading it, I tend to believe that (assuming stuff like dino porn is true and not a joke, which I haven't bothered to check out) the beasts are performing on women, probably unwilling women. However, men are not busy screwing giant lizards. Yes, I find it offensive.
> 
> Amazon is obviously doing what it can to police this stuff in an automated system. I hope it doesn't decide to get rid of us all because of the few.


There's quite a bit of psychology that goes into erotica. It's pretty well known that rape fantasies are very common amongst women and there are arguments on all sides as to why that is okay or not okay. Incest fantasies have their own psychology. When you spend some time learning about what makes these fantasies tick, they become less frightening and more understandable. It's not sick or disgusting, it is psychology, a lot of it perfectly normal.

Personally, I'm more concerned by the folks who love Dexter type fiction. If we're going to start banning fiction, I hope we don't stop with erotica! (That's sarcasm by the way.)

As a woman, what I dislike is that corporations continually try to control erotic ebooks, the primary means by which the vast majority of women explore their sexuality. No one is shutting off Hustler's bank account or pulling their products. But erotic fiction has been banned or hidden and denied access to financial accounts...for years.

Once again, women are denied the freedom to explore who they are, what their desires are and how to synthesize/integrate them into their personhood. It's just another milestone in a long tradition of misogyny.

One most people will never notice because they never go deeper than the moral argument when the whole thing is a lot more nuanced.

Erotic stories involving incest and bestiality etc..are sexual metaphors, not literal accounts of anyone's exploits. Dexter is based in reality much more so than erotica.

M


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

mrv01d said:


> Erotic stories involving incest and bestiality etc..are sexual metaphors, not literal accounts of anyone's exploits. Dexter is based in reality much more so than erotica.


Hmmph. Dexter is a sociopath whose urge to kill could be contained by other killers, when most sociopathic serial killers kill for some kind of sexual urge that is fulfilled by a certain type of person. He also is a sociopath that developed human emotion and empathy over the course of however many seasons they were--or maybe he never was a sociopath, since sociopaths don't have empathy, but whatever. People always attack violent fiction when defending erotica, but it's just as much a fantasy as anything else.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> I kind of like the term "barely legal" though it should be sometimes legal. Age of consent actually varies by state.
> Odd thing about one state is a girl can have consentual sex at 17 but if she is asleep/drunk/on drugs and gets woken for sex/taken advantage of then it is "rape of a minor". Note as a biography I could get it on amazon because it would be a memoir, but it would get kicked if I wrote it as erotica. Someone please figure out the logic of that one.


This has nothing to do with the age of consent though because we are not talking about actual sex, but fictitious sex and that is covered largely but supreme court decisions and does not vary from state to state.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I agree there is a significant demand for the type of books in question. But I don't see how that implies Amazon should carry the books.

If there is an insignificant demand for other books, does that imply Amazon should not carry them? 

If they should carry books with a significant demand, and they should carry books with an insignificant demand, then can we dismiss demand as a decision variable? I hope so. I experience insignificant demand.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> This has nothing to do with the age of consent though because we are not talking about actual sex, but fictitious sex and that is covered largely but supreme court decisions and does not vary from state to state.


Thank you. You just made my point. Actual sex could be published with no problems as a memoir but fictiticious sex can be banned.

Why does that just not sound right?


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> People always attack violent fiction when defending erotica, but it's just as much a fantasy as anything else.


That's kind of the whole point of bringing it up. If you stop defending one genre, you can't defend any of them.

Personally I can't stand Dexter. I would not cry if it was banned and run out of town, much like many people wouldn't cry if erotica was shut down.

It's all in the eye of the beholder which is why it's important to use a light touch when limiting what can and can't be written down.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Amazon cashes in on Kindle filth...

...and I'm reaping the benefits.


----------



## Paranormal Piper (Sep 24, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I agree there is a significant demand for the type of books in question. But I don't see how that implies Amazon should carry the books.
> 
> If there is an insignificant demand for other books, does that imply Amazon should not carry them?
> 
> If they should carry books with a significant demand, and they should carry books with an insignificant demand, then can we dismiss demand as a decision variable? I hope so. I experience insignificant demand.


It's not that Amazon _should_ carry them; it simply makes sense business-wise. While Amazon occasionally likes to act high-and-mighty, they know erotica/smut brings in a lot of $$$ for them. It always has and always will... unless they finally decide that carrying those genres is detrimental to their longevity. They also know that if they stop supplying erotica, then someone else will happily provide for those customers.

As far as carrying books with insignificant demand, that's the beauty of Amazon and ebooks in general. If you hit Publish and never make a sale throughout your whole life, Amazon will still continue to keep your book on their virtual shelves. Chances of a brick-and-mortar store doing that with a physical book are probably somewhere between slim and none, so yeah, demand, whether significant or insignificant, usually does affect the decision to keep something or toss it... and Amazon doesn't want to toss erotica because demand is high.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I agree there is a significant demand for the type of books in question. But I don't see how that implies Amazon should carry the books.
> 
> If there is an insignificant demand for other books, does that imply Amazon should not carry them?
> 
> If they should carry books with a significant demand, and they should carry books with an insignificant demand, then can we dismiss demand as a decision variable? I hope so. I experience insignificant demand.


I think this is too black-and-white. Once they're done freaking out about incest and successfully get that eliminated (even though most of what's out there is 'woody allen' type incest between non blood relations even if the titles seem more explicit), watch out for the focus to shift to any other genre with salacious sexual details. These morality driven campaigns are not business decisions, they are group think where one group starts controlling what everyone else gets to see, think and do. They aren't going to stop at erotica.

And how do you defend Lolita or...ack...the one title I can't think of right now, but it's a recent trad pub book with incredibly graphic sex between a teacher and a minor? How do those books get a pass?

How do you reconcile the uneven enforcement and targeting? Is traditionally published rape of minors better than what indies write? Is the difference editing? Because the moral violations are equivalent.

Also, it's the easy way out to say Amazon can do whatever they want. That's not true. Authors aren't powerless and might does not make right...unless we buy the hype.

M


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

mjshaw said:


> It's not that Amazon _should_ carry them; it simply makes sense business-wise. While Amazon occasionally likes to act high-and-mighty, they know erotica/smut brings in a lot of $$$ for them. It always has and always will... unless they finally decide that carrying those genres is detrimental to their longevity. They also know that if they stop supplying erotica, then someone else will happily provide for those customers.
> 
> As far as carrying books with insignificant demand, that's the beauty of Amazon and ebooks in general. If you hit Publish and never make a sale throughout your whole life, Amazon will still continue to keep your book on their virtual shelves. Chances of a brick-and-mortar store doing that with a physical book are probably somewhere between slim and none, so yeah, demand, whether significant or insignificant, usually does affect the decision to keep something or toss it.


So Amazon should carry books with high demand, and books with low demand? That tells us demand doesn't matter.



