melannen: Commander Valentine of Alpha Squad Seven, a red-haired female Nick Fury in space, smoking contemplatively (Default)
melannen ([personal profile] melannen) wrote2010-01-16 03:46 pm

Science, y'all.

ETA early morning jan 18: a short follow-up with more poll numbers + things /ETA

I was going to wait and post this later, with a much more elaborate stastistical work-up, population variables and meta-analysis - because I think it's interesting in its own right - but the ongoing conversation I'm seeing, and the extremely clear result I'm getting, is making me think it's more important to get the facts out there, than to make them pretty.

So: Are slashers straight?

I spent an afternoon and evening finding all of the polls & surveys of slash demographics I could that included a question on sexuality. Some I already had bookmarked, some I found through google, delicious, and following citations in academic papers. I'm sure there are more out there, and if you have links to more more polls I would love to add their data to my analysis. But you know what? The results of the ones I've found are pretty consistent, across a large range of survey population. And it is, to be quite honest, not the result I was expecting, even as a slasher who does not herself identify as straight, and is used to finding people like her in fandom.

Are slashers straight?


I present to you the raw numbers on sexuality for the 10 polls & surveys I could find results for, plus several more I could only find references to.

You'll note that there are a variety of categories used for sexuality; for the purposes of the meta-analysis, I am counting as "straight" any poll answer that was straight, heterosexual, primarily heterosexual, heteroflexible, or direct equivalent. I am using "queer" as shorthand for everybody else, including people who self-identified as bi-leaning-straight, questioning, and asexual. (You'll also note that the polls that included options beyond gay, straight, and bi had *significant* numbers of participants choosing them, something you might want to consider in general when talking about fans' sexuality. Just fyi.)

I only listed gender statistics for a few of the polls. That's because I'm lazy, and the way LJ polls work, separating out the responses by gender wouldn't have been terribly meaningful without a lot of annoying hand-collating anyway, so for the record: any poll with no gender statistics here either had no gender question, or over 90% self-identified women respondents. As this analysis is mostly meant to address the question of slashers' sexuality, I'm leaving gender identity unexamined for the quick'n'dirty version. (Though I'll note that only one of the polls had options specifically involving non-gender-binary people and orientation. Other possibilities, fandom: they exist.)

http://www.libraryofmoria.com/jsr/part2.html#21
2003
Library of Moria, a LOTR fic archive
Participants: 275
Heterosexual: 124
Mostly Heterosexual: 39
Bisexual: 84
Mostly Homosexual: 0
Homosexual: 10
Undecided: 6
Non-sexual: 2
Percent identified as queer: 37%

http://rushlight75.livejournal.com/38193.html
2003-10-14
Pre-metafandom, but widely distributed through its precursