tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post5005925761822537710..comments2024-03-18T00:59:28.260+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Institutionalised DiscriminationE. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-73480506306633897202008-10-09T06:59:00.000+01:002008-10-09T06:59:00.000+01:00I'm arriving a little late to the discussion, but ...I'm arriving a little late to the discussion, but I thought I'd put in my two cents anyway :)<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to point out that there are in fact quite a number of lesbian romances -- it's just that they are usually published by lesbian and women's presses (such as Bella Books) and not by big 'mainstream' publishers. I'd speculate, but it's a little too late in the evening for me to start thinking academically...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-30827510314534698572008-09-26T05:53:00.000+01:002008-09-26T05:53:00.000+01:00Incidentally, whoever it was who talked about the ...Incidentally, whoever it was who talked about the "supreme ugliness" of the female genitals has obviously never seen any of Georgia O'Keeffe's flower paintings.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-90991185013752767332008-09-25T03:06:00.000+01:002008-09-25T03:06:00.000+01:00"I very much felt that Andrew was primarily same-s..."<I>I very much felt that Andrew was primarily same-sex oriented, and that his relationship with Matthew was more natural for him. Matthew is his "true love" as I imagine most of us think of that concept.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I'm glad to hear I wasn't being closed-minded.<BR/><BR/>"<I>most reactions I have had to the story are from people who feel that the Andrew/Phyllida relationship is portrayed as the more "important" or deeper one.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you wrote a very convincing m/f relationship and I didn't get it :) A couple other possibilities, though: I think readers often get attached to the first relationship to be introduced in the story. I also wonder whether <I>Phyllida</I> gets a more "mainstream" romance readership than, say, an Ellora's Cave ménage à trois.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-69970851544171567452008-09-24T23:45:00.000+01:002008-09-24T23:45:00.000+01:00rfp said:"while reading Phyllida and the Brotherho...rfp said:<BR/>"while reading Phyllida and the Brotherhood of Philander ... I have trouble believing in Andrew and Phyllida's relationship. Even though the story is told from her point of view, it seems to me that all the deepest emotion is between the two men. Phyllida is a necessary and surprisingly lovable side-affair, but not a partner ... I think it's meant to be read as a more equal relationship and I'm just not seeing it. I'm convinced there are differences in the writing of the Andrew/Phyllida and Andrew/Matthew scenes."<BR/><BR/>Well, that is fascinating to me, and surprisingly good to "hear." That is, most reactions I have had to the story are from people who feel that the Andrew/Phyllida relationship is portrayed as the more "important" or deeper one.<BR/><BR/>But in writing the story, I very much felt that Andrew was primarily same-sex oriented, and that his relationship with Matthew was more natural for him. Matthew is his "true love" as I imagine most of us think of that concept. Falling in love with Phyllida, his wife of "convenience," is an aberration for Andrew. The reason I had Andrew meet Matthew so late in the story (more than halfway through) is that I felt he would never have decided to make the "ultimate sacrifice" of marriage to a woman if he had already found his perfect male partner.<BR/><BR/>So, rfp, I think your feelings about the story are very perceptive. I did write the Andrew/Matthew scenes differently from the Andrew/Phyllida scenes. Because this was my first book and my first attempt to write a "bisexual" triangle love story as a mainstream romance, I was working intuitively (which is probably not a great idea, but the only way I could do it)--and this is how it "felt" to me. Andrew and Matthew fall in love at first sight; Andrew's love for Phyllida is an ongoing process of evolution.<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for your comments. Even though I realize you weren't addrressing me directly, it is most helpful to me to get this kind of feedback.<BR/><BR/>Also, on the thread of the misconception that bisexual people will always want a partner of each sex: <I>Phyllida</I> was never intended as a portrayal of a "typical" bisexual love triangle--I doubt there is such a thing. This story was meant only to show what seemed right for these particular characters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-31170882973629331372008-09-24T23:26:00.000+01:002008-09-24T23:26:00.000+01:00Thanks, Barbara. Maybe it takes a while for change...Thanks, Barbara. Maybe it takes a while for changes like these to gather momentum, and they start with a few people discovering that there isn't "much resistance to these storylines, either from readers or publishers" and then gradually others follow in increasing numbers. I hope so, and I think it might be a pattern that emerges from the examples that have been given here.<BR/><BR/>lijakaca, I'd forgotten about yaoi when I posted this, so thanks for reminding me. It's been mentioned other times that m/m romance has been discussed here, but I'm probably more likely to forget about it because I don't read it. It got me thinking about other popular culture phenomena that I might have missed. I don't watch TV, but I know there's a bisexual hero (<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Harkness" REL="nofollow">Captain Jack</A>) in <I>Torchwood</I>, and Russell T. Davies was also the writer of <I>Queer as Folks</I> (at least in the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_as_Folk_(UK)" REL="nofollow">UK version</A>).Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-69472493983505718002008-09-24T19:08:00.000+01:002008-09-24T19:08:00.000+01:00I haven't read through all the comments yet, but y...I haven't read through all the comments yet, but you may be aware that m/m romances are extremely popular in Japanese (and possibly other) comics written by and for women. Many female fans prefer them to heterosexual stories. There are several theories as to why; I don't have any personal insight because I don't read them.<BR/><BR/>In any case, it's a major segment of the comics industry in Japan (when separated into boys (shounen), girls (shoujo), adult male (seinen), adult female (ladies), and m/m (yaoi)). In fact, my uneducated guess would be that it's a bigger segment than ladies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-12915225002786812442008-09-24T04:45:00.000+01:002008-09-24T04:45:00.000+01:00I'd venture a rough guess that about 80% of my boo...I'd venture a rough guess that about 80% of my books feature either a cross-cultural, cross-economic (and I don't mean secretary-tycoon, though I certainly love those, too), and other crossing sorts of storylines. Not, usually, as the main conflict, since I those are superficial explorations, IMO. I've also written prominent gay characters, most notably (and one of the most beloved of all the characters I've ever written), the heroine's best friend, Michael, in No Place Like Home. He is a central motivating force. His story does not end happily, as he has AIDS, but he shared a happy relationship with his partner. (Part of the point of writing the book was to give tribute to AIDS victims.) In my upcoming book for Bantam, The Lost Recipe for Happiness (w/a Barbara O'Neal), the secondary love story is a very traditional love story between two men, one in desperate need of redemption. <BR/><BR/>And nearly every one of my books has featured non-mainstream characters, often in the lead. A Mexican immigrant in Rio Grande Wedding (I know, I know, terrible title, and an even worse cover, but it was a solid exploration of the problems); a British/Indian immigrant to America as the romantic interest in Madame Mirabou's School of Love (in which the heroine has a mixed-race daughter, as well); many cross-cultural relationships in In the Midnight Rain; and lots and lots and lots of Hispanic and Native American characters in many books. I grew up cheek to jowl with Hispanic and Native American influences in Colorado, was married for 18 years to an African American, and now live with a British partner. My work is multicultural because my life is. I am interested in cross-cultural histories, and romances are a great place to follow those threads. <BR/><BR/>I'm citing so many because I never encountered much resistance to these storylines, either from readers or publishers. Maybe that "differentness" has sometimes kept me from making lists or whatever, but I doubt it. If writers want to wade into these waters (which do, after all, offer so many intriguing possibilities and richness!), I believe the field is wide open.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948775380902570315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-23916430039890502222008-09-23T22:46:00.000+01:002008-09-23T22:46:00.000+01:00"I have to say, though, I prefer to rely on formal..."I have to say, though, I prefer to rely on formal studies rather than personal anecdotes."<BR/><BR/>Yes, of course you are absolutely right. I am sure that reliable statistics will gradually become easier to obtain - they are unlikely to have been very reliable in the days when so many gay people were obliged to be secretive about the nature of their relationships.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-46479596950997727382008-09-23T22:36:00.000+01:002008-09-23T22:36:00.000+01:00Most of the gay couples (both men and women) whom ...<I>Most of the gay couples (both men and women) whom I know are middle-aged or older, and have been together upwards of 25 years.</I><BR/><BR/>The lesbian couples in my circle have been among the earliest of my friends to settle down. I have to say, though, I prefer to rely on formal studies rather than personal anecdotes. Fortunately, these days there *are* more studies. Some studies do find differences in the stability of hetero- vs homosexual relationships, so that may be what that half-remembered article drew on. But there are now studies finding the opposite; overall, the data are more nuanced these days.<BR/><BR/><I>When Civil Partnerships were made legal here... there were many newspaper items... on ordinary citizens who were amongst the first to register their partnerships formally; practically all of them were long-established couples - and that applied to the men as well as the women.</I><BR/><BR/>There were lovely <A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/16/MNDB118S9N.DTL" REL="nofollow">stories</A> like that when California legalized gay marriage last spring. There was also a spate of earlier <A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNG1H59R5Q1.DTL" REL="nofollow">articles</A> (just after San Francisco legalized gay marriage in 2004) referencing studies finding high success rates for gay marriage-like relationships. Surely all this publicity must help combat those old anti-gay myths.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-17975364149161431642008-09-23T21:39:00.000+01:002008-09-23T21:39:00.000+01:00"Sometime in the '90s I read an article on the rar..."Sometime in the '90s I read an article on the rarity of long-term committed relationships in the gay community."<BR/><BR/>Hah! Most of the gay couples (both men and women) whom I know are middle-aged or older, and have been together upwards of 25 years. When Civil Partnerships were made legal here nearly 4 years ago (I think it was the end of 2004), there were many newspaper items, not only on 'celebrity' couples, but on ordinary citizens who were amongst the first to register their partnerships formally; practically all of them were long-established couples - and that applied to the men as well as the women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-59939101776072901722008-09-23T20:39:00.000+01:002008-09-23T20:39:00.000+01:00Jane, could you give us a bit more detail about wh...Jane, could you give us a bit more detail about which of Kate Pearce's "paper and ink" books "go beyond the traditional romance boundaries" in the way we're discussing here? I couldn't find the Kensington Aphrodisa titles listed on her website, and a quick look at the short description available elsewhere for one of them them seemed to be describing a m/f erotic romance.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-86523725060729605942008-09-23T19:48:00.000+01:002008-09-23T19:48:00.000+01:00Chiming in late here, for those readers looking fo...Chiming in late here, for those readers looking for "paper and ink" romances that go beyond the traditional romance boundaries check out Kate Pearce's novels from Kensington Aphrodisia. She's a gorgeous, emotive writer and her next book is due out in November.Jane Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03199994711829637247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-58737519576508327942008-09-23T19:11:00.000+01:002008-09-23T19:11:00.000+01:00Some people used to imagine that... these homosexu...<I>Some people used to imagine that... these homosexual individuals had nefarious and unspeakable designs on EVERYBODY of their own sex!</I><BR/><BR/>I've seen faint echoes of that attitude even today.<BR/><BR/>Sometime in the '90s I read an article on the rarity of long-term committed relationships in the gay community. I don't recall whether the article was based on any fact, or did any thoughtful analysis. I do remember thinking that marriage, joint property, and kids are sometimes why a heterosexual couple hangs on, so it's not a fair comparison. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if the "gay = promiscuous" attitude you describe is part of the reason some people are uneasy about gay marriage.