> I think this is too black-and-white. Once they're done freaking out about incest and successfully get that eliminated (even though most of what's out there is 'woody allen' type incest between non blood relations even if the titles seem more explicit), watch out for the focus to shift to any other genre with salacious sexual details. These morality driven campaigns are not business decisions, they are group think where one group starts controlling what everyone else gets to see, think and do. They aren't going to stop at erotica


.

I'd say they are business decisions. One might not agree with their conclusions, but that doesn't take them out of the realm of business decisions. If Amazon thinks its current and future aggregate profits will be better without a given product, then that is a business decision. We can quarrel with the factors, probabilities, and assumptions they use, but it's a mistake to think they are not making business decisions.



> And how do you defend Lolita or...ack...the one title I can't think of right now, but it's a recent trad pub book with incredibly graphic sex between a teacher and a minor? How do those books get a pass?


I don't. I'm not Amazon.



> How do you reconcile the uneven enforcement and targeting? Is traditionally published rape of minors better than what indies write? Is the difference editing? Because the moral violations are equivalent


.

That is reconciled by looking at the resources devoted to the enforcement and targeting. All resources are limited. A given set of resources can only move through a work scope at a limited pace.



> Also, it's the easy way out to say Amazon can do whatever they want. That's not true. Authors aren't powerless and might does not make right...unless we buy the hype.


Well, I didn't say it, but it's an interesting idea. I'd say Amazon can do what it wants in terms of choosing what it will carry. We can observe that. And authors? I'm sure powerless against Amazon. I need them. They dont need me. I don't see any power that independent authors have.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

mrv01d said:


> or...ack...the one title I can't think of right now, but it's a recent trad pub book with incredibly graphic sex between a teacher and a minor?


Tampa, by Alissa Nutting. Just borrowed it from my local library.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So Amazon should carry books with high demand, and books with low demand? That tells us demand doesn't matter.


On books Amazon sells everything from 50 shades of Horrible to this book sux.


----------



## Paranormal Piper (Sep 24, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So Amazon should carry books with high demand, and books with low demand? That tells us demand doesn't matter.


On one hand, I think demand does matter. Amazon ends up in the news at least once a year for carrying this title or that genre. If demand wasn't high (translating to lots of $$$), it would be a lot easier to just stop selling the items that paint a bulls-eye on them.

On the other hand, they don't seem to cater completely to demand because they don't sell pure incest titles... and the demand for that niche is huge. Most readers that buy pseudo-incest are just settling. However, Amazon let that battle go, leaving those titles to be sold by Barnes & Noble and Kobo.

And that brings up an entirely new question - Why is Amazon always the bad guy? Most indie authors (unless on KDP Select) sell across multiple channels so most erotica is available in a wide variety of places.

Of course, I hope that, more than demand, Amazon makes a few business decisions as a stand against censorship, because like was mentioned in an earlier response, it's too easy to start targeting one genre after another once the ball gets rolling.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

mjshaw said:


> And that brings up an entirely new question - Why is Amazon always the bad guy? Most indie authors (unless on KDP Select) sell across multiple channels so most erotica is available in a wide variety of places.


Barnes & Noble doesn't ban anything. I think they would appreciate some of this negative publicity.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

swolf said:


> Amazon cashes in on Kindle filth...
> 
> ...and I'm reaping the benefits.


Woot for the _Wedding Singer_ reference.

It's been brought up many times before, but the main problem here is inconsistent enforcement. Amazon can do what it wants, as this is its business, but never knowing what's going to get banhammered is crazy-making.

Really makes me wonder why they don't just get with the program and institute an adult filter the way so many other sites do.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

mjshaw said:


> On one hand, I think demand does matter. Amazon ends up in the news at least once a year for carrying this title or that genre. If demand wasn't high (translating to lots of $$$), it would be a lot easier to just stop selling the items that paint a bulls-eye on them.
> 
> On the other hand, they don't seem to cater completely to demand because they don't sell pure incest titles... and the demand for that niche is huge. Most readers that buy pseudo-incest are just settling. However, Amazon let that battle go, leaving those titles to be sold by Barnes & Noble and Kobo.
> 
> ...


I suspect they are learning how to manage their model. There has been very little restriction on KDP entry to date. Amazon has let the market work it's will. They are probably just as surprised by the path it has taken as the rest of us.

But now that it has had a few years to shake out, I expect them to direct it to max profit. That might mean restricting various genres, subjects, formats, etc. And it might mean encouraging others. So far, KDP has operated like a public square. Anyone could stand up and speak. Now we see them exercising property rights. It's their square, not ours.

We have also seen them running a relatively low cost operation. They don't care about individuals. That's why we see so many complaints from authors that Amazon is not paying attention to the details of their situation. They don't care. We are all ASINs to them, not individuals.



> Really makes me wonder why they don't just get with the program and institute an adult filter the way so many other sites do.


Because they don't want to expend the resources deciding what book belongs in the category. They also don't want to highlight the fact that they carry adult stuff. It's a kid magnet. It looks like they are content to let those other sites have the market.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

MJShaw: Perhaps competitors make sure Amazon shows up as the bad guy. I don't know. BN's catalog is just as salacious, if not more so, as they've not done half the enforcement that Amazon has.

Terrence: While many have fallen back on the 'Amazon can do whatever they want' several of us have organized and fought for free access to a market that lets some books pass and blocks others...all with the same content.

We _have_ shaped the industry. We made paypal back down. We took on Mastercard. Those authors who have any influence continue to argue and fight.

No author has to believe they are powerless. It's not true.

Second, this latest conflict was not driven by Amazon, but rather this 'news' article that actually wrongly targeted some books. Seems they failed to read any of them and made some mistakes. Errors I believe they will be paying for with either a retraction or the need for a lawyer.

Amazon is merely reacting, not enforcing any policy. They had no ideas the specific books named were an issue. It's a shame because now they've been forced to tap dance by a low level, low quality media outlet and they're just making themselves a bigger target by doing so. They're showing themselves to be an easy traffic grab. A response similar to Waterstone's would have been a better move.

Meanwhile, authors are losing their entire brand because of one media outlet who can't even properly fact check. At the same time other authors continue unchecked publishing the exact same objectionable content lamented by the article.

Remind me again what 'business practice' has been implemented? One of hypocrisy perhaps?

And if one 'reporter' can target the wrong book, what's to keep them from putting the bullseye on yours?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Because they don't want to expend the resources deciding what book belongs in the category. They also don't want to highlight the fact that they carry adult stuff. It's a kid magnet. It looks like they are content to let those other sites have the market.


Can I disagree with you on the adult stuff? Quickie look just told me that they are cheaper than Adam and Eve on some adult stuff. Toys and DVD's. Matter of fact in All there are 127,378 erotic.
I just typed in Erotic.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

ChristinePope said:


> Really makes me wonder why they don't just get with the program and institute an adult filter the way so many other sites do.


To me this is the story the media keeps missing. Why is Amazon so lazy about mature content? Why do they block some books but not others? Why are sex toys freely searchable? Where's the integrity?

The media sure love to point and laugh at the erotica authors, but they are missing the bigger story every time they do that.

M


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Historical note:
> 
> The ironic part is that PayPal, a site once KNOWN as a way to get people access to internet porn, has for the last couple years been trying like crazy to freeze funds and cancel accounts on authors they personally deem to be writing "the dirtiest smut."
> 
> ...


I began using Paypal in 2003 - not sure when they were a smut filter, but I'd never heard that when I first signed up. I just remember stories about how they were corrupt and their security wasn't very secure. Etc. Then those stories went away, and it was Paypal Everywhere. Despite the warnings, I needed a way to pay authors for their autographed books, which I sold from my bookstore on consignment. And there were authors who really, really balked at signing up with Paypal. I charged them a $5.00 fee to nudge them into the program because cutting checks was a pain.

I'm always pleased with myself when I'm cutting edge in retrospect. This is one of those times, I guess. I've now been using Paypal for 10 1/2 years. Still works. And it's smut-free in my world. Not sure if I've been violated though. I never noticed...


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Regarding the _Kernel_ site, I already posted this on the erotica thread, but I'll repost it in this thread as well: Here, here and here are some links of interest about _The Kernel_.

Let's just say that this is not a site that should point its finger at anyone, much less erotica authors.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Terrence: While many have fallen back on the 'Amazon can do whatever they want' several of us have organized and fought for free access to a market that lets some books pass and blocks others...all with the same content.


We all have free access to the market. What we dont have is free access to any specific venue. Id also say we can observe Amazon can choose what it carries. That seems to be a fact.



> We have shaped the industry. We made paypal back down. We took on Mastercard. Those authors who have any influence continue to argue and fight.
> 
> No author has to believe they are powerless. It's not true.


We dont have to believe anything. But we can observe. I accept that I am what economists call a price-taker. I accept the fact that I am a very small player in a much larger market. So I accept that, analyze the situation, and try to navigate through it. I suppose I could deny it, but Im not sure what good that does.



> Second, this latest conflict was not driven by Amazon, but rather this 'news' article that actually wrongly targeted some books. Seems they failed to read any of them and made some mistakes. Errors I believe they will be paying for with either a retraction or the need for a lawyer.


One news article? I doubt it. This has been a a social issue forever. Its like Whack-A-Mole. This time around the mole is Amazon.



> Amazon is merely reacting, not enforcing any policy. They had no ideas the specific books named were an issue. It's a shame because now they've been forced to tap dance by a low level, low quality media outlet and they're just making themselves a bigger target by doing so. They're showing themselves to be an easy traffic grab. A response similar to Waterstone's would have been a better move.


Of course they are reacting. They make policy in the context of the larger social environment. They are reacting to a market pressure and the potential for it to affect their current and future aggregate welfare.



> Remind me again what 'business practice' has been implemented? One of hypocrisy perhaps?


The practice is to make their site attractive to as many people as possible, and unattractive to the fewest number of people. Its a practice retailers have embraced forever. Im not sure what the hypocrisy is. Where is the contractdiction?



> And if one 'reporter' can target the wrong book, what's to keep them from putting the bullseye on yours?


Nothing stops them from pulling any book. Thats my point. We dont have to like it, but I do think its important to recognize it. This is especially important for people who want to change things. Its hard to win against the opposition without an accurate understanding of him. One can recognize the facts on the ground without supporting them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Can I disagree with you on the adult stuff? Quickie look just told me that they are cheaper than Adam and Eve on some adult stuff. Toys and DVD's. Matter of fact in All there are 127,378 erotic.
> I just typed in Erotic.


Of course you can disagree with me. God bless those who disagree.

I agree there are a bunch of books in that category. However, an adult filter carries the implication that Amazon stands behind the filter. Its much different than genre classification. With an adult filter, Amazon would be getting hammered by a zillion people who want things included and excluded.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Of course you can disagree with me. God bless those who disagree.
> 
> I agree there are a bunch of books in that category. However, an adult filter carries the implication that Amazon stands behind the filter. Its much different than genre classification. With an adult filter, Amazon would be getting hammered by a zillion people who want things included and excluded.


I said nothing about books. I was kind of shocked there was that much stuff in erotic at Amazon.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> I said nothing about books. I was kind of shocked there was that much stuff in erotic at Amazon.


I agree you didnt say anything about books. I just thought that was what we were discussing. But, sure. I agree. Lots of stuff is in erotica.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

After reading this entire debate, although stimulating as it is, I still haven't got the answer I'm looking for to my question; that of:

"Can I publish 'Dinosaur Daddy Does His Velociraptor Step-Daughter' on Amazon, or not?"

Hold on, is that another thread? I'm confused now.

Edit/note: The Velociraptor in question is over the legal dinosaur years of consent in dinosaur town, just adding that in case it makes any difference to the answer.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

AnitaDobs said:


> After reading this entire debate, although stimulating as it is, I still haven't got the answer I'm looking for to my question; that of:
> 
> "Can I publish 'Dinosaur Daddy Does His Velociraptor Step-Daughter' on Amazon, or not?"
> 
> ...


Dinosaur Patriarch does his velocirapter step-missy. There cleaned it up for you.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

I, for one, am wondering when the dinosaur furry porn is going to show up.  There's a bad if marketable idea for you.


----------



## Paranormal Piper (Sep 24, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Dinosaur Patriarch does his velocirapter step-missy. There cleaned it up for you.


Great clean-up job. It should be good to go, now.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

mjshaw said:


> Great clean-up job. It should be good to go, now.


Hey thanks I learned on your amazon page how to find books. Just go to the author page. Now I am off to either finish reading about a billionaire and victoria (Anita Dobs) or A riding werewolf.  Just found your book.


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Dinosaur Patriarch does his velocirapter step-missy. There cleaned it up for you.


Thanks! Adapting to the market is always key. Now all I've got to do is write the thing. It gonna' be hard though, I mean the step-daddy (wise, kind and generous dinosaur patriarch,) is a diplodocus. I'm not sure how it'll ever work. Physically speaking I mean. Because we all know these dinosaur age-gap relationships never work out anyway.

I think I need to go find that paleontologist I saw the other day on Kboards, he's sure to be able to help with the mechanics.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

And what, tell the paleontologist you want to... stroke a bone?  

My fear with that article is that it sounds like it wants to spark an outrage, thereby leading to more angry articles, more deleted stuff, and a sad crackdown on freedom of thought/expression and art.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

_The Kernel_ now has a new article up, since they discovered that taboo erotica is also for sale at B&N and W.H. Smith (supplied via Kobo).

_Metro UK_ also weighs in.

And Jeremy Duns, the spy fiction writer who kicked off the whole thing with a tweet, is dithering on his Twitter feed, saying that he doesn't want to censor anyone, but that these books are disgusting and against the law and shouldn't be available where children might find them.

