# The Danger of the Word "Gay"



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

To all those who write m/m (yaoi) fiction or those who support it, my publishing company had a bit of an eyeopener recently. We decided to gauge some interest for my latest gay supernatural detective story by taking out a few ads on Google's adwords. The first ad described it as a gay supernatural detective story. It was denied, because it was not family friendly. The second ad, the ONLY difference, was that we took out the word "gay". NOTHING ELSE CHANGED. Google approved that ad.

We wrote a long blogpost about it, laying out all the evidence, and our feelings on it. If you'd like to check it out, it's here: http://welcome.raythereign.com/raythe-reign-speaks-out-googles-gay-free-world/

If you'd like to comment/share/etc. that would be awesome. This kind of behavior by the largest search engine company is not okay. It's not even potentially okay.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Normally I would say well, they're free to do whatever silly thing they want, but given the enormous power of the company in question, it does seem dangerous that they would do this.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> Currently, we do not allow image or video ads containing adult content.


That's funny (not haha funny, ironic funny) since I never realized that 'gay' was something that was considered 'adult content'. Especially since there are plenty of 'gay' children/teenagers that commit suicide because of that 'stigma'. I also didn't realize that being gay was somehow taboo, or automatically signified ten sweaty men in a haystack having graphic sex.

But what do I know, my very first review for my science fiction novella claimed it was 'gay propaganda to further the author's gay agenda'. So I'm part of the problem I guess.

This is something that definitely needs to be addressed. Those of us who write LGBT characters, or target our stories towards the LGBT crowd, we would enjoy not being shoved back into some closet, especially not with archaic ideals of what LGBT persons are. My novella had no sex, no romance, just gay characters, and yet to some it felt like I was shoving a lot of gay romantic sex down their throats (because I apparently forced them to download and read it).

http://www.angrygames.com/?p=288 is my own take on it, from a slightly different angle.



> While running this could conceivably get us banned from Google and other advertising networks, we cannot let this slide. We are lucky in that we have the membership, which allows us to not cave under the "moral" discomfort of publishers and distributors.
> 
> We have the money to advertise, unlike many indie authors, and we realize that we are not just advertising for us, but we are doing a small part to push the entire LGBT entertainment forward, if only just an inch.


I wholeheartedly support and encourage more behavior like this. "Gay" might still have the stigma to some (those I consider narrow-minded and more than likely bigoted), but the rest of us do not believe this anymore, and believe we should stamp this attempt at moralizing something that is a biological trait in the same way a lot of us push for an end to racism and genderism. No one can help that they were born black, or Asian, or female. We shouldn't allow anyone to be put in an 'inferior' category because they were born attracted to their own gender.

Very good blog post. I must now go burn off some of the steam that always builds in me like a pressure cooker when I read crap like this (not your blog post, but about the continuation of bigoted ideas, even if indirectly or unintentional by others, including big corporations).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I would say it was unbelievable; unfortunately, it is not. The anti-LGBT prejudice lives on that we are somehow "diseased" or dirty by our very existance.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

MichaelWallace said:


> Normally I would say well, they're free to do whatever silly thing they want, but given the enormous power of the company in question, it does seem dangerous that they would do this.


I normally would feel like you (it would make me angry but that would be their right). But it's Google ... They're supposed to report results of everything on the web based on what you're putting in. Unbiased results (supposedly), but that's not the case here. I didn't think that they would do this and we've had to jump through so many hoops to advertise, but this "family-friendly" crap really got to us.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

And one would think that narrow-minded censorship was _so_ 1984. 

I need to get my blog rolling because this deserves a blog post.

Way back in the day, women with breast cancer were furious when "breast" was banned from AOL searches because it was "adult." Glad to see we're making progress.  Not...


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

AngryGames said:


> That's funny (not haha funny, ironic funny) since I never realized that 'gay' was something that was considered 'adult content'. Especially since there are plenty of 'gay' children/teenagers that commit suicide because of that 'stigma'. I also didn't realize that being gay was somehow taboo, or automatically signified ten sweaty men in a haystack having graphic sex.
> 
> But what do I know, my very first review for my science fiction novella claimed it was 'gay propaganda to further the author's gay agenda'. So I'm part of the problem I guess.
> 
> ...


Yours is a great blog post, too. This just saddens me isn't the right word. It does. But it iNFURIATES ME. It's like gay families don't exist out there according to Google. There are only straight families and ... well, the rest of you NEED NOT APPLY. Thank you for the commentary. Sometimes it just feels like knowing others feel the same, you're not so damned alone.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

brie.mcgill said:


> And one would think that narrow-minded censorship was _so_ 1984.
> 
> I need to get my blog rolling because this deserves a blog post.
> 
> Way back in the day, women with breast cancer were furious when "breast" was banned from AOL searches because it was "adult." Glad to see we're making progress.  Not...


Please blog about it, spread the word. This is so much bigger than just us. Let people know, because I was even gobsmacked when they did this and this is my business!


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I agree, that's unacceptable. The idea that any "gay" fiction must be considered adult or is by definition not "family friendly" is offensive.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> I would say it was unbelievable; unfortunately, it is not. The anti-LGBT prejudice lives on that we are somehow "diseased" or dirty by our very existance.


When my marketer told me, I couldn't believe it. But then she laid it out with the ads and I just sat there and stared. We had proof. It was frighteningly clear.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

X. Aratare said:


> If you'd like to comment/share/etc. that would be awesome. This kind of behavior by the largest search engine company is not okay. It's not even potentially okay.


I'm totally with you, and I'll do my share as soon as possible (I'm a little bit overwhelmed with work now).

In the public interest we must warn everybody, lest our gay euros, dollars, yens or other queer currencies contaminate their pristine site.
We all know that just seeing the word "gay" makes young people lose their morals, and before you know it they're selling their posteriors on street corners for the price of a Happy Meal.


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

We have so very, very far to go as a society.  I of course will and am already spreading this as far as I can among peers and friends, but is there some sort of direct action we can take?  Is there someone at Google (and amazon, b and n, apple, facebook as you mention) ads we can write to as customers?


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

MegHarris said:


> I agree, that's unacceptable. The idea that any "gay" fiction must be considered adult or is by definition not "family friendly" is offensive.


It's not just Google, but every ad network. We're only allowed on adult networks, but my stuff isn't that adult. It would disappoint! But since we're "gay" fiction, well, we're not allowed to reach our audience. Our money isn't as good as everyone else's.


----------



## StephenBrennan (Dec 21, 2012)

Not family friendly? Google's got some nerve taking the moral high ground. Half their ads are likely to steal your identity  

Everything is offensive to somebody. And I do mean everything. Google should be more progressive than that.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I'm totally with you, and I'll do my share as soon as possible (I'm a little bit overwhelmed with work now).
> 
> In the public interest we must warn everybody, lest our gay euros, dollars, yens or other queer currencies contaminate their pristine site.
> We all know that just seeing the word "gay" makes young people lose their morals, and before you know it they're selling their posteriors on street corners for the price of a Happy Meal.


I totally understand. Whatever you can do is totally awesome and appreciated. I love your books btw!


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

dkgould said:


> We have so very, very far to go as a society. I of course will and am already spreading this as far as I can among peers and friends, but is there some sort of direct action we can take? Is there someone at Google (and amazon, b and n, apple, facebook as you mention) ads we can write to as customers?


You can't reach anyone at Google as far as I can tell. It's like a joke! Amazon, B&N, Apple and FB do similar things (adult dungeon anyone? the fiasco of delisting gay books? etc.). I'm going to look to see if there's anyone who will respond to this. It's black and white this time. There's no gray here.

Thank you for the thoughts. Please do share it if you can and tell people that this is happening. People don't know.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

StephenBrennan said:


> Not family friendly? Google's got some nerve taking the moral high ground. Half their ads are likely to steal your identity
> 
> Everything is offensive to somebody. And I do mean everything. Google should be more progressive than that.


I would have thought so, too. I was like: but there's no naked skin ... it's only the WORD ...


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Have you thought of submitting your blog post to thepassivevoice.com? It's a great site that posts headlines and blurbs of relevant stories and articles about the writing world, and it gets a LOT of traction from more than just authors. 

In the meantime, I'll always be a crusader for equality, and that's probably the best long-term strategy we can continue with. Not to 'shove it down everyone's throats' but to just keep writing, blogging, discussing. Make it so mainstream that it is impossible to ignore (we're getting there). 

I also believe it is important for privileged, white, male heterosexuals like myself (females too!) to keep promoting the idea that race/gender/sexuality equality is an idea that needs to be promoted, or at least discussed until it no longer needs to be discussed because it is no longer an issue. Since my 'group' or 'class' seems to have the most influence in terms of marketing/political clout, we need to have strong voices so others will see that it isn't just minorities (includes sexuality or gender, not just race) shouting from the rooftops for equality. 


Edit: I agree with the post above mine...you claim to not be God and have the right to judge, then do exactly that.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I think Google is pushing it way too far.  I am glad to see you are letting your readers know up front what the relationship is.  I loved your little warning at the bottom of your blurb.   