<BR/><BR/><I>I should say that a very large minority, if not a majority, of people have had some vague thoughts of a bisexual nature at some time in their lives.... Bi- and homosexual fantasies can be as exciting to individuals who would never act upon them in real life as to those who would, and do</I><BR/><BR/>Doesn't that make it all the stranger that those fantasies don't turn up more often in romance? Especially as so many claim the genre is all fantasy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-80077291829212384342008-09-23T12:22:00.000+01:002008-09-23T12:22:00.000+01:00Rfp, the idea that bisexuals always need two partn...Rfp, the idea that bisexuals always need two partners, one of each sex, is reminiscent of an idea about homosexuals that used to be very common in the old, paranoid days. Some people used to imagine that it was 'not safe' for a 'normal' heterosexual man to associate with gay men (or a straight woman with lesbians), because these homosexual individuals had nefarious and unspeakable designs on EVERYBODY of their own sex! It never seemed to occur to them that they, themselves, did not lust after everybody of the opposite sex!<BR/><BR/>On the issue of bisexuality being mentioned a lot in 'confessional essays': I should say that a very large minority, if not a majority, of people have had some vague thoughts of a bisexual nature at some time in their lives, usually in adolescence, when sexual development is rapid, changeable and very obtrusive. Like many of my nationality and generation, I attended a single-sex secondary school, and even many of us who turned out to be mostly hetero in the long run tended to have at least some experience of strong attraction to members of our own sex. <BR/><BR/>Bi- and homosexual fantasies can be as exciting to individuals who would never act upon them in real life as to those who would, and do; rather on the same principle as other common 'dangerous' fantasies, e.g. the 'sex-in-a-public-place' or the 'sex-with-a-complete-stranger' scenarios.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-73867965175794496852008-09-23T11:34:00.000+01:002008-09-23T11:34:00.000+01:00'...I wasn't suggesting oppressing anyone, reversi...'...I wasn't suggesting oppressing anyone, reversing things so that heteros are an oppressed minority.'<BR/><BR/>No, of course I didn't think you were! But the danger is worth mentioning, because reform to an existing inequality or oppression has a regrettable tendency to move in just that direction if not rather carefully monitored.<BR/><BR/>Humans have a strong innate tendency to think in terms of polarised opposites, not just in sexual matters - it is much more extensive than that; good and evil, dark and light, young and old; such phrases are very common in human language. Groups that have suffered oppression in the past have a very natural urge to take revenge, and I hardly need point out that that motivation, conscious or subconscious, has appeared on occasion at the fringes of both the feminist and Black movements. Pyschologically, there is far less emotional satisfaction to be gained from achieving a balanced position where <I>everyone</I> is treated with fairness and respect than from the one where the erstwhile oppressors get a taste of their own medicine, and learn just what it feels like!<BR/><BR/>Heterosexuals would never be an oppressed <I>minority</I>, of course, but human society is perfectly well able to oppress majorities, and has long experience of doing so.<BR/><BR/>I can point, very easily, to a culture in which our apparently 'fundamental' distinction between hetero- and homosexuality was vanishingly unimportant: the Graeco-Roman world. The idea of distinguishing at a primary level between opposite-sex and same-sex attraction was simply of little interest. But this tolerance towards gender choices was replaced by a different form of polarisation, one that we would find equally unacceptable, namely, the balance of power in a sexual relationship.<BR/><BR/>Participants in a sexual act were always seen as either the do-er or the done-to, and the latter was always regarded as inferior to the former, and little attention was paid to whether he/she was a willing partner or not. An adult citizen male might demand sex of a woman, a boy, a slave (either sex) or another adult male; the three first classes were his social inferiors anyway, so that was fine, in the prevalent mode of thinking: he had a right to take sex where he wanted it. The last situation was more fraught with social difficulties, because a man of hitherto equal social status became déclassé if he agreed to be a catamite. True adult gay relationships based on affection were kept rather quiet, and anyway, all men of higher social status had a duty to raise chidlren. The point is that at that time and place, the concept of sex as an equal partnership, in which both participants had similar status, was unfamiliar. We have, in fact, made some progress away from that instinctive, binary thinking.<BR/><BR/>I could say more, but I am sure that is quite enough!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-89421926969359833142008-09-23T08:02:00.000+01:002008-09-23T08:02:00.000+01:00I just watched the season premiere of BOSTON LEGAL...I just watched the season premiere of <B>BOSTON LEGAL,</B> and I thought once again that the relationship between Alan Shore (James Spader) and Denny Crane (William Shatner) is a perfect love affair--except it's not at all sexual.