Jeremy Duns has done good work in exposing plagiarists, but I'm disappointed in him here. Just because he doesn't like pseudo-incest or monster erotica doesn't mean that there aren't others who do. Personally, I can't see the appeal myself, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean that these books don't have a right to exist.

As for "there being laws against this sort of thing in the UK", the UK banned possession of "extreme and violent pornography", after some guy strangled a school teacher and claimed it was a consensual sex game that got out of hand. He also was an eager visitor of extreme porn sites, so the British government decided to criminalize possession of extreme pornography. This article has more. There's also a move to force ISPs to block all Internet porn sites and a couple of other things like anorexia sites by default, unless a household explicitly requests to unban them ("Yes, I'd like the porn and the anorexia and the terrorist propaganda please"). So that's the context in which this anti-erotica campaign occurs.


----------



## Paranormal Piper (Sep 24, 2012)

bobfrost said:


> Go look at their followup article where they ask Amazon if they have to point out all of the "bad" smut for them, and proceed to list off dozens of books, all of which have since been removed by amazon (along with vast swaths of their owner's catalog in a few instances).
> 
> Nasty stuff, really.


I think someone at that joke of a news site noticed Amazon's reaction... and turned it into a game. It's like someone said, 'hey, we mentioned titles X,Y, and Z, and now they're gone. let's see how many more we can get the mighty Amazon to remove just because we say they should.'

Too bad it's a game that's going to cost some authors the income they survive on.


----------



## Paranormal Piper (Sep 24, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> _The Kernel_ now has a new article up, since they discovered that taboo erotica is also for sale at B&N and W.H. Smith (supplied via Kobo).


I sort of feel bad now, and wonder if there might be a spy lurking about. Yesterday, I made a comment about wondering why Amazon is always labeled the villain when B&N and Kobo sell the same type of smut, and now there's an article on that very topic?


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

mjshaw said:


> I sort of feel bad now, and wonder if there might be a spy lurking about. Yesterday, I made a comment about wondering why Amazon is always labeled the villain when B&N and Kobo sell the same type of smut, and now there's an article on that very topic?


Oh I'm sure they are all over this thread. I doubt anyone else is giving them this much attention/discussion.

BBC has a good, critical article. One of the most balanced ones I've seen, they're not letting Amazon off the hook. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24491723


----------



## WadeArnold (Sep 1, 2011)

All they're doing is giving Kernel some traffic for a poorly written, non-researched story where someone browsed Amazon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24491723 

I don't find a story where they say all these books are in the "self published section" well researched or balanced at all. Then they ask politicians? Of course they're "horrified"...just "horrified!" Despite disagreeing with the content, I have to say when you read the BBC's "balanced" story it reads awfully close to _Fahrenheit 451._ Maybe we should make not just the author, but Amazon criminally responsible for having it on their site at all?? That's what it says.


----------



## WadeArnold (Sep 1, 2011)

mjshaw said:


> I sort of feel bad now, and wonder if there might be a spy lurking about. Yesterday, I made a comment about wondering why Amazon is always labeled the villain when B&N and Kobo sell the same type of smut, and now there's an article on that very topic?


B&N taking stuff down now. Kernel is getting the traffic they wanted by basically browsing Amazon and writing a "breaking story" about it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

WadeArnold said:


> All they're doing is giving Kernel some traffic for a poorly written, non-researched story where someone browsed Amazon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24491723
> 
> I don't find a story where they say all these books are in the "self published section" well researched or balanced at all. Then they ask politicians? Of course they're "horrified"...just "horrified!" Despite disagreeing with the content, I have to say when you read the BBC's "balanced" story it reads awfully close to _Fahrenheit 451._ Maybe we should make not just the author, but Amazon criminally responsible for having it on their site at all?? That's what it says.


I agree they are not well researched or balanced. Social advocacy never is. It's designed to rouse people to action rather than provide a dispassionate analysis of the situation. We should probably judge advocacy by how well it achieves it's purpose, rather than how it failed to achieve some other purpose.

When is the last time we heard a campaign speech with a well balanced presentation of the other guy's position?


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

"Criminal content"? Really?

Unlike e.g. with child porn or snuff films, there are no real people involved or harmed in the writing of those stories. It's all fiction.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Are those responsible for this uproar actually examining the entirety of the content--as they're accusing Amazon of not doing--or are they just basing their analysis on titles and blurbs without context?  I think people have already made the argument better than I could about how it's ridiculous to judge psuedo-incest, barely legal, mythical bestiality, and reluctant consent works on what they "almost" are, but really aren't.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

What this boils down to is that Amazon has become the BIGGEST gatekeeper of book publishing.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Okey Dokey said:


> What this boils down to is that Amazon has become the BIGGEST gatekeeper of book publishing.


Of course it is a gatekeeper. It owns the fence, gate, and the promised land beyond. To date it has chosen to leave the gate wide open.


----------



## JShepard (Jul 9, 2013)

More articles saying that books depicting illegal acts should be banned? I said it in another thread, but I'll say it here, too. 

No more books about murder. Murder is illegal. (Goodbye "The shining")

No more "True Crime" novels. Maybe, should Law and Order stop airing too? Teaches people how easy it can be to get away with it. 

Back to books, no more books that open our eyes about what women in the middle east face? I mean, those women have acid thrown on them. That's against the law. Ban it. 

Say good bye "Tampa" with your 26 year old teacher seducing a 14 year old student. Wonder if Harper Collins would be cool with their author being banned?

Oh, and I guess my book, Vanished, that deals with a girl handing the aftermath of being raped should be banned also, never mind that my MC is an alien on an alien planet. 

Unless the problem is stories that glorify crimes. Goodbye, Darkly Dreaming Dexter. (And the show counterpart, Dexter) 

No matter how you slice it, the argument is not a strong one. The person who wrote the article needs to stop and think about what they are saying, and realize how silly they sound. 

I get (and agree) they don't want it popping up next to kids stuff, but banning it altogether? Not a good fix. Because it's erotica now, Dexter tomorrow.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

CoraBuhlert said:


> "Criminal content"? Really?
> 
> Unlike e.g. with child porn or snuff films, there are no real people involved or harmed in the writing of those stories. It's all fiction.


I thought of that, too, and wondered how such laws might vary from one country to another. Is there any content on any subject that is illegal in European countries?


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I thought of that, too, and wondered how such laws might vary from one country to another. Is there any content on any subject that is illegal in European countries?


As I said either here or on the other thread, the UK is going through an anti-porn campaign right now and actually has an (IMO stupid) law banning possession of "extreme pornography" after some guy strangled a woman after sex and claimed it was an accident due to a consensual sex game gone wrong. That guy was also an eager visitor of taboo porn sites, so some concerned citizens launched a campaign against extreme porn. Of course, plenty of people visit those same sites and don't go around strangling women. Besides, as far as I know that law only applies to pictorial content and not to written works.