Keep up the great writing.  I will be buying one of your books when I get my next check.


I edited this after the post I was responding too got removed.  This is why there are seemingly two different posts from me.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Just a warning... we've deleted some posts in this thread that contained homophobic content.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

Thank God we all have something to be righteously indignant about.  After all the gloating over Obamacare, I was afraid we were out of material.  People might have to just live their lives without someone to be mad at.  Couldn't have that, could we?


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

AngryGames said:


> Have you thought of submitting your blog post to thepassivevoice.com? It's a great site that posts headlines and blurbs of relevant stories and articles about the writing world, and it gets a LOT of traction from more than just authors.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll always be a crusader for equality, and that's probably the best long-term strategy we can continue with. Not to 'shove it down everyone's throats' but to just keep writing, blogging, discussing. Make it so mainstream that it is impossible to ignore (we're getting there).
> 
> ...


I didn't think of the passive voice! I so admire him. I guess I wasn't sure anyone would listen. Though that was silly b/c there's so many great people (writers/readers/etc.) who would want to know about this and have it stopped. I'll go see if he's interested.

Again, I want to thank you for your well-thought out posts. They're really great.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I just went and looked at one of X. Aratare's blurbs. I noticed that he did have a warning with M/M. That is wonderful. It *lets me know * that I would be reading a book about gay males.
> It is not like oh here is some incest with no warning. Sorry but strong sexual content does not ever mean incest. All the reviewers asked for was a warning.
> 
> That was the biggie.


Here's the irony of Google's decision - now our ads will have people clicking on them that don't WANT gay content. The image may not completely convey that it's gay. Now we're paying to offend people! Instead of making it crystal clear what this is so those not interested will not click, not buy, not read and go on about their business.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

weird question...  did you try and submit the ad with gay in it, but not as the first word?  or just with gay as the first word or withoug gay in the ad at all?


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

telracs said:


> weird question... did you try and submit the ad with gay in it, but not as the first word? or just with gay as the first word or withoug gay in the ad at all?


I believe just with and without gay. We didn't actually test placement of the word.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I think Google is pushing it way too far. I am glad to see you are letting your readers know up front what the relationship is. I loved your little warning at the bottom of your blurb.
> 
> Keep up the great writing. I will be buying one of your books when I get my next check.
> 
> I edited this after the post I was responding too got removed. This is why there are seemingly two different posts from me.


You are so kind, thank you.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

I think it'll take a while before Google changes. They don't like to make changes unless the data say it's a good idea, or I've gotten too comfortable with Gmail's UI (_KILL IT! KILL COMFORT WITH FIRE_). My suspicion is that their data show that the vast majority of ads with the word "gay" in them are, in fact, adult content. It's the internet, right? They'd probably have to throw money at this problem to fix it. On the one hand, there's us, encouraging them to do what's right, and on the other, there's bigots who think it's working as intended.

*Option 1:* Save money, piss some people off, please some people (and do evil)

*Option 2:* Spend money, piss some people off, please some people (and do good)

Hardly an unambiguous decision for them, at least from an amoral business perspective.

It'll take a lot of advocacy to shift the balance in favor of fixing the problem. Or I suppose instead of advocating directly, we can continue to quietly promote the gay agenda in solidarity with Spongebob Squarepants and wait until this brand of bigotry dies off (literally, in many cases). It's nice to have things to look forward to as we age, isn't it?


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> Here's the irony of Google's decision - now our ads will have people clicking on them that don't WANT gay content. The image may not completely convey that it's gay. Now we're paying to offend people! Instead of making it crystal clear what this is so those not interested will not click, not buy, not read and go on about their business.


The lack of warning on Incest and saying strong sexual content was wrong. I removed the book. I like how the book here gives the reader a choice by mentioning M/M.

The mistake was mine and when I realized it I removed the book


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Michael Buckley said:


> The lack of warning on Incest and saying strong sexual content was wrong. I removed the book. I like how the book here gives the reader a choice by mentioning M/M.
> 
> The mistake was mine and when I realized it I removed the book


We're not interested in selling to people who don't want our product. And we "warn" b/c it gives the reader greater choice. Google should give its users such a choice.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

X. Aratare said:


> I totally understand. Whatever you can do is totally awesome and appreciated. I love your books btw!


You're too kind&#8230; but I'll take the compliment. Thanks. 

I'll keep you posted.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> The lack of warning on Incest and saying strong sexual content was wrong. I removed the book. I like how the book here gives the reader a choice by mentioning M/M.


It is important to clearly mark books with anything that might be upsetting or distressing to readers. (I bought a book a while back that featured "water sports," a term I did not recognize in my naivete. But at least it _was _labeled.) Incest is absolutely a biggie that must be labeled, because many people find it squicky (and other people actively seek out books that feature it). I personally dislike that it's necessary to mark books "m/m content," which is, as my daughter would put it, heteronormative (one doesn't generally have to label a book "m/f content"), but it does help steer away readers who will dislike the book and give you one star reviews, so it's best to do it. It's not so much a warning as it is a helpful label.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Dolphin said:


> I think it'll take a while before Google changes. They don't like to make changes unless the data say it's a good idea, or I've gotten too comfortable with Gmail's UI (_KILL IT! KILL COMFORT WITH FIRE_). My suspicion is that their data show that the vast majority of ads with the word "gay" in them are, in fact, adult content. It's the internet, right? They'd probably have to throw money at this problem to fix it. On the one hand, there's us, encouraging them to do what's right, and on the other, there's bigots who think it's working as intended.
> 
> *Option 1:* Save money, p*ss some people off, please some people (and do evil)
> 
> ...


It all does come down to money like you suggest. But I think there's more power and money out there in doing good for Google. Google becomes irrelevant if its searches are not accurate and comprehensive. Who is going to advertise on a network that isn't giving readers what they want? What readers are going to use that network if they figure out that they're not getting what they should with their searches?

I admit I was (naively) shocked that Google did this. I will no longer believe that my searches (if I use them) are accurate at all any more. And the more people know this, the more they will distrust Google and its product. It's a bad thing altogether, I think, beyond being on the wrong side of history.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I BEG your pardon? All gay literature gets nothing but one-star reviews? I hope you are joking.


I believe he was speaking with reference to one of the posts that was removed for homophobic content.


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

You know what, I will re-publish LOVE YOU BABY and add contains incest to the description. Maybe horror-erotica. strange book. will take two weeks to pass reviews I am sure.

top of description, copy and paste.

Adults only!
Strong Sexual content to include incest and strong graphic violence. 8,000 words will price for 2.99


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> You know what, I will re-publish LOVE YOU BABY and add contains incest to the description. Maybe horror-erotica. strange book. will take two weeks to pass reviews I am sure.


I could be wrong, but I think if a book is labeled both "incest" and "erotica," Amazon will refuse to publish it. This is why there's a lot of pseudo-incest around. Incest that isn't erotic, like _Flowers in the Attic_, is a somewhat different story.


----------



## Michael Buckley (Jun 24, 2013)

MegHarris said:


> I could be wrong, but I think if a book is labeled both "incest" and "erotica," Amazon will refuse to publish it. This is why there's a lot of pseudo-incest around. Incest that isn't erotic, like _Flowers in the Attic_, is a somewhat different story.


 It is really just a horror story where the Character went mad with a bad childhood. Anyway I will see what happens. Hard to label the book, over the edge horror story maybe. The book is not really erotica but because of the incest I thought I would have to list it there. If the book sits in the review bin for a year I will know 

The book is Clockwork Orange meets the shinning, no category for it. How do you publish it? in horror with the warnings for the readers? will probably never be able to change it now, will be stuck in review till the end of time


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Michael Buckley said:


> It is really just a horror story where the Character went mad with a bad childhood. Anyway I will see what happens. Hard to label the book, over the edge horror story maybe. The book is not really erotica but because of the incest I thought I would have to list it there. If the book sits in the review bin for a year I will know
> 
> The book is Clockwork Orange meets the shinning, no category for it. How do you publish it? in horror with the warnings for the readers? will probably never be able to change it now, will be stuck in review till the end of time


Kind of a thread hijack though.

The point really is Google refusing to advertise Gay Literature.


----------



## Willo (May 10, 2013)

They can't seriously be associating the word "gay" with adult content. And if this is more about a title being Yaoi, plenty of that is tame, so... Yeah, I'll be posting about this too. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.

BoingBoing might be interested in reporting on your experience. Google's unlikely to ignore them or any of the more prominent blog sites. I'd send screenshots along if you decide to alert them.



dkgould said:


> We have so very, very far to go as a society. I of course will and am already spreading this as far as I can among peers and friends, but is there some sort of direct action we can take? Is there someone at Google (and amazon, b and n, apple, facebook as you mention) ads we can write to as customers?


If only Google were receptive to any sort of feedback. Contacting them is a futile effort at best most days (for any issue).



brendajcarlton said:


> Thank God we all have something to be righteously indignant about. After all the gloating over Obamacare, I was afraid we were out of material. People might have to just live their lives without someone to be mad at. Couldn't have that, could we?


Between your comment on a DiverseLit Resource thread and this one, your posts are truly making you look like you have a problem with equality among non-whites and non-hetero folks. Maybe that's not your intention, but you should know that's how it appears in case that isn't how you wish to come across or be perceived. This is an important issue, and your comment is sarcastic and insulting.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Willo said:


> They can't seriously be associating the word "gay" with adult content. And if this is more about a title being Yaoi, plenty of that is tame, so... Yeah, I'll be posting about this too. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.
> 
> BoingBoing might be interested in reporting on your experience. Google's unlikely to ignore them or any of the more prominent blog sites. I'd send screenshots along if you decide to alert them.
> 
> ...


We actually did not use the work "yaoi" for this work as I personally only associate it with a style of manga (we have that). And we used the all-inclusive term "gay" so that no one was confused. We're probably going to see if some of the tech blogs/sites are interested as this is something really on their radar. Boing boing is a great idea, too. I honestly don't try to get issues out like this so I feel bizarrely naked and new as I do this. But its important and has to be put out there.

Thanks for your support!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> We actually did not use the work "yaoi" for this work as I personally only associate it with a style of manga (we have that). And we used the all-inclusive term "gay" so that no one was confused. We're probably going to see if some of the tech blogs/sites are interested as this is something really on their radar. Boing boing is a great idea, too. I honestly don't try to get issues out like this so I feel bizarrely naked and new as I do this. But its important and has to be put out there.
> 
> Thanks for your support!


Can I ask what "yaoi" is?

And very good luck with your books.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> Can I ask what "yaoi" is?
> 
> And very good luck with your books.


Simply put: one of the guys is the seme, the other the uke.

Hope this helps. 

ETA:

Yaoi started as a kind of parody-fan-fic of Shonen-ai (literally Boys Love or BL) stories.
The seme is the dominant, virile one chasing the uke, a more feminine, passive type.


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> I honestly don't try to get issues out like this so I feel bizarrely naked and new as I do this. But its important and has to be put out there.


It's scary to stand up for things, but you're right, it _is_ important and I think you'll find that you have a lot of people supporting you once they find out about it. You aren't alone.


----------



## Willo (May 10, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> We actually did not use the work "yaoi" for this work as I personally only associate it with a style of manga (we have that). And we used the all-inclusive term "gay" so that no one was confused. We're probably going to see if some of the tech blogs/sites are interested as this is something really on their radar. Boing boing is a great idea, too. I honestly don't try to get issues out like this so I feel bizarrely naked and new as I do this. But its important and has to be put out there.
> 
> Thanks for your support!


Yeah, this definitely needs to be reported on. There's no way to misconstrue "gay" as adult content if they can't hide behind the "yaoi" term (saying they were filtering yaoi due to the popularity of adult versions). Thanks for clarifying that. I'll keep an eye on the thread (along with many others, I'm sure), and get a post up over the weekend.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

Let me preface this by saying that I'm gay (well, queer and essentially bisexual) and I think that treating "gay" as an offensive word is terrible. But I think we should suspend judgment for the moment. 

My guess is that this is not a decision based in homophobia, or that it's even a decision made by a human being. The denial or acceptance of ads is probably automated -- they probably automatically look for words that is likely to pop up in adult content. If they've received a glut of ads from, say, gay porn sites, they may have automatically/unintentionally flagged that keyword.

Google offers benefits for employees in same-sex relationships and has been generally gay-positive in their company policies, afaik. They've also supported legislation that would make same-sex marriages legal. I hope that this brings attention and a swift resolution to the issue, but of all the things for which Google can be judged, I don't think their stance on social issues is one of them.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

smreine said:


> Let me preface this by saying that I'm gay (well, queer and essentially bisexual) and I think that treating "gay" as an offensive word is terrible. But I think we should suspend judgment for the moment.
> 
> My guess is that this is not a decision based in homophobia, or that it's even a decision made by a human being. The denial or acceptance of ads is probably automated -- they probably automatically look for words that is likely to pop up in adult content. If they've received a glut of ads from, say, gay porn sites, they may have automatically/unintentionally flagged that keyword.
> 
> Google offers benefits for employees in same-sex relationships and has been generally gay-positive in their company policies, afaik. They've also supported legislation that would make same-sex marriages legal. I hope that this brings attention and a swift resolution to the issue, but of all the things for which Google can be judged, I don't think their stance on social issues is one of them.


Another author whom I read and admire (awesome and I'm reading your Descent series)!

Just to address some points, yours is a completely understandable stance, but I don't think its correct. Let me explain.

First, I don't know if you've used Google Adwords, but they take a long time to approve ads, because it ISN'T an automated process. The process is done by humans (we've actually found accounts in our mad search to contact someone). Second, the ad was a picture (I don't know if you saw it on the blog post) so there's no text to flag. The word gay was used in the picture not in the descriptive text a computer could easily read (now maybe it could separate the text part, but I don't know). Third, if you're completely right, don't you think the ban on the word "gay" (a word that can be used for so many types of businesses, products, etc. from youth groups to gay porn) would be a little over the top and draconian? I mean that would bar so many services from advertising it would seem odd ... and completely unfair. If I personally was advertising gay porn, I would use a little stronger language than "gay" which would undoubtedly get me flagged.

Finally, there is no recourse when your ad is dinged. There's no contact us address. Nothing. There's no way to address this issue with Google directly really. I suppose I could go to their public relations department ... maybe I will. But I'm a very small person with a very small business that I doubt they will care about.

I normally shrug things off when we get banned b/c we're gay. I try to just say: oh, well, we'll find our audience another way. But this ... THIS ... is a step too far and I just can't shrug it off this time. And it wasn't just one ad by the way either. We tested it repeatedly. I'm sad that Google is doing this, because like you, I have a great impression of the company, but that's what makes this all the more insidious. Either they have rogue ad reviewers (and there would have to be more than one doing this totally consistently, which would be unbelievable) or this is company policy.

I don't like drama and I know this is all dramatic. But it looks really bad for Google.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

dkgould said:


> It's scary to stand up for things, but you're right, it _is_ important and I think you'll find that you have a lot of people supporting you once they find out about it. You aren't alone.


Thank you. I really loathe being the center of anything. But this needs to stop and someone needs to say something.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

X. Aratare said:


> Another author whom I read and admire (awesome and I'm reading your Descent series)!
> 
> Just to address some points, yours is a completely understandable stance, but I don't think its correct. Let me explain.
> 
> ...


The admiration is mutual! I read some of your manga and loved it. Really fantastic stuff. 

Computers can indeed "read" text in images. That's why, in order to thwart bots, CAPTCHA looks so funky. I haven't tried to do Google Ads before, so I don't know about the approval process - you may be right about human approval. Even so, guidelines for those humans may be established algorithmically. Do we know if this ban has been in place for very long? Is it recent, or a long-standing policy?

I'm just thinking about how big companies have so many moving parts and so many points of failure. Take the way mass mailing works through a third-party SMTP service - sometimes I'll have Yahoo automatically bounce all of my emails because that SMTP service got too many spam reports last week, but the company will correct it next week, so I can resend to those addresses if I just wait a few days. Yahoo doesn't have an anti-SM Reine's mailing list policy; it's just an automatic flagging process because of the behavior of other users.

Did Google get inundated by spam content using "gay" as a keyword and flag it this week? Will they lift it with later review? Or have they always blocked ads with the word "gay"?

I do agree that it should be fixed ASAP regardless of the reason.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

smreine said:


> The admiration is mutual! I read some of your manga and loved it. Really fantastic stuff.
> 
> Computers can indeed "read" text in images. That's why, in order to thwart bots, CAPTCHA looks so funky. I haven't tried to do Google Ads before, so I don't know about the approval process - you may be right about human approval. Even so, guidelines for those humans may be established algorithmically. Do we know if this ban has been in place for very long? Is it recent, or a long-standing policy?
> 
> ...


Oh, thank you about the manga! We hope to have 3 more volumes out by the end of the year so its really exciting to support the artists and see the story come to life!

I hope you're right and that we're utterly wrong. This was incredibly depressing and sort of like: no way! The only way perhaps to bring attention to it is to do this and spread the word. If its a mistake or if there's a logical non-discriminatory reason, Google does need to know that it's become problematic.

In any event, thank you for your thoughts on it and I can say the one lovely thing to come of all of this is to talk to all of you more. I feel I "know" you all from your posts and writing so this has been a really nice aspect of something not so nice overall.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Willo said:


> Yeah, this definitely needs to be reported on. There's no way to misconstrue "gay" as adult content if they can't hide behind the "yaoi" term (saying they were filtering yaoi due to the popularity of adult versions). Thanks for clarifying that. I'll keep an eye on the thread (along with many others, I'm sure), and get a post up over the weekend.


Thank you! And can I say that I love the artwork for your profile and sig? So distinctive!