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-84283409607242344652008-09-23T07:08:00.000+01:002008-09-23T07:08:00.000+01:00One of the tricky aspects of institutionalized dis...One of the tricky aspects of institutionalized discrimination is that it's often more about implicit messages than explicit hate. It's easy to demonstrate that there's a problem when someone uses blatant hate speech; more difficult when well-meaning people make assumptions or the offense is an oversight rather than conscious exclusion. It can also be more difficult to complain when the offender is well-intentioned: the *complainer* is then the troublemaker.<BR/><BR/><I>The perception I was left with... was that some people thought that bisexual people couldn't be monogamous because they would have to have at least one partner of each sex.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I recently saw an author post that she was trying to write an authentic bisexual romance--which meant she'd configured her novel with a HEA for three.<BR/><BR/><I>I must be bi in my reading choices, or identifying with the heroine without admitting it to myself, because a love story without a woman in it just isn't satisfying to me most of the time.</I><BR/><BR/>I thought about those issues while reading <I>Phyllida and the Brotherhood of Philander</I>, because I have trouble believing in Andrew and Phyllida's relationship. Even though the story is told from her point of view, it seems to me that all the deepest emotion is between the two men. Phyllida is a necessary and surprisingly lovable side-affair, but not a partner. Which is fine: it need not be a marriage of true love and deep passion. But I think it's meant to be read as a more equal relationship and I'm just not seeing it. I'm convinced there are differences in the writing of the Andrew/Phyllida and Andrew/Matthew scenes. It's also possible I'm making some judgments I'm not aware of. (I don't have trouble believing in stable, equal menages in some Ellora's Cave romances, oddly enough--that is, oddly given the rather histrionic sexualization of the relationships I'm thinking of.)<BR/><BR/>However, I think <I>Phyllida</I> does accomplish what Laura's looking for:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm looking for romances which would challenge "the idea that [only] monogamous romantic relations between women and men are the moral norm"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sure you've found the <A HREF="http://aarboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=3736&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=ceea3f5603afcd2fa5695b39b488f78a" REL="nofollow">AAR</A> <A HREF="http://aarboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=3020&highlight=bisexual" REL="nofollow">topics</A> and the <A HREF="http://www.romantictimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18156&sid=e952d15f029674e69b2443c9b431f033" REL="nofollow">RT list</A> of bisexual heroes. Most of them seem to be from Ellora's Cave, but there's at least one Signet on the AAR list.<BR/><BR/>I've noticed lately that bisexuality (or at least experimentation) seems to crop up more frequently in confessional essays than in romance fiction. I'm not sure what that says about the genre, or the demographics or beliefs of those writing romance versus essays.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-3823522115821585962008-09-23T02:10:00.000+01:002008-09-23T02:10:00.000+01:00I wonder if some authors, like JAK, who present ga...I wonder if some authors, like JAK, who present gay/lesbian characters and couples with no negative implications, do not make them central characters in part because they don't feel competent to write authentically about their experiences, as some writers don't have black protagonists because they are convinced that the black experience is unique and cannot possibly be conveyed by a white writer--something that black studies types have been preaching for about half a century?talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-35623179938147461722008-09-23T02:07:00.000+01:002008-09-23T02:07:00.000+01:00Oh, I wasn't suggesting oppressing anyone, reversi...Oh, I wasn't suggesting oppressing anyone, reversing things so that heteros are an oppressed minority.