A perfectly wonderful post.
Just as nudity isn’t sex, romance isn’t either — a romance needn’t have any erotic element at all. Even if it does, it doesn’t have to reach pornographic levels. There’s a reason Erotica is a separate genre, after all.
- Porn for Women (sexandparenting.wordpress.com)
- Some Things I Don’t Get About the Literary World (amberskyeforbes.wordpress.com)
- Is Erotica Literary Porn? (sugaryspicyreads.com)
- New Release News: Bonded Hearts by Tasmin Baker #Erotic #Romance #LGBT (bexbooknook.wordpress.com)
- the real issue with that jessewave hoopla, imo (ameliabishop.wordpress.com)
I feel like this should go without saying, right?
And yet, not a day goes by when I don’t read some tweet, some article, some inane facebook post by someone who has never even read a romance novel, decrying “mommy porn” or “mummy porn” or “porn for women.”
And then, just yesterday, I caught this little forehead smacker on the NPR book blog (hat tip to @sesmithwrites on twitter):
“The American Library Association and Barnes & Noble were among the groups named by conservative group Morality in Media in its “Dirty Dozen List” of “the top 12 facilitators of porn.””
Okay, full stops between every word required this time.
Romance. Is. Not. Porn.
This comparison does a disservice to romance writers and readers, and it does a disservice to the hardworking men and women in the pornography industry and their fans as well.
So why do we…
View original post 549 more words