Written erotica featuring minors below the age of consent is illegal in most European countries as well (I know it is in Germany), but Amazon does not carry such erotica anyway and hasn't for a while. And while incest and bestiality are illegal in most European countries, I don't think writing about incest and bestiality is illegal (and again Amazon does not carry actual incest and bestiality erotica). Step-parent incest and description of sex with mythical animals are not illegal anyway.

As for barely legal, the age of consent in the UK and Germany is 16. And in the UK the mean age of first sexual intercourse is 15 and has been for a while. So Brits complaining about "barely legal" erotica featuring 18 or 19 year old characters is stupid, because the age of consent in the UK is 16. Never mind that pretty explicit sex scenes featuring teenaged characters (though the actors are over 1 are fairly common in British TV programs. In the late 1990s, the original British _Queer As Folk_ featured a gay relationship with pretty explicit sex scenes between a 30-year-old and a 15-year-old, played by then 19-year-old Charlie Hunnam. British teen dramas like _Skins_ or _Misfits_ regularly feature fairly explicit sex scenes involving young characters.


----------



## Jay Walken (Feb 7, 2013)

JShepard said:


> More articles saying that books depicting illegal acts should be banned? I said it in another thread, but I'll say it here, too.
> 
> No more books about murder. Murder is illegal. (Goodbye "The shining")
> 
> ...


Good arguments . . . and besides literature, there are so many movies and television shows that glorify crime and drug culture: Pulp Fiction, Breaking Bad, possibly? I, personally, am repelled by graphic violence and certain sexual "deviations" like bestiality (and I'm not even going anywhere near "child rape"), but if I denied others' right to read or write about it, I would be opening the door to others banning my own books, which I think to be quite human and compassionate and sex-positive.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I thought of that, too, and wondered how such laws might vary from one country to another. Is there any content on any subject that is illegal in European countries?


Isn't it illegal in some European countries to write disparagingly about Islam and Muhammed? Or, if isn't officially illegal, it is certainly informally illegal.


----------



## JShepard (Jul 9, 2013)

Jay Walken said:


> Good arguments . . . and besides literature, there are so many movies and television shows that glorify crime and drug culture: Pulp Fiction, Breaking Bad, possibly? I, personally, am repelled by graphic violence and certain sexual "deviations" like bestiality (and I'm not even going anywhere near "child rape"), but if I denied others' right to read or write about it, I would be opening the door to others banning my own books, which I think to be quite human and compassionate and sex-positive.


That's the part that bothers me. It's the suppression. I don't write erotica. But I sure as hell don't want to see people get banned because they wrote a fictional story about people committing crimes. Because once you start, where do you draw the line? Will they ban big name authors hiding behind publisher's skirts? Or only the little guys? Because I'm pretty sure "Tampa" with its 15 year old and 26 year old having (very graphic) sex isn't even adult tagged. Why not? At the risk of opening old wounds, it feels like yet another "Us vs. them" self-published vs. trade published argument.

But beyond that, because I don't want to beat a dead horse, censoring is historically the first step. Control what is available to the people. Its a shift of power. The "people" (amazon consumers who want to read these things) lose the right to read them without even being aware they are losing the choice. But that's another point I don't want to argue.

So I move on to to what bothers me the most... it does more damage psychologically to shame than it does to allow content to be freely available. Psychologists will tell you. Japan's stats will tell you. Further, sex is normal. It's natural. And all the lies about things like incest (seriously, scientifically, they got nothing. I had a friend write a thesis paper on it in college and I was amazed.) cripple people's ability to be open, honest and face the things that work for them. When people are forced to hide their needs, they are more likely to act on them, often violently, than the person who can read "those" books and watch "those" videos. We are creating violent monsters, simply by not allowing people access to act out their fantasies in the privacy of their own homes.

And yes, amazon has the right to decide what they sell, but where do the lines get drawn? Is all erotica bad? Or only ones that pretend to be illegal? Because pseudo incest is not illegal. Nor is writing a fictional story about it. Not anymore than a book about murder is illegal. It's policing thoughts. Censoring ideas. And that's the gray area that scares me, personally.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> That's the part that bothers me. It's the suppression. I don't write erotica. But I sure as hell don't want to see people get banned because they wrote a fictional story about people committing crimes. Because once you start, where do you draw the line?


The line? There is no line in terms of what a retailer chooses to carry. There never has been one. The retailer draws it wherever he chooses. It can be straight, crooked, or dotted. For books, the retailer has the freedom to speak or not speak. He has the freedom to use his resources to help others speak, or he can refrain.

Lines don't have to be drawn. That's what freedom of speech means. We can speak or remain quiet for any reason we choose, and don't have to answer to anyone for it. We don't have to define our lines. We don't have to be consistent. We don't have to set standards. We can revel in double standards. I'll write what I want because it's Tuesday morning, the sun is shining, and ther cat won't crap on the New York Times. Lines? I have none and don't intend to draw any for myself or anyone else.

In the US, speakers and writers are free to express themselves. But they have no right to the time, effort, and resources of private parties in furthering the exercise of that expression.

Nobody has a right to my services in assisting them in polishing and delivering their free expression about anything. I may choose to give or sell my services, but that is my choice, and it's protected under the First Amendment.

It's not the author's place to draw lines for any private party but himself. He has no standing. Freedom of speech allow us to speak, but it also prevents us from forcing others to speak or assist us in speaking.

That might scare some folks. It should. Free expression is a powerful force.

God Bless the cat. Ain't this a great country?


----------



## JShepard (Jul 9, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> The line? There is no line in terms of what a retailer chooses to carry. There never has been one. The retailer draws it wherever he chooses. For books, the retailer has the freedom to speak or not speak. He has the freedom to use his resources to help others speak, or he can refrain.
> 
> In the US, speakers and writers are free to express themselves. But they have no right to the time, effort, and resources of private parties in furthering the exercise of that expression.
> 
> ...


This is true. But even the 'Zon has people they answer to. Shareholders, for starters. As soon as you start banning the branch that makes billions, you begin losing profits. People go elsewhere. New stores pop up to fill in resulting demand. I know I don't want my money in a company that's willy-nilly about billions in revenue.

But I digress.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

JShepard said:


> This is true. But even the 'Zon has people they answer to. Shareholders, for starters. As soon as you start banning the branch that makes billions, you begin losing profits. People go elsewhere. New stores pop up to fill in resulting demand. I know I don't want my money in a company that's willy-nilly about billions in revenue.
> 
> But I digress.


Of course.

God Bless the cat, the free market, and the War on Drugs. If there is a demand for a product and one guy won't fill it, then another guy will.

Ain't this a great country?


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I don't think writing about incest and bestiality is illegal (and again Amazon does not carry actual incest and bestiality erotica). Step-parent incest and description of *sex with mythical animals* are not illegal anyway.


Let's not forget the extinct animals either! Ahem. Dinosaurs. Let's not leave them out of the party.



> Isn't it illegal in some European countries to write disparagingly about Islam and Muhammed? Or, if isn't officially illegal, it is certainly informally illegal.


I don't know about _every_ single European country, but generally it's not illegal. It's just not wise is all. No one wants a Fatwa death squad on their hands!

Let us not forget author Salman Rushdie who went into hiding because of one of those http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Anya said:


> I don't believe that rape (as erotica/porn), or any sex acts carried out on children (or suggested as being), belong anywhere online. That isn't 'sex'.


Anya,

I hold the same values as you, personally. I object personally to such content... by not buying it.

But that's a personal view. I decide for me, you decide for you, etc.

I don't want PayPal or Amazon or anyone else making my values decisions for me, however.

Is it not a wee bit disturbing that a bank or credit card company or whoever is actually studying what you're buying and deciding to suspend consumer accounts if they buy something on PayPal or Amazon's personal "that's not kosher" list?

Or, isn't it also a bit disturbing that those same companies are looking and what writers who are paid via PayPal are writing, and suspending their accounts, including the freezing of funds, for the very same reasons?

I mean, sure, one can say, "Well, I don't write X, so it won't affect me." That's called the WSICWIDAM factor.

(Translation: Why should I care when it doesn't affect me?)

But once a company starts singling out their personal preferences for what can or can't be bought and sold, then it becomes a whole lot easier for that list of what's acceptable and what's not to expand over time, until something you DO write gets added to the "unacceptable list."

And we are all familiar with this famous quote about where WSICWIDAM ends up:



> _First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
> Because I was not a Socialist.
> 
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
> ...


For example, while I don't write anything like what you listed, my novel MOST LIKELY is a potential landmine: first, the character is under 18 and is tempted to (but ultimately chooses not to) have premarital relations with her boyfriend. (Thus the SUGGESTION of potential underage sex!)

Also, there is a spiritual slant to the story. What if PayPal suddenly decides to go all "separation of church and state" and take the same sort of actions against those whose books contain religious content of any type?

These might seem like paranoid concerns, but the point is, my money belongs to me (after taxes) and it's not the business of a private bank to decide to withhold my funds, based on what I write for a living, or what I buy with my funds... so long as I pay my taxes. And now, my health taxes. 

I mean, what if PayPal started getting like the mayor of New York City, and started declining transactions, or freezing accounts and funds, because "ooh, you went to McDonalds and attempted to buy a meal with too much fat content, too big a beverage, and too many calories!" Hmm? It's not as far off as one might think, nor too far removed from the things they're already attempting to do.

The same arguments could be used: "Well, as your bank, we want to help guide you to healthier purchases that will benefit you positively."

And my rejoinder would be the same as it has been for a while: "I'd prefer some freedom and liberty, with a side of 'mind your own business, please.'"

In essence, it's MY responsibility to decide what books I want to read, what food I want to purchase, etc., when I'm doing it with my own funds.

How I spend my money is not something any bank should be able to over-rule me on. Nor should they have the right to deny my access to my funds simply because they don't like the book I wrote to earn those funds.

Yeah, it's safer to sit still and not raise an objection because WSICWIDAM. But eventually, it could affect me. So enlightened self-interest dictates that it is something worth getting disturbed by.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Christopher Bunn said:


> Isn't it illegal in some European countries to write disparagingly about Islam and Muhammed? Or, if isn't officially illegal, it is certainly informally illegal.


Some countries still have blasphemy laws on the books, but those are general and don't just refer to Islam. And of course there are laws against hate speech and incitement to hatred in many countries (including Germany). But something has to be pretty strong to qualify as hate speech. As for informally illegal, there is no such thing as informally illegal. Of course, if you blanket insult muslims, you might find yourself with a fatwa on your head. But there are plenty of critical books about islam on the market, some of them pretty damn insulting IMO, and so far the authors haven't gotten a fatwa.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

AnitaDobs said:


> I don't know about _every_ single European country, but generally it's not illegal. It's just not wise is all. No one wants a Fatwa death squad on their hands!
> 
> Let us not forget author Salman Rushdie who went into hiding because of one of those http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie


I didn't say that, that was Christopher.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

I don't write pseudo incest and have never pushed boundaries, yet I had a book 'banned' last night.

Why?

I used the word virgin in the _blurb_.

For comparison, the traditionally published books with Virgin in their _title_ are just fine. And the trad pubbed romances with virgin in the blurb also continue on without any problem.

So, indies of the world, FYI _you_ are not allowed to use the word virgin. Not on Amazon.

Thought police indeed.

It's a witch hunt now. KB has no idea half of the stupidity going on behind the scenes, people won't bring it here. But it's bad. Really bad. Amazon is in serious book burning mode.

I wonder what Amazon thinks all the authors with their mailing lists and FB fans are going to do? Stay silent? Nope.

They think the media spotlight is bad? Wait until authors start using their direct lines to consumers who shop on Amazon along with their own media contacts.

Sh*tstorms can blow both ways.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

> Anya,
> 
> I hold the same values as you, personally. I object personally to such content... by not buying it.
> 
> ...


Craig, understood. ( I will note that I have seen Jewish people object more than a few times to that particular quotation, mostly because it's used in circumstances that have nothing to do with the attempted extermination of an entire people.)

I don't object to many of the books that Amazon apparently does. I do object if it's easily accessible to anyone underage. I may not understand 'rape-fantasy' but I don't have to, as it's within the realm of consenting adults, and it's clear to me that if a woman desires forcible sex, then it cannot, under anyone's terms, actually be rape. If it's depicted as being actual rape (in erotica/porn) that's something else again. Rape/sexual abuse in relation to children is never acceptable or desirable, and nothing would ever change my mind on that. In this post, I could go completely the other way with overblown scenarios about the 'what ifs' and I will take a guess that it wouldn't be a society that the vast majority of us would want to live in either.

Your line, "Well, I don't write X, so it won't affect me" doesn't come into play here at all - as I would never base my thinking on that premise in this type of circumstance. Online hate speech, for instance, may not affect me directly if I am not in a targeted group, but you can believe it affects me, as it affects all of us. But it's sounding awfully close to you saying that those are my thoughts.

If it sounds as though I'm cranky, I'm not. I understand your position and what you're saying, but that's reading way too much into a single line post.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Anya,


If you get to know me over the course of time on KB here a bit, you'll understand at least one thing about me: I'm a long-winded fella.

Serves me well, at times, as a writer.

Serves me not so well, at times, when interacting with others, because I tend to overexplain and go off on tangents and... well, you get the idea. 

All best.

P.S. I wasn't attempting to assume your personal attitudes. I started out with a basic reply and then kept typing...  The "doesn't affect me" portion of what I wrote was me simply expanding upon an initial point I was making. Talking about the general tendencies of people in general to not care about things that don't affect them. Obviously, there are exceptions.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

No problem, Craig. I think we all need to take care when discussing someone else's post. Go forth, into ye longwinded yonder


----------



## AnitaDobs (Sep 18, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I didn't say that, that was Christopher.


Ya, I know Cora. I've just never figured out how to do a multi-quote around here, so I just did a cut and paste quote. Didn't mean for it to look like it was your quote. Sorry

Edit: Oh darn... now I see why you said so, it's got your name above it where I cut 'n pasted the html. Corrected it.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Well, if characters have families they might be tempted to have sex with them.  

Anyway, this is completely ridiculous. They'll be banning biographies of the Virgin Mary next. And of course any book ever that involved parents or family.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Out of idle curiosity, I checked out the books by Jeremy Duns, the spy fiction author who kicked this off on Twitter. Check out the one star reviews and the complaints about Duns' protagonist. And this writer decides he is the supreme arbiter of all that's good and pure and moral?  Might want to ban his own books then.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

One thing that's important to remember with this Amazon 'cleansing', is that they're not going after content.  You can write about a girl doing her stepdaddy, but you can't describe what the story's about in the cover, title, or blurb.

I'm doing my best to let any potential readers know what they're going to encounter, but there's going to be a whole lot of pissed off Amazon customers in the near future.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Out of idle curiosity, I checked out the books by Jeremy Duns, the spy fiction author who kicked this off on Twitter. Check out the one star reviews and the complaints about Duns' protagonist. And this writer decides he is the supreme arbiter of all that's good and pure and moral?  Might want to ban his own books then.


Wow they totally roast him. And the one review that mentions he should go back to writing for Playgirl- I didn't research farther but it's funny that he got his start in sex.


----------



## Lana Amore (Oct 13, 2013)

Jamie Klaire said:


> Wow they totally roast him. And the one review that mentions he should go back to writing for Playgirl- I didn't research farther but it's funny that he got his start in sex.


It's like the gay politician going on a crusade against gay marriage.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Right. Hypocracy at its best. Do as I say not as I do. My porn is ok but that stuff you like...


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

I'm not intending to be inflammatory, but I just read what I've taken to be _*the*_ article that started all the Kobo's take-downs (mine included--I do write romance with fully described love scenes), and a general sense of panic among erotica writers. And given that most erotica is beautifully written and has value, I don't blame those writers for being upset.

I just want to say that if I were a bookstore, I wouldn't want to sell some of the stuff that The Kernel article itemizes. It may be just me, but I do find graphic sexual victimization of women--of any age--degrading to women as a whole and ultimately tragic. (Interesting that many of the covers shown in this article aren't showing skin, they're mostly faces of women in trauma and pain.) Is there some place where this kind of fiction belongs, so people who want to read about it can? There are those who say yes to that. I honestly can't think where...

I always thought I was open-minded, a devout believer in freedom of speech--the whole bit. Now I worry about myself that I might not be able to live up to those ideals. I just can't seem to work up a frenzy about Kobo, Amazon or whoever not wanting to sell sex-drenched stories about sex with dogs, rape, or children.

The booksellers have a right to not carry what they deem unacceptable. Yes, it's awkward, costly, unfair, etc. for them to throw out babies with the bathwater; but I'm guessing their task is not an easy one. (Now I suppose I'll have to run for cover...) 

This is The Kernal piece:

http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/exclusive/6016/an-epidemic-of-filth/#


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

EC Sheedy said:


> I'm not intending to be inflammatory, but I just read what I've taken to be _*the*_ article that started all the Kobo's take-downs (mine included--I do write romance with fully described love scenes), and a general sense of panic among erotica writers. And given that most erotica is beautifully written and has value, I don't blame those writers for being upset.
> 
> I just want to say that if I were a bookstore, I wouldn't want to sell some of the stuff that The Kernel article itemizes. It may be just me, but I do find graphic sexual victimization of women--of any age--degrading to women as a whole and ultimately tragic. (Interesting that many of the covers shown in this article aren't showing skin, they're mostly faces of women in trauma and pain.) Is there some place where this kind of fiction belongs, so people who want to read about it can? There are those who say yes to that. I honestly can't think where...
> 
> ...


You're not alone. I have no problem with them getting rid of the titles you're talking about. I just hate that everyone has to suffer over this. Don't worry, I think your opinion is probably shared by most of us.


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> I'm not intending to be inflammatory, but I just read what I've taken to be _*the*_ article that started all the Kobo's take-downs (mine included--I do write romance with fully described love scenes), and a general sense of panic among erotica writers. And given that most erotica is beautifully written and has value, I don't blame those writers for being upset.
> 
> I just want to say that if I were a bookstore, I wouldn't want to sell some of the stuff that The Kernel article itemizes. It may be just me, but I do find graphic sexual victimization of women--of any age--degrading to women as a whole and ultimately tragic. (Interesting that many of the covers shown in this article aren't showing skin, they're mostly faces of women in trauma and pain.) Is there some place where this kind of fiction belongs, so people who want to read about it can? There are those who say yes to that. I honestly can't think where...
> 
> ...


If it makes you feel better most of the books the Kernal picked up were from internet marketers who outsourced the writing to ESL third world writers. They produced them in bulk and they were largely tasteless and poorly written. It's a shame that booksellers can't identify that as the root cause of their current public humiliation instead of targeting every erotica writer author on the roster.

Some of the books the Kernal picked up were misrepresented and were not rape or bestiality. The Kernal did not do their research or due diligence.

What the Kernal highlighted is not representative of the erotica general as a whole. Not even close.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi, EC, 

The Kernal piece has been being discussed in this thread for awhile now...so I've merged your post with the thread.  Sorry for any confusion.

Betsy


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Hi, EC,
> 
> The Kernal piece has been being discussed in this thread for awhile now...so I've merged your post with the thread. Sorry for any confusion.
> 
> Betsy


Wondered where it went, thanks, Betsy.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

mrv01d said:


> If it makes you feel better most of the books the Kernal picked up were from internet marketers who outsourced the writing to ESL third world writers. They produced them in bulk and they were largely tasteless and poorly written.


I figured that was probably the case. When you're basically commissioning that stuff in bulk, you're just not going to care about quality or content. You want to get a lot published as quickly as possible and make money.

It's unfortunate that this sort of thing ends up hurting everyone in the long run.


----------



## 72263 (Sep 10, 2013)

mrv01d said:


> If it makes you feel better most of the books the Kernal picked up were from internet marketers who outsourced the writing to ESL third world writers. They produced them in bulk and they were largely tasteless and poorly written. It's a shame that booksellers can't identify that as the root cause of their current public humiliation instead of targeting every erotica writer author on the roster.
> 
> Some of the books the Kernal picked up were misrepresented and were not rape or bestiality. The Kernal did not do their research or due diligence.
> 
> What the Kernal highlighted is not representative of the erotica general as a whole. Not even close.