<BR/><BR/>It's funny, one of the points that queer theorists have made is that the current structure of sexuality is set up in terms of binary oppositions that only allow this kind of reversal. For that reason, some suggest resisting identity politics altogether -- just getting rid of the categories we use altogether. Of course, this requires a belief in the social construction, not just of gender, but sexuality itself. <BR/><BR/>But I am a pragmatist and, like you, am grateful for the changes I have seen in my lifetime -- in romance, and every place else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-49797591908972485872008-09-22T21:31:00.000+01:002008-09-22T21:31:00.000+01:00I think your points are very interesting and thoug...I think your points are very interesting and thought-provoking, Jessica. <BR/><BR/>You will be aware, I feel sure, that left-handedness <I>was</I> once regarded as a very serious fault, to be ruthlessly 'corrected' in a child. Right-handedness was, in fact, 'institutionalised' in your terms - right was right and left was wrong. This was the case as recently as the 1930s in many societies. It has changed completely. Nobody takes the slightest notice any more, and though left-handers are still in the minority, I should be astonished to hear anyone say that right-handedness is 'better'. <BR/><BR/>You will also know very well that permanent civil partnership that carry many, though not yet all, of the 'privileges' of marriage are being introduced in some countries, including the UK. The changes that have taken place over the last 40-50 years are IMMENSE. In the 1950s, two men who had a long-term, loving relationship with each other that included a sexual dimension were committing a serious <I>crime</I>. Now, only 50 years later, two men can go to a register office, go through a ceremony very similar to the civil marriage ceremony, and nobody (well, not many people) raises an eyebrow. In terms of social change, that is really, really rapid change! It is undoubtedly moving in the right direction (which is more than one can say of some other socio-political issues).<BR/><BR/>'...<I>can we really go on asserting that all things being equal, it is better to be straight (and have our laws reflect this, for example, by restricting marriage proper to heteros), while at the same time preventing injustices and prejudice on the basis of sexual minority status?</I>'<BR/><BR/>ARE we asserting that? I don't think so. To dismantle mores that have existed for literally millennia is no light task, and we are making very good progress.<BR/><BR/>Most rational people realise that every single one of us belongs to a minority within <I>some</I> system of classification. Simply reversing old wrongs, so that the former underdogs become the new oppressors, is not a particularly useful ambition. <BR/> <BR/>Of course, our much-vaunted systems of democratic government are based on heeding the wishes of the alleged <I>majority</I> in terms of sheer numbers. They are not notably successful in electing people of high intelligence, morality and good will to the highest offices, alas, but as yet, a better system has not been devised.<BR/><BR/>In point of fact, minority or majority really does not matter two hoots. What matters is open-mindedness and tolerance. I am glad that gay men no longer live under the appalling shadow that used to ruin their lives (gay women were able to get away with things more easily, but only because ALL women were considered secondary). I would not, however, wish to live in a society in which homosexuality was lauded and approved and heterosexuality criminalised and oppressed. That is merely replacing one wrong with its mirror-image.<BR/><BR/>I have seen the changes in the attitudes of my society towards gay men and women in my own lifetime, and I have heard tales from much older gay friends that have made me weep - with sorrow, and with joy, for the suffering of the past and the hope of the future. But we cannot expect a total revolution of attitudes in a handful of decades. We are doing well, slowly but surely, on that front.<BR/><BR/>We should be far more frightened about the anti-scientific, religious-fundamentalist attitudes that are emerging in some erstwhile enlightened societies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-84452714796239792442008-09-22T19:25:00.000+01:002008-09-22T19:25:00.000+01:00Laura -- yes, Ward improbably made a bisexual male...Laura -- yes, Ward improbably made a bisexual male character who had a strong multilayered connection with another male character do an about face and hook up with a female. However, she has introduced gay characters who are likely to take center stage in future books.<BR/><BR/>AgTigress -- I guess I should clarify that what I mean by hereronormativity is institutionalized heterosexuality, inclusive of our laws, morals, religions, social attitudes, etc. I'll accept that biologically, heterosexuality is the norm, but there are plenty of biological norms that are not institutionalized quite the way heterosexuality is. Right handedness, for example. <BR/><BR/>The question that some queer theorists ask us to confront is whether we can really have our cake and eat it too: can we really go on asserting that all things being equal, it is better to be straight (and have our laws reflect this, for example, by restricting marriage proper to heteros), while at the same time preventing injustices and prejudice on the basis of sexual minority status?