In any event, I'm sad that this is yet one more thing to be reported on. It really never ends, I know.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

X. Aratare said:


> Oh, thank you about the manga! We hope to have 3 more volumes out by the end of the year so its really exciting to support the artists and see the story come to life!
> 
> I hope you're right and that we're utterly wrong. This was incredibly depressing and sort of like: no way! The only way perhaps to bring attention to it is to do this and spread the word. If its a mistake or if there's a logical non-discriminatory reason, Google does need to know that it's become problematic.
> 
> In any event, thank you for your thoughts on it and I can say the one lovely thing to come of all of this is to talk to all of you more. I feel I "know" you all from your posts and writing so this has been a really nice aspect of something not so nice overall.


I HOPE the cause isn't what it looks like. Google's always been pretty good about support for the LGBTQI(etc) community. Of course, their PR and their internal policies may not be consistent... Fingers crossed it's not so terrible.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

smreine said:


> Things





X. Aratare said:


> Stuff


I think you're both right, in roughly equal measure. That's what worries me. I think well-meaning humans are enforcing an algorithmic decision that they see as necessary. This isn't the first time this has happened, and I don't know how many times it'll have to happen, and to how many people, before Google can justify the change. Bless their hearts for being socially progressive after hours. They're still all about the dataz 9 to 5.

Remember also that they're going to get complaints once they start serving queer-friendly ads to the Bible Belt. I say "when," because I think it's only a matter of time, but you could be waiting a while before there's a tipping point and the work gets done.

In fact, think about this: anybody who gay-bashes in Gmail or Gchat, or peruses such content online might very easily be misunderstood by the algos and singled out for queer-friendly ads. Humorous, deserved, possibly even helpful, but likely to cause more headaches for Google. Not likely to generate many clicks or conversions either.


----------



## Willo (May 10, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> Thank you! And can I say that I love the artwork for your profile and sig? So distinctive!
> 
> In any event, I'm sad that this is yet one more thing to be reported on. It really never ends, I know.


You're most welcome, and thank you <3 That's extremely flattering, considering your brand is represented by seriously epic artwork.

The opposition of non-homogenous culture is likely to persist for at least a bit longer, but it's dying out. The typical tricks are well-known, and it's up to the people now to refuse to seed it or empower it during its death rattle.
Here's my vote for disempowering LGBT censorship in Google ads: http://otherrealmspost.tumblr.com/post/61826966088/google-gay-advertising-not-family-friendly.

I didn't include the book image, but will edit it in with your permission.

*salutes*


----------



## Dormouse (Nov 10, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Yaoi started as a kind of parody-fan-fic of Shonen-ai (literally Boys Love or BL) stories.
> The seme is the dominant, virile one chasing the uke, a more feminine, passive type.


Were did you learn this definition?

Yaoi are the sexually explicit m/m manga and anime (hentai would be the m/f version) often without much of a plot (which is where the word comes from it's the japanese version of Plot, what plot?) while shonen-ai (boyxboy-love) focuses less on the erotic aspect and instead more on the romance and the development of the relationship. Both yaoi and shonen-ai use the concept of seme and uke.

It also should be mentioned that yaoi and shonen-ai is usually written by and for women or girls.

As for the original topic. That's just horrible. I hate the fact that some people still have this mind-set that gay= adult, and that they think the sensibilities of children (or rather their parents) need to be protected. They are so many gay kids around who need support and to see that they are not alone and that there are people out there who are just like them and who would be willing to help the cope with coming-out and dealing with family and friends and the homophobia they will unfortunately encounter.

I'll blog about this as well.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

I tested the waters with Google Adwords and actually found it to be worthwhile. Initially, I ran into some issues but I was persistent and got my ads through. One of my ads is labeled as "adult" but approved but I'm sure that's because the title is "Porn Star Fantasies." Surprisingly, I didn't have issues with the word "gay." I had one ad that used the phrase "homoerotic" and it was dinged. I changed it so it read "author of gay urban fiction" and it went through without the "adult" label.

I think it will depend on the person looking at the ads and I wouldn't be quick to hurl a "homophobic" label on them simply because the person looking at the ad might be being overly cautious. I used to write and edit for Demand Studios and if you made a mistake, boy oh boy. And we saw many articles as I am sure these folks see many ads. One of my ads sat for like a week and another went through in like an hour. I have no idea what the process is but **** to ****, give it another shot. The clicks and increased traffic are worth it. Good luck.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Google doesn't have any problem with the word gay. If you Google something with the word gay, you'll get ads with the word gay in them. I just tried it to be sure. I Googled "gay fiction." I write gay fiction and am bisexual, so I do a lot of Googling on LGBTQ issues, and there's never a shortage of Google ads.

Even if you want to think of Google as being homophobic (I wouldn't) they're not going to lose out on all the revenue from ads with the word gay in them, especially at a time when there is even more traffic for the word gay given the recent supreme court decision and all the gay marriage debates going on around the world.

I would bring this to Google's attention and try again. You can follow the Google Adwords team on Google+ https://plus.google.com/+GoogleAds/posts and post about your problem there and see what kind of response you get. They regularly have hangouts and webinars where users are encouraged to ask questions and raise issues. I would definitely reach out to them before accusing them of anything.

ETA: You can also call them at 1-866-2GOOGLE (1-866-246-6453).


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Google rejected an ad from us a long time ago. It was for a book with the title, "The Homeschooled Shootist," a tome on firearms training.

The reply simply stated that the ad violated Google's policy; no other explanation given.

If we really wanted to make their head explode, we could try an ad for something like "The Assault Rifles of Gay Men."

This type of behavior is no different than the thread on SFWA membership for indies. 

Judge each person on their merits and let's get on with it, or, as an erotica friend writes, "Why can't we all just get-a-thong?"


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

GavinFletcher said:


> I tested the waters with Google Adwords and actually found it to be worthwhile. Initially, I ran into some issues but I was persistent and got my ads through. One of my ads is labeled as "adult" but approved but I'm sure that's because the title is "Porn Star Fantasies." Surprisingly, I didn't have issues with the word "gay." I had one ad that used the phrase "homoerotic" and it was dinged. I changed it so it read "author of gay urban fiction" and it went through without the "adult" label.
> 
> I think it will depend on the person looking at the ads and I wouldn't be quick to hurl a "homophobic" label on them simply because the person looking at the ad might be being overly cautious. I used to write and edit for Demand Studios and if you made a mistake, boy oh boy. And we saw many articles as I am sure these folks see many ads. One of my ads sat for like a week and another went through in like an hour. I have no idea what the process is but **** to ****, give it another shot. The clicks and increased traffic are worth it. Good luck.


I think part of the problem is the assumption held by many that all _gay literature_ (that is literature with a gay protagonist) is gay erotica.

Not true!!


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

caethesfaron said:


> Google doesn't have any problem with the word gay. If you Google something with the word gay, you'll get ads with the word gay in them. I just tried it to be sure. I Googled "gay fiction." I write gay fiction and am bisexual, so I do a lot of Googling on LGBTQ issues, and there's never a shortage of Google ads.
> 
> Even if you want to think of Google as being homophobic (I wouldn't) they're not going to lose out on all the revenue from ads with the word gay in them, especially at a time when there is even more traffic for the word gay given the recent supreme court decision and all the gay marriage debates going on around the world.
> 
> ...


We'll try them.

However, this is the result of 6 months of testing. We didn't just try it once, found one biased or "cautious" reviewer. We couldn't have had just one reviewer. We didn't just have one ad. We didn't submit at just one time. The examples on the site are just SOME, a FRACTION of what we've tried and there were half a dozen. This is consistent. Further, we were able to use the word "gay" before, but something changed. And I confirmed that PEOPLE not machines review these ads so judgment (and one would imagine training of these people by Google) is involved.

As to your search, here's something to consider: our ads would NOT have come up absent us removing the word gay from them. Because they wouldn't be considered "family friendly" due to that simple word and were barred. So your search results would have been inaccurate because our ads and other people's ads who ran into this wouldn't have been able to advertise either. Who knows how many there were.

And Google isn't the only one. Don't get me started about having to pay a more in interest on my merchant account b/c according to the banks, gay fiction attracts notoriously risky people who will claim fraud more often despite us having exactly 3 chargebacks in our entire history of being in business. Or that we were told by many ad networks that b/c our works contained "gay romance" that we would have to run on their Black Label network, which runs ads only on porn sites.

This isn't the first time we've experienced this. It's the first time we spoke out about it. I would love it if it weren't true. That I could advertise on sites with the word "gay" in my ad so that people don't mis-click. But so far that's not been my experience and people need to know that at least one person is experiencing this and I highly doubt we're the only ones.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

If Google hates the word gay or thinks it isn't family friendly, then please explain this:

































I know there are problems advertising gay fiction. The big book advertising sites will only let me advertise my book under erotic romance even though it isn't romance or erotic. They've flat out told me it's because the book is about two men in a relationship and they will only advertise books featuring gay couples as erotic. However, to say that Google will not accept ads with the word gay in them is simply not true.

ETA: I hope you get this figured out with them. I don't have an examples with images because I honestly can't think of a single site to go to that has image ads from Google. Is it possible that they have a different standard for images? Absolutely. I just don't understand why they would say the word gay on an image isn't family friendly but the word gay as just text is.  I agree with you that not only does having the word gay on your image better serve you, it better serves consumers.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

caethesfaron said:


> If Google hates the word gay or thinks it isn't family friendly, then please explain this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These are TEXT ads. We are well aware of these as we use them, and I could go on about why text ads are less threatening and thereby allowed (which draws your eye? the visual ad or the text one? how many places have text ads as opposed to visual spots, etc.). But it is the word "gay" added to visuals that they've bonged us for as is put in the blog in great detail and that we've looked into for 6 months. They've been explicit just as those advertising sites have been that the visuals (even if its 3 mens' heads wearing suits no less) is considered ADULT. No bare skin./ No kissing. No nothing, but still ADULT, because of the WORD. We've got those ads approved without it.

Yet if I was advertising a heterosexual book that featured a woman and man in a passionate embrace and put the word "straight romance" (why would I? but still) I would NOT come across these issues. Nor would you. Google IS doing this. I know it sucks and I'm sorry to be the messenger, but its true. We don't just put stuff out there without thought. We researched it. There is unfair treatment going on.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Google rejected an ad from us a long time ago. It was for a book with the title, "The Homeschooled Shootist," a tome on firearms training.
> 
> The reply simply stated that the ad violated Google's policy; no other explanation given.
> 
> ...


Joe, I would totally pay such a book!


----------



## RyanPoore (Sep 21, 2013)

I hope this is a fluke on Google's part. I have used facebook ads using the word "Gay" and "Homosexual" without issues when promoting my book.

Ryan


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

I simply couldn't believe that Google would allow gay in text ads and not image ads, so I looked around using a browser that doesn't block ads and what do you know:










I underlined the word gay which makes it look like the y is cut off, but there it is. I also circled the little adchoices icon that shows that it is, indeed, a Google ad.

There must be a fluke going on with your account and you need to call them about it. Venting might feel good, but talking to Google will actually get the problem fixed. If they still don't right this after being given the chance, then flame away, but at least give them a chance to make it right before making judgements, especially when there is proof that they allow the word gay in both text and image ads.

BTW, the site I got the screenshot from was from someone who commented on your site complaining about the adult nature of the gay ads on his site.

ETA: I totally see what that guy is talking about. After looking around some more, that is definitely one of the only image ads with the word gay in it that I feel comfortable posting here. The other ones are definitely adult in nature, even though they are on sites that are nothing of the sort.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

I would like to first say, please don't get mad at me. I have no idea what I'm talking about. LOL! This is just a thought that popped into my head.

You stated that Google rejected the ad, saying that it's not "family friendly". Could it be that they aren't referring to homosexuality as not being family friendly, but the fact that "gay" is a word used to describe the genre? For example, if you wrote a mystery novel and it is mentioned that your character is gay in the story, I feel like that would be accepted. But, because "gay" is used to describe the genre, that probably sent up a red flag with Google. Not because of the homosexuality, but because the sexuality of the character is important enough and enough of a character point to mention it in the genre description. That being the case, they probably would've rejected an ad describing the genre as "heterosexual" as well.

If the reason for rejecting the ad was because it wasn't "family friendly", I would guess that any genre that includes the sexuality of the character in the genre description, homosexual or heterosexual, would be rejected on the basis that the sexuality of the character plays an important part in the characterization and/or plot. Most of the time, (not always) when a character's sexuality plays an important part in the story, there tends to be scenes of a sexual nature in the book. Obviously, this isn't for kids. Hence, not family friendly.

I hope I was clear in what I was trying to say. If not, carry on.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

Here's another one:










OP: Please let us know what Google tells you (hopefully it will be more enlightening than the standard, "It's up to our discretion per the TOS. Have a nice day." Clearly they are letting some ads with the word gay through but not yours, and that's a problem. I hope it's a problem with something else or a glitch with your account and not that it was a mistake letting all these other ads through .


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> They're supposed to report results of everything on the web based on what you're putting in.


That's a flawed premise to move from, and flawed premises often lead to subsequent defeat. Some folks might want them to do that, but it's up to Google. They decide what they report, and how they do it. Recently they acknowledged they don't even begin to cover everything on the web.

Google chooses what it publishes, just like we all do. One might lobby them to alter their standards, but telling them what they are supposed to do won't work too well.



> I also believe it is important for privileged, white, male heterosexuals like myself (females too!) to keep promoting the idea that race/gender/sexuality equality is an idea that needs to be promoted, or at least discussed until it no longer needs to be discussed because it is no longer an issue.


I think it remains an issue with millions of people. They decide for themselves if it is an issue. They don't take orders. This is something that takes persuasion, cogent argument, and persistence, not name-calling and dictates. Telling folks for whom it is an issue that they are bigoted is counter productive. If we look at the progress of gays over the last 40 years, that's what they did. It worked well. It was actually a masterful campaign. Why abandon what works?


----------



## Linda Barlow (Jul 5, 2013)

A really sad situation, especially if Google is doing this consistently. Anyway, for what it's worth, I tweeted a link to your blog post. I hope you get Google to back down!


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

I write m/m as well as m/f. And if I'd seen your ad with "gay supernatural detective story", I would click on that. Without seeing that it had gay content, it wouldn't have intrigued me half so much.

Would you like to do a guest post about this on my m/m blog, Zipper Rippers?


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

caethesfaron said:


> Here's another one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't mean to keep doing a back and forth singling you out, but I think you aren't fully understanding what we've said in the blog and keep putting up arguments that we've addressed. We ADMIT that factual services, i.e., gay dating sites, gay cruises, etc. WOULD be allowed to have the word gay in their ads. We've seen these ads, too. That's laid out in the blog. You finding these services isn't surprising. There is a BRIGHT line in factual services that is NOT there in entertainment. You can't tell gay dating groups no while telling Chemistry.com yes. But you can tell a gay entertainment publisher no while telling a straight entertainment publisher yes. There's a lot of gray area in entertainment.

I don't know what could possibly be "wrong" with our account to cause this issue of the word "gay" having to be removed so that we're family friendly. Again, that would be an odd glitch. An almost impossibly unbelievable glitch, but I realize you are trying to find some "reasonable" explanation to explain away the proof we do have, because its pretty damning and there's really no other logical explanation other than "gay" was the objectionable part as we proved over half a dozen times.

The marketer actually did try to get ads with the word "gay" approved on her account instead of ours last year and they were bonged just the same. Same situation. I'm having her do it again now. What's aggravating also about this argument though is that we STRIVE to play within the rules. We didn't push them with these ads.

As a later poster said, they would be interested in reading a GAY supernatural detective novel, but the way the "approved" ad was made meant s/he wouldn't click. A lost sale. And how many times have we paid for clicks where the person didn't want a GAY supernatural detective story? Quite a few, I reckon.

But let's say the marketer's ads are approved (this time unlike all the other times) or you can find some gay entertainment ads with the word "gay" in them, what this means is that we are the most unlucky advertiser as we keep getting different people at Google finding merely our use of the "gay" objectionable whereas the rest of the advertisers have found more sympathetic, enlightened or "careless" employees (another poster claimed we were bonged because of a "careful" employee), take your pick. But it goes without saying that Google, whether through improper training or a conscious decision, has an issue with gay advertising in the entertainment realm at least. At best it is hit or miss depending upon the biases of the Google ad checker.

This seems like a more recent phenomenon to us with Google. We've had inconsistencies with them before, but this was pretty darn clear and we wanted to raise the issue. Does it mean that this happens 100% of the time to everyone? No, but it HAPPENS. It happened to us. We have the proof of it stretching back over 6 months. Again, we don't do this lightly or were quick off the mark. We wouldn't waste our time or any of yours. We do this to bring attention to a DEFINITE problem.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Annette_g said:


> I write m/m as well as m/f. And if I'd seen your ad with "gay supernatural detective story", I would click on that. Without seeing that it had gay content, it wouldn't have intrigued me half so much.
> 
> Would you like to do a guest post about this on my m/m blog, Zipper Rippers?


It both makes me happy and sad that our description WOULD have intrigued you if it was allowed to be full and accurate. But it is what it is.

We're happy to do guest posts. We're going to do an update on this addressing some of the concerns expressed here. You can PM me here or email me at [email protected]


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> I think it remains an issue with millions of people. They decide for themselves if it is an issue. They don't take orders. This is something that takes persuasion, cogent argument, and persistence, not name-calling and dictates. Telling folks for whom it is an issue that they are bigoted is counter productive. If we look at the progress of gays over the last 40 years, that's what they did. It worked well. It was actually a masterful campaign. Why abandon what works?


Good for you and your opinion. Here's mine.

Progress of the gays over the last 40 years has only been full of murders, AIDS being almost single-handedly laid at the feet of gays, the discrimination of giving blood, being with loved ones/partners on deathbeds, being ostracized and made out to be the devil, the demon, the Satan that causes all of America's great ills, being accused of being pedophiles, indoctrinating children to the gay lifestyle, having to fight tooth and nail for equality when homosexuality has been a natural, biological part of the human syndrome since the time humans left the treetops to begin their trek towards modern civilization.

Yeah. 40 years has been good them, as good as the last 4,000. It's a good thing and we should let the last 40 years dictate how we should treat homosexuals, because the last 40 years was such a wonderful, rainbow-filled ride full of sunshine and unicorns. And it isn't like privileged white males like me (females too! can't forget them!) are the cause or the blame for such things. Oh no, that would be...aliens? The Quran? Jimmy Hoffa? I'd surely like to know, and since you are in the position to tell me and everyone else how wrong we are about this (among other things), maybe you can fill us in with your wisdom and factations (yes, it is a new word I've just made up for this occasion).

Without the hard push from both sides (LGBT and the heterosexual, privileged types) in the last decade or so, we'd still be where we were previously. Which is gays being blamed for AIDS, being discriminated against at every turn, having lies spread about them that they are not only trying to indoctrinate children into the gay lifestyle, but are also pedophiles. How they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else. Because being gay is a choice, right? Just like being born caucasian or black is a choice, right? Just like being born Asian or Italian is a choice, right?

Let it remain an issue with people who still live with bigotry. And let people like you complain that people like me shouldn't shout from the rooftops that it is time to stop with the bigotry. Those who are unable to accept LGBT persons as equals who should be afforded the same rights and treatment as every other citizen are slowly being culled through aging, and belief systems are falling to the wayside as more young persons throw off the shackles of their parents' hatred (bigotry is taught, not inherited, unless you count inheriting it from bigoted parents who teach it).

But no, I won't shut up about it, and if that means some have to be outed as the bigots they are, then that's how it goes. Or should we let it simmer and let LGBT's continue to suffer for the next 150 years like we have those with black (or even brown) skin? Because being quiet and using cogent arguments with persistence have paid such high dividends in that area, right? Because letting ignorant, bigoted, white hillbillies continue to be racists and continue to teach their children hateful racism is such a productive method for an advanced society. Because minorities, especially the black community, got so much out of persuasion, cogent argument and persistence that there was no real need for the 1960's and people like Dr. King or Rosa Parks. Because privileged white men and women really didn't need to stand up with persons like Dr. King and shout as loud as they could that racism was wrong and it was time to end it, right?

Or is homosexuality not in the same league as racism? Because there are tiers to the different discriminations and prejudices?

As a white, privileged, heterosexual male, I'll do everything I can to keep the progression moving forward. You can stand in the way, or argue until you are blue in the face that I'm wrong. I'll continue to be 'counter-productive' because I'm not interested in waiting another 40 years to see if 'persuasion, cogent argument, and persistence' will resolve the problem that is an important, current issue. The sooner we can reduce the pool of bigotry to a number small enough that it is no longer an issue, a small enough number that the remaining bigots are some crazy, extremist nutters that we all laugh at for their archaic and regressive views, the sooner we can move our society on to more important things that CAN be changed, unlike the color of a person's skin or the orientation of a person's sexuality.

Getting Google to sort this issue is just one small offshoot in the larger push.


----------



## C.F. (Jan 6, 2011)

I guess I don't understand why this has been going on for six months but you've never called them about it . Like I've said, if you contact them and give them a chance to make it right and they don't, then I'm totally with you. I've never understood the mentality of taking to a blog/forum with a problem before taking it up with the person/company you have a problem with.

Since you've insisted that they're manually approved (which I would suspect they are, from what I understand some ads go straight through, but many get flagged to be manually approved) I thought it might be an issue with your account being reviewed by a person/department that aren't trained properly or maybe are letting his/her personal prejudices influence their work. Since you've tried it from multiple accounts (that I assume are based in different areas), it appears that's not the case.

Take it up with Google and see what they say and report back. They can't change anything unless they hear from you.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Jason Eric Pryor said:


> I would like to first say, please don't get mad at me. I have no idea what I'm talking about. LOL! This is just a thought that popped into my head.
> 
> You stated that Google rejected the ad, saying that it's not "family friendly". Could it be that they aren't referring to homosexuality as not being family friendly, but the fact that "gay" is a word used to describe the genre? For example, if you wrote a mystery novel and it is mentioned that your character is gay in the story, I feel like that would be accepted. But, because "gay" is used to describe the genre, that probably sent up a red flag with Google. Not because of the homosexuality, but because the sexuality of the character is important enough and enough of a character point to mention it in the genre description. That being the case, they probably would've rejected an ad describing the genre as "heterosexual" as well.
> 
> ...


I do not what you are saying, and I'm not mad.

But here's the problem with your argument. Letting people know that the romantic couple in the story happen to be of the same sex does not make it porn, which is not family friendly (romance novels run the gamut from sweet to spicy, but they are ALL romance). It's important to indicate that there is a "gay" couple, because some people have no interest in reading ANY story no matter how tangential the romantic aspect is if the couple is gay. See an earlier poster in this thread for evidence of that. Romance is a big part of the story here although so are flying snakes, ancient cults, and guns!

A heterosexual romance novel would never have any need to identify itself as heterosexual, because that's the norm. That's what people expect. And the "warning" is unnecessary. Finding a het romance "objectionable" would just not happen.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

caethesfaron said:


> I guess I don't understand why this has been going on for six months but you've never called them about it . Like I've said, if you contact them and give them a chance to make it right and they don't, then I'm totally with you. I've never understood the mentality of taking to a blog/forum with a problem before taking it up with the person/company you have a problem with.
> 
> Since you've insisted that they're manually approved (which I would suspect they are, from what I understand some ads go straight through, but many get flagged to be manually approved) I thought it might be an issue with your account being reviewed by a person/department that aren't trained properly or maybe are letting his/her personal prejudices influence their work. Since you've tried it from multiple accounts (that I assume are based in different areas), it appears that's not the case.
> 
> Take it up with Google and see what they say and report back. They can't change anything unless they hear from you.


I get that you want Google to get the benefit of the doubt. You want us to be careful before throwing stones. But here's the thing: we have and I believe you are asking us to go an extra million miles to make sure that Google means what it says it means.

We've actually had problems with Google and other ad networks for inconsistencies with allowing our ads for YEARS. This problem specifically for 6 months. It's a cost of doing business (or so I allowed myself to accept) for writing gay romance. Remember when Amazon stripped all gay novels of rank? Wasn't that fun? Think of your own experiences being classified as erotica even though you aren't because you're writing "gay" works. Did contacting that place work? Or did they just say: tough? It's a constant problem. But I just hit my limit with this and said: let's show what we're dealing with.

We bring this up so that others will know about it and realize they aren't the only ones. Maybe contacting people not directly associated with adwords (again there is NO direct contact for them, no appeal, no nothing for us to actually work through and it seems a bit much to put on US to track some person down to report this when Google hasn't allowed for us to contact them directly on this issue) would help us in particular or maybe it wouldn't (honestly, most companies just say it violates our TOS and that's that). But it won't help anyone else unless we put this out there as an issue.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> I do not what you are saying, and I'm not mad.
> 
> But here's the problem with your argument. Letting people know that the romantic couple in the story happen to be of the same sex does not make it porn, which is not family friendly (romance novels run the gamut from sweet to spicy, but they are ALL romance). It's important to indicate that there is a "gay" couple, because some people have no interest in reading ANY story no matter how tangential the romantic aspect is if the couple is gay. See an earlier poster in this thread for evidence of that. Romance is a big part of the story here although so are flying snakes, ancient cults, and guns!
> 
> A heterosexual romance novel would never have any need to identify itself as heterosexual, because that's the norm. That's what people expect. And the "warning" is unnecessary. Finding a het romance "objectionable" would just not happen.


But a het romance novel still sin't "family friendly". This is just my opinion, but I really don't consider ANY book "family friendly" unless it's labeled as a children's book. When I think "family friendly" I'm thinking of something suitable for a pre-teen. My personal opinion is that romance novels aren't for pre-teens. Just my opinion.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Jason Eric Pryor said:


> But a het romance novel still sin't "family friendly". This is just my opinion, but I really don't consider ANY book "family friendly" unless it's labeled as a children's book. When I think "family friendly" I'm thinking of something suitable for a pre-teen. My personal opinion is that romance novels aren't for pre-teens. Just my opinion.


Again, I see your point. However, we advertise ONLY to 25 years old plus so Google was saying that the word "gay" made these ads not "family friendly" enough for adults ... (that's also in the blog post).


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " I'd surely like to know, and since you are in the position to tell me and everyone else how wrong we are about this (among other things), maybe you can fill us in with your wisdom and factations (yes, it is a new word I've just made up for this occasion)."


Sure. Gays made great strides over the last forty years. The situation they face today is very different from the one they faced forty years ago. So we might ask if that progress was due to calling people bigots or to a concerted and intelligent campaign to mold public opinion. I'd say the most powerful force was individual gays openly living very normal lives. Folks had the choice of clinging to some theory or believing their own lying eyes. The eyes have it...



> "You can stand in the way, or argue until you are blue in the face that I'm wrong. I'll continue to be 'counter-productive' because I'm not interested in waiting another 40 years to see if 'persuasion, cogent argument, and persistence' will resolve the problem that is an important, current issue."


I suppose I could do that, but I'd rather employ a principle of conservatism and look at what has succeeded in the real world, and what has failed. Those continuing the concerted and intelligent campaign will prevail.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> Because letting ignorant, bigoted, white *hillbillies* continue to be racists and continue to teach their children hateful racism is such a productive method for an advanced society.


You used the H word. You used the H word. I am offended. I get a turn.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks....

Let's not declaim against bigotry and racism by using offensive terms for a whole group of people.

And Terrence and AngryGames, if you're going to take another thread down by sniping at each other, put each other on ignore.  

You do know that you don't HAVE to respond to someone else's post, right?

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## AworkInProgress (Sep 5, 2013)

It's sad to see that things like this still matter. It's also said and a bit shameful that at one point I was contemplating altering a character just to avoid future hardships from the close-minded and bigoted.


----------



## Willo (May 10, 2013)

D.L. Sharp said:


> It's sad to see that things like this still matter. It's also said and a bit shameful that at one point I was contemplating altering a character just to avoid future hardships from the close-minded and bigoted.


Unfortunately, a lot of authors have been faced with temptation to alter characters, covers, and promotions for the same reason. Some cave; other refuse to. Hopefully, we'll get to a place where it's no longer even an after thought, and there won't be any need for campaigns/movements that fight bigoted mind-sets, so we can actually enjoy a "melting-pot" experience sans the ignorance and vitriol of people who need to feel superior through a number of isms.


----------



## P.C. (Peter) Anders (Feb 6, 2013)

Sorry that this happened.
There are lots of censors in sheep's clothing out there.
How refreshing to note that not all people are like that narrow-minded (such as this blog post from a site that has very interesting posts): http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/08/this-is-me-naked-nudity/


----------



## Natasha Holme (May 26, 2012)

I remember seeing a film in the late 1990s that was a certificate 15 (for non-UK people, that means you have to be 15 to go see it), because the main character was a lesbian.

No kissing, no hand-holding, no sex. The fact that the film had a lesbian character in it, meant you couldn't watch it if you weren't 15.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2013)

I just have a general question as I am a bit confused. I may be misunderstanding. If the book has no romance in it, no sex, and isn't actually about gay issues, then why the necessity to put "gay" in the ad? Is this a self-inflicted issue? What I mean is, I don't recall ever seeing advertising for Alex Cross novels (and the related movies) as "African American" or "black." They are just promoted as detective novels. Unless there were ads that specifically targeted the African American community that I'm unaware of (which is, of course, entirely possible).

My point is many readers, me included, will assume that if you "call out" a specific trait in a character, then that trait is central to the story. For example, if you _specifically_ use say "Christian detective&#8230;" in an ad, I am going to assume the book is Christian fiction and that the character's faith is central to the plot. If you specifically say "African American detective&#8230;" I'm going to assume the character's ethnicity is central to the plot. So specifically mentioning a character's sexual preferences in advertising would lead a reasonable person to assume that the character's sexuality is a central theme of the plot or at a minimum very important to what is going on.

I'm not talking about blurbs or book summaries in which you will likely include more detailed information. I'm talking specifically about ads where every word has to count because you only have two or three lines of content allowable.

I can't speak to the specifics of whether or not the use of the word "gay" is or is not family-friendly. I'm just more curious from a marketing standpoint the purpose of using the word at all if the character's sexuality is not a defining part of the plot.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I just have a general question as I am a bit confused. I may be misunderstanding. If the book has no romance in it, no sex, and isn't actually about gay issues, then why the necessity to put "gay" in the ad? Is this a self-inflicted issue? What I mean is, I don't recall ever seeing advertising for Alex Cross novels (and the related movies) as "African American" or "black." They are just promoted as detective novels. Unless there were ads that specifically targeted the African American community that I'm unaware of (which is, of course, entirely possible).
> 
> My point is many readers, me included, will assume that if you "call out" a specific trait in a character, then that trait is central to the story. For example, if you _specifically_ use say "Christian detective&#8230;" in an ad, I am going to assume the book is Christian fiction and that the character's faith is central to the plot. If you specifically say "African American detective&#8230;" I'm going to assume the character's ethnicity is central to the plot. So specifically mentioning a character's sexual preferences in advertising would lead a reasonable person to assume that the character's sexuality is a central theme of the plot or at a minimum very important to what is going on.
> 
> ...


I tried to say this exact thing in my post. I struggled. You did it better.


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

Jason Eric Pryor said:


> I tried to say this exact thing in my post. I struggled. You did it better.


Again, as I explained in a prior post to you on this thread ... there is a GAY ROMANCE in this novel b/t the two main characters. Not mentioning it would be bad as there are some people who do not want to read characters with gay relationships in them just as (shocking perhaps to some) people don't like reading stories with straight romances in them.

But just b/c there is a gay relationship in the novel that doesn't mean it ISN'T family friendly, especially as I ALSO explained to you and in the blogpost that the advertisements are to be listed to individuals 25 + years old. Thereby Google is saying that the word "gay" in the description of a novel advertised ONLY to adults is not family friendly. I hope that clears your confusion up.


----------



## worldbeat99 (Sep 14, 2011)

It's disheartening to hear that Google would consider any ad with "gay" in it not family friendly.

I have something similar to share.  I once got an email from a book-to-film scout from Disney.  She loved my book PROSPECT OF MY ARRIVAL
and wanted to know if the movie rights were available.  It's a speculative book about a human embryo that is allowed to preview the world before deciding whether to be born. She then shared my book with four decision makers at the company.  Ultimately they turned down my book because they felt it was not "family friendly."  I could get no clarification on what that meant.

There are different aspects of my book which might be considered controversial.  The main character, the embryo, is exploring his sexuality.
There are some moments of violence.  There is some poking fun at fundamentalist Christians. Though mostly Prospect is open-hearted in his exploration of life on earth.  It would be nice if people were to use terms like "family friendly" if they would at least define them!


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> Again, as I explained in a prior post to you on this thread ... there is a GAY ROMANCE in this novel b/t the two main characters. Not mentioning it would be bad as there are some people who do not want to read characters with gay relationships in them just as (shocking perhaps to some) people don't like reading stories with straight romances in them.
> 
> But just b/c there is a gay relationship in the novel that doesn't mean it ISN'T family friendly, especially as I ALSO explained to you and in the blogpost that the advertisements are to be listed to individuals 25 + years old. Thereby Google is saying that the word "gay" in the description of a novel advertised ONLY to adults is not family friendly. I hope that clears your confusion up.


LOL! I wasn't confused. I understood what you were saying. I wasn't bringing it up again because I didn't understand what you were saying. I was just admiring how the other poster much more fluently made the point I was trying to.


----------



## DevinSGraves (Sep 24, 2013)

Well, well, well. People have said Google was evil, and after reading this post it makes a lot more sense *sarcasm*!

To be pertinent, I've never understood why "gay" is treated as an umbrella term for heretical, blasphemous stuff and more stuff that are "detrimental to society". And yes, it's still being preached as such, primarily in the bible belt, but there's a slice of it everywhere.

I mean, I *am* gay and plan to someday finish writing some gay fantasy, but from a logical point of view, it's highly peculiar that it's being treated like a porn category, as if gay is somehow referring to "nonheterosexual shenanigans". And what is up with that 25+ age bracket? Like, what the hell. 25+? That's the same age required for a person to supervise a teenager with a driver's permit. That's just wholly unreasonable.

I agree with all the posters who said that it's sad that it's even an issue. I can see this being an issue (esp. in the south) for a long time to come, especially in Alabama, which is easily the most backward state in America. Here's a bit of trivia to support that statement: interracial marriage wasn't legal in Alabama until the Alabama Interracial Marriage Amendment came along in Nov. 7, 2000 (59.49% voted "for").

Religious institutions have too much sway over politics in general, and maintain a strong foothold in most of America, that it makes it quite difficult to progress society, e.g. 46% of Americans believe in creationism or hold views derived from creationism as of 2012, and Americans in general believe that atheists are as *equally* untrustworthy as rapists; also, gay marriage was held in limbo by so-called marriage protection organizations for years and years in California, but recently Prop 8 has been struck down for good (as of last August). Thought I'd at least insert that little bit of good news to my post.

On a side note, spell check ftw(!): Google, did you mean Go ogle? Lol. Sure, I'll "Go ogle" some steamy photos. Indeed.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Devin,

welcome to KBoards!

As a new member, since your post borders on political, I want to note for your benefit (and remind our members) that political discussions are not allowed here on KBoards.

Thanks!

Betsy


----------



## DevinSGraves (Sep 24, 2013)

Oh, thank you! Awesome avatar, by the way. I didn't get it till I read your name, haha.

And thanks for the note. Got a bit carried away with the statistics.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I think that Google should accept ads with nudity in them.  After all, I think nudity is fine, so why can't others?  I am proud to state that I am nude under my clothes, and I suspect many of you are too.

This bigotry must end.  Only narrow-minded dermaphobes would object.

Skin pride!


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I suppose I could do that, but I'd rather employ a principle of conservatism and look at what has succeeded in the real world, and what has failed. Those continuing the concerted and intelligent campaign will prevail.


Let's hope so.

Persuasion in action by *Members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies*.

I expect this will happen soon in Congress as well.


----------



## BEAST (Mar 31, 2012)

Wow, fun thread. I would throw my hat in as a gay black man but I'd rather go write and make some money. I'll check back in when the OP has resolved his issue with Google Adwords or when I successfully run an image ad campaign with the word "gay" in it, which ever comes first.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

It doesn't matter whether anyone else thinks using "gay" is relevant to the advertising. The OP has decided to target gay readers.

Can anything be clearer than those two ad images? I would have liked to see the other ads, too.

Funny thing is, I hope everyone knows that Google bubbles search results. It knows what you've searched for and presents results accordingly. Google knows the terms in your G-mail messages, too, and I have no doubt through the use of third-party cookies they're able to tailor ad results. There should be no problem with their serving an ad with the word "gay" in it to the users who won't be offended. They CHOOSE not to.

Google is a private company and can do whatever the heck it wants to. (And it does; look at their book-scanning project.) But just wait until it's your innocuous ad that gets rejected and everyone thinks you must be in the wrong because "Google wouldn't do anything like that!" You don't have to be gay-friendly to see the potential problem. If Google decides not to serve up your search results, your business is dead.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> They CHOOSE not to.


Why do they choose that option?


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2013)

X. Aratare said:


> Again, as I explained in a prior post to you on this thread ... there is a GAY ROMANCE in this novel b/t the two main characters. Not mentioning it would be bad as there are some people who do not want to read characters with gay relationships in them just as (shocking perhaps to some) people don't like reading stories with straight romances in them.
> 
> But just b/c there is a gay relationship in the novel that doesn't mean it ISN'T family friendly, especially as I ALSO explained to you and in the blogpost that the advertisements are to be listed to individuals 25 + years old. Thereby Google is saying that the word "gay" in the description of a novel advertised ONLY to adults is not family friendly. I hope that clears your confusion up.


This actually reminds me of a book I reviewed years ago. It was a sci-fi/zombie novel in which the protagonist was a lesbian. The author engaged in a great deal of hand-wringing over whether or not readers would accept the character and he was very worried about her sexuality. I was consulting him on the marketing and he was wondering how he should market the book. 
The thing is, when I read the book, I barely noticed her sexuality. Her relationship with her girlfriend was very mundane. Much like the relationships of some of my gay friends. MUNDANE. My gay friends argue with their significant others over the same things I argue with Mike about. Mundane. Normal. Her sexuality had no bearing on the main plot. She could have been straight and the story would have been the same story.

We actually went back and forth over this because he felt like he needed to "warn" readers. My position was that readers are smart. If you don't draw negative attention to it, they won't. Sure, some people will be offended by a gay character. Guess what? Some people are offended by African American characters. Some people are offended by Catholic characters. Some people are offended by atheist characters. Some people go through life LOOKING for things to be offended about.

Those people, however, are not your target market.

Now look at the contradiction of your post. You are simultaneously saying "some people don't want to read books with gay characters" and yet condemning Google for not considering the word "gay" family-friendly. But aren't you making the same judgment? If your purpose of including the word is in fact to "warn off" people who might be offended, aren't you in effect saying your book is not family-friendly and may be offensive to people?

I think the problem is that you are overthinking it. The existence of a romantic relationship, whether gay or straight, is not a big deal unless you make it one. Unless the character's sexuality is central to the plot, I don't think it should be an issue.

The purpose of an ad is to get people to check out your book. There are a lot of people who just won't care if the character is gay if the story is good. Why put up a wall between your book and them by broadcasting an issue that isn't actually central to the story?

Again, correct me if I am wrong. If the character's sexuality IS central to the plot then I am misunderstanding. But the mere presence of a gay relationship shouldn't force us to wave warning flags any more than the presence of an interracial relationship.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

Okay, I know I'm marching in where angels fear to tread, but here goes.  People can, without being homophobic, believe that kids should be old enough to have gotten the "Where babies come from?" speech and know that normally tab A goes into slot B, BEFORE we have to answer their questions about why some people put it somewhere else.  We all know that they ask, "Well what do they actually DO?"  You don't have to be homophobic to want to avoid that conversation as long as possible.  Hence the "not family friendly" category.


----------



## Brian Olsen (Jan 13, 2013)

brendajcarlton said:


> Okay, I know I'm marching in where angels fear to tread, but here goes. People can, without being homophobic, believe that kids should be old enough to have gotten the "Where babies come from?" speech and know that normally tab A goes into slot B, BEFORE we have to answer their questions about why some people put it somewhere else. We all know that they ask, "Well what do they actually DO?" You don't have to be homophobic to want to avoid that conversation as long as possible. Hence the "not family friendly" category.


I'm marching in right behind you! Let me preface this by saying that I've not taking offense to your comment, so please don't take mine as anything more than offering my own thoughts on the subject. (It's so easy for tone to be misread, especially in a charged subject like this - I'm not picking a fight, just discussing!)

I'm a gay guy with fifteen nieces and nephews ranging from adult to toddler, and neither I nor any of my siblings have hidden that from them, and none of them have ever asked a question about tabs and slots. If it's presented as not a big deal, then kids take it as not a big deal, and my boyfriend is no different to them than another uncle's girlfriend. It's adults who tend to mentally jump to the sex questions, not children.

My point is just that there's no reason "gay" and "family friendly" have to be mutually exclusive in any advertising.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

I used to be a great believer in the idea that when kids ask a question, you should tell them the truth at a level they can understand.  Used to be, because many years ago my son, who was about eight at the time, asked about the feminine hygiene supplies in the bathroom.  So I explained, briefly.  He then told the little girl down the street, only about four, that when she grew up she would bleed out her heiny (sp?), she ran home crying and the other mother never spoke to me again.  I am much more careful about theses issues now.  I don't know exactly how this story relates, but I do think we have isolated the crux of the disagreement.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Those people, however, are not your target market.
> 
> Now look at the contradiction of your post. You are simultaneously saying "some people don't want to read books with gay characters" and yet condemning Google for not considering the word "gay" family-friendly. But aren't you making the same judgment? If your purpose of including the word is in fact to "warn off" people who might be offended, aren't you in effect saying your book is not family-friendly and may be offensive to people?


I agree with the main stance of your post, but "those" people will give your book a one-star rating, often citing reasons that have nothing to do at all with the real one, homophobia.

I have read many threads here advising people to put warnings in their book descriptions.
I'd like to be warned if a book is Christian fiction. Am I saying that Christian fiction is not family-friendly? Well&#8230; let's not get into that.

But, again, I agree. It shouldn't make any difference whether a book has gay characters or not.
Maybe we all should just avoid the word in our book descriptions and surprise the reader.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I agree with the main stance of your post, but "those" people will give your book a one-star rating, often citing reasons that have nothing to do at all with the real one, homophobia.
> 
> I have read many threads here advising people to put warnings in their book descriptions.
> I'd like to be warned if a book is Christian fiction. Am I saying that Christian fiction is not family-friendly? Well&#8230; let's not get into that.
> ...


But there is a difference between making something clear in the blurb and actively employing negative advertising to warn people away. The people who will one star the book will do that anyway. Heck, you might end up with MORE one star ratings simply because people who may have ignored the ad now see you "promoting" a gay book and feel the need to actively attack it.  That is the other danger of "warning" people in the ad: you may attract the very trolls you had hoped to ward off by giving them a bull's eye to target.

And yes, if a character's sexuality is *not central to the story*, I don't see the big deal. There is no reason to highlight something that, in the grand scheme of a novel, is a minor point. Maybe this is just one of those topics that I am "too" liberal on, but I've never been surprised to discover a character was gay unless the author wrote it is such a way that it was supposed to be a surprise. I don't expect warnings with couples that have different religions (once a taboo). I don't expect warnings for interracial couples (once a taboo). I'm always more concerned with whether the character is believable, not necessarily who the character is sleeping with.


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Some people go through life LOOKING for things to be offended about.


That's the truth! And it gets worse each day. Everyone is so easily offended these days. There will always be someone to find something offensive in something you say or do.

Not to change the subject of the thread......but I'm going to change the subject of the thread, just for a minute. 

I saw a post a few days ago on Facebook. The post was about a couple that had lost their daughter. She was only 2 years old. They wanted their daughter to bring goodness and happiness to people. So, even though she had died, they decided to pay for someone's meal in a restaurant in her memory. They had the waiter deliver a card to a random couple which basically said they were paying for their meal in memory of their daughter. Great story, right?

The comments were horrible! People were saying things like, "They are selfish! No one wants to know about their dead daughter." and "They probably just ruined the other couples night by bumming them out about the dead daughter."

What a sick and twisted way to view that situation!

Sorry to hijack the thread, but those comments really rubbed me the wrong way. Had to vent a little.

And now.....back to the thread.


----------