Yes, I wouldn't want my erotica to be listed alongside the titles that involve sex with dogs or violent rape either. I think you're right in that a lot of the more offensive titles were published by the people who read one article on How To Get Rich Publishing Erotica and didn't care for the market, the readers or the content guidelines of Amazon, Kobo, B&N, etc. Wasn't it How To and Selfhelp non-fiction books a few years ago that were flooded by badly researched & written trash?

I'm hoping those people will decide that reworking their titles to be deemed acceptable is too much work & effort and move on.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

mrv01d said:


> If it makes you feel better most of the books the Kernal picked up were from internet marketers who outsourced the writing to ESL third world writers. ... Some of the books the Kernal picked up were misrepresented and were not rape or bestiality. The Kernal did not do their research or due diligence.
> 
> What the Kernal highlighted is not representative of the erotica general as a whole. Not even close.


Crap. I learn something new every single day. Now we're outsourcing pron writing!

"Where am I? And what am I doing in this handbasket?"


----------



## mrv01d (Apr 4, 2011)

Chunter said:


> Yes, I wouldn't want my erotica to be listed alongside the titles that involve sex with dogs or violent rape either.


The thing is too, professional erotica writers KNOW you can't write this stuff. We KNOW the standards and we adhere to them. It's the Internet Marketers who don't understand what the boundaries are b/c they aren't writers trying to build a sustainable brand, they're quick cash scammers.

Also afaik the Kernal didn't find any bestiality or rape...they just thought they did.

M


----------



## 72263 (Sep 10, 2013)

Agreed, the pros are in it for the longterm, don't want to push the boundaries, just want to know where they are. The Get Rich Quickers don't care one bit. They know that after a few months they'll have moved onto their next project.


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

Hey, just a question but does someone have a link where they keep a list what is going on?


----------



## Kiki Wellington (Mar 28, 2013)

mrv01d said:


> If it makes you feel better most of the books the Kernal picked up were from internet marketers who outsourced the writing to ESL third world writers. They produced them in bulk and they were largely tasteless and poorly written.


I never thought of that, but it does make sense. I remember one author I would see all the time, and he literally published ten to fifteen ebooks _a day_ and I was thinking, wow, I'm a really slow writer compared to some folks! And I did click on some of them and the blurbs alone were a mess. So I'm sure he was one of those people you're talking about.

Selena Kitt did a really good blog last year about erotica sustainability (http://selenakitt.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/05/erotica-sustainability/) and it seems what she was saying then is coming to roost.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I took one look at the books in the article and knew immediately, it was SEO/PLR crap writing. You can tell by the keyword laden titles. Most erotica and romance writers I know - have been greatly annoyed by this sort of thing for awhile. It's unfair competition in a way, due to the sheer volume of these stories they can push out. Also, they read like crap. The vast majority aren't even proof read at all. 

The thing is WH and Kobo could resolve this a number of very simple ways. One is to keep an eye out of keyword heavy titles. That stops most of it in it's tracks right there. What is annoying is that the shifter books were labeled as bestiality. That's driving me up the wall... I can turn on my TV and watch "True Blood".. but I can't read about it?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Question: What separates much of this so-called "bad porn" from 50 Shades of Puke?

Yes, I'm serious. I don't read either, so I'm not sure if there's much if any difference.

And please, spare me the "literary quality" argument, because 50 Shades is just re-heated Twilight fan-fic and we all know that much. And while I'm guessing there's no underage/relative-sex stuff in 50SOP, I've heard a couple people discussing certain scenes from the book, and from what little I did hear, I can't imagine there's not at least some BDSM / questionable consent stuff going on in there... 

But clearly, I know too little about all this, so if anyone can clarify what separates 50 Shades from the stuff being "cleansed," I'd be interested to hear a rational argument.

My suspicion is the number of sales generated is the only real difference: 50 Shades injected a lot of sales into the picture over the last year-plus.

So it seems to me like a double-standard: If you're wildly successful, perv away! If you're not making us (Amazon) big, BIG money... we're coming to pillage and plunder, you pervs...


----------



## PalomaEroti (Oct 14, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Question: What separates much of this so-called "bad porn" from 50 Shades of Puke?


It's traditionally published, not self-published. (Though it was originally.) That's it.


----------



## iheartwords (Jun 12, 2013)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Question: What separates much of this so-called "bad porn" from 50 Shades of Puke?
> 
> Yes, I'm serious. I don't read either, so I'm not sure if there's much if any difference.
> 
> ...


As far as I know they aren't blocking anything for content. They are blocking things for title, cover, or description. The title/cover/description for 50 Shades are very tame.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "But clearly, I know too little about all this, so if anyone can clarify what separates 50 Shades from the stuff being "cleansed," I'd be interested to hear a rational argument."


I'd be interested in hearing one, too. But I doubt we will. We communicate on more levels than the rational one, and much of that communication cannot be expressed in a logical and rational manner. Emotions are a good place to start. We can communicate them, but often words don't work too well.

We can take in a huge amount of information with our senses that we can't communicate nearly so well with words.


----------



## WadeArnold (Sep 1, 2011)

PalomaEroti said:


> It's traditionally published, not self-published. (Though it was originally.) That's it.


No, there are some differences. 50 shades is poorly written. (Pa dum pum).

Okay seriously, 50 shades avoids the harsh graphic porn words and "inserts" in their place some softer porn words. (pun intended) You still know what's going on, it's just the cable tv version. (And no, I never understood the "mom porn" thing where a young girl gives in to a rich man who "takes her". Feminists were applauding that trash. WTF?)


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Eh, it's all fantasy, and what's the point of modern notions of feminism and a progressive society if you're not allowed to indulge in taboo fantasy in the privacy of your bedroom or ebook?

Consequently, I can never look at Bill Gates again without wondering if he's more into whips or riding crops, and if his wife's safe word is "DOS" or "Steve Jobs".


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Well, I'll say this: Fiction is theatre of the mind. Banning certain types of content, however distasteful, seems about as necessary as writing an animal zombies novel and including a disclaimer that says, NO ACTUAL ANIMALS WERE HARMED IN THE WRITING OF THIS BOOK. NOT EVEN ZOMBIE ANIMALS. SERIOUSLY, IT'S FICTION, MISTER SENSITIVE: GROW UP. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Linda Barlow (Jul 5, 2013)

It's fiction. Words. I understand (a bit) the issues with photographs because how can you be absolutely certain that the models were not in some way coerced? But when we're discussing words alone, your kink is not my kink. Daddy pron seems gross to me, but whips...sure...bring it on. Underage stuff, yuck. Rape fantasy? Depends....can sometimes be hot. Let adults enjoy their differing fantasies without having to listen to moralizing by folks whose turn-on differs. I'd be very happy if I never had to see another gross spurt of blood following some violent murder on Games of Thrones, for example. But sex? I just don't get all the outrage over people's private fantasies.


----------