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am not sure what my answer is, but I think it is a legitimate question to ask -- obviously, or I wouldn't have asked it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-77710436285586757912008-09-22T18:34:00.000+01:002008-09-22T18:34:00.000+01:00Thanks for the recommendations, everyone.Tigress, ...Thanks for the recommendations, everyone.<BR/><BR/>Tigress, I'm sure a detailed list would be of interest if there are readers or academics looking for romances with gay and lesbian secondary characters, but I'm not working in that area myself at the moment (though I think I'll have to follow up some of the recommendations that have been made), so I wouldn't want you to put yourself to great trouble on my behalf. If, however, you wanted to compile a list because it interested you and you felt it might be very useful to some as yet unidentified academic, or to someone who particularly wants to focus on those specific JAK novels, then I certainly wouldn't want to stop you, and I would be interested to know how many of them there are.<BR/><BR/><I>thanks for quoting it, Laura, although I recognize it was not entirely in approval</I><BR/><BR/>Over on your blog I quibbled with some of what you said in your post and comments, but I'd definitely agree that the net effect of the number of heterosexual versus homosexual main characters in the mainstream of the romance genre could be considered a form of institutionalised (genre-ised?) heterosexism.<BR/><BR/><I>If the problem is merely that we need positive images of homosexuality in romance, happy gay friends of the h/h may do it [...] But if [...] you want to actually get rid of the idea that heterosexuality is a moral norm (and homosexuality is a moral abnorm (!), or at least is less morally preferable) then maybe you need to displace the centrality of the h/h, by featuring more same sex couples at the center.</I><BR/><BR/>I think there are a few more gradations:<BR/><BR/>1) No gay or lesbian or bisexual characters, unless they're depicted as evil.<BR/>2) No gay or lesbian or bisexual characters at all.<BR/>3) Gay or lesbian or bisexual characters may be present occasionally, but they remain single.<BR/>4) It is not infrequent for gay, lesbian and bisexual characters to be present and get their own HEA's, albeit as secondary characters.<BR/>5) Gay, lesbian and bisexual characters are the main characters in many mainstream romances.<BR/><BR/>Obviously 1) is the most heterosexist. What I was noting in this post was that I thought we might be seeing a shift towards 4) in mainstream, print romances, with epublished romances having reached 5). My feeling is that 4) goes considerably further than 3) in challenging heterosexism, because 4) presents gay/lesbian/bisexual characters in happy sexual relationships. By contrast 3) would still be compatible with a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to all non-heterosexual sexuality. Not that it's actually presenting it that way, but it doesn't challenge that view, whereas 4) does.<BR/><BR/><I>of the authors I have read, JR Ward has done more than anyone to bring the issue of homosexuality and the diverse arrays of sexuality to mainstream white hetero audiences. [...] You would see women writing in saying "I never wanted to read about men getting it on together, but I fell in love with Vishous and Butch."</I><BR/><BR/>Didn't she stop short of including a homosexual relationship in the series, though? I haven't read them myself, but I got the impression that there were plenty of disappointed readers who had wanted to read about Vishous and Butch "getting it on together."Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-65770069669289246102008-09-22T18:02:00.000+01:002008-09-22T18:02:00.000+01:00Jessica, you ask, 'I wonder if having best gay fri...Jessica, you ask, 'I wonder if having best gay friends or positively portraying gay couples is enough to displace heteronormativity in romance.'<BR/><BR/>Why do we need to 'displace heteronormativity'? In all mammals, heterosexuality <B>IS</B> the norm in purely statistical terms, because of the biological imperative of reproduction. In any given human society, there are therefore many more individuals who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex than there are individuals who are sexually attracted to their own sex, or to both (or to items of clothing, animals of other species, pre-pubescent children, and other tastes that even the most liberal might feel dubious about embracing as a norm). They used to quote the figure 85%:15% for straight:gay, but I feel sure that newer research will probably exist, and will almost certainly have increased the latter figure. But even if it were as high as 75%:25%, which I seriously doubt, there is no question as to which is the 'norm'.<BR/><BR/>I don't see this issue as being about norms at all, but about the validity of certain types of variation. Because human personal relationships are so complex, sex is always only a part of the story. Emotional issues are equally important, and of course, one can have love without sex and sex without love. Homosexuals are a <I>minority</I>, but a significant minority, and crucially, one whose preferences do not in any imaginable way cause any harm to themselves or to other members of society. But they are not a 'norm' in the way that bog-standard heterosexuals are. <BR/><BR/>Fiction that portrays deeply bonded homosexual couples in a matter-of-fact way as being no less, and no more, a proper component of a stable human society than heterosexual ones seems to me to be making a very significant and positive statement indeed: one that is self-evident to many of us, but still rather revolutionary to some others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-50828744910561644132008-09-22T17:11:00.000+01:002008-09-22T17:11:00.000+01:00Wow! Am I late to this discussion. I feel like I o...Wow! Am I late to this discussion. I feel like I ought to amplify my comment (and thanks for quoting it, Laura, although I recognize it was not entirely in approval). <BR/><BR/>I wonder if having best gay friends or positively portraying gay couples is enough to displace heteronormativity in romance.<BR/><BR/>I guess it depends on how you define the problem. If the problem is merely that we need positive images of homosexuality in romance, happy gay friends of the h/h may do it (and they are certainly a hell of a lot better than the once typical evil gay character). <BR/><BR/>But if you want more than "tolerance", if you want to actually get rid of the idea that heterosexuality is a moral norm (and homosexuality is a moral abnorm (!), or at least is less morally preferable) then maybe you need to displace the centrality of the h/h, by featuring more same sex couples at the center.<BR/><BR/>Sure, heterosexual readers probably prefer to read about heterosexuals. but how is that different from white readers wanting to read about white couples? Is it mere preference, or is there something unsettling about it? <BR/><BR/>Interestingly, of the authors I have read, JR Ward has done more than anyone to bring the issue of homosexuality and the diverse arrays of sexuality to mainstream white hetero audiences. Participating (well, lurking) in her official boards and the unofficial Ward boards gave me a glimpse into the way books can change people's viewpoints on things like sexuality. You would see women writing in saying "I never wanted to read about men getting it on together, but I fell in love with Vishous and Butch." <BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for the great post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-148702850256570812008-09-22T13:51:00.000+01:002008-09-22T13:51:00.000+01:00Laura, if I have time, I'll try to compile a list ...Laura, if I have time, I'll try to compile a list of JAK novels with gay/lesbian characters. I don't think there are any in her category romances (probably Harlequin/Silhouette rules forbade gay characters even in the background in the 1980s!) so I'll only have to search the last 15 years or so. I'll e-mail you if/when I get together a useful list.<BR/><BR/>Moving outside the romance genre <I>per se</I>, may I plug the novels of the late Jane Rule again? Jane Rule was, in my view, by far the finest Canadian novelist of the 20th century, but because she was herself lesbian, and in a fairly high-profile way, her books have been ghettoised as 'gay fiction' and are not as well known as they should be outside that readership. While all her stories, as far as I recall, have some gay/lesbian characters, they are about people generally and their interactions, so they all have heterosexual characters too - in fact, they depict that normal, everyday mix of gay and straight that we all know in real life, and that Jayne Ann Krentz tries to reflect in her novels, too. Jane R. was observing it from the gay side, JAK from the hetero side, but both writers had/have an all-embracing non-judgemental interest in how people live and love.<BR/><BR/>Jane Rule's breakthrough book (published in 1969, I think - haven't got it to hand just now to check) was an overt lesbian romance; <I>The Desert of the Heart</I>. A truly ghastly film was made of it in the 1970s, and is best forgotten. Though not one of her best, that first book is interesting and highly important. Many of her later books seem to me to be literature of lasting quality.<BR/><BR/>Any comments here from younger readers who are familiar with recent gay/lesbian novels? Does anyone still read Jane Rule? If not, please give her a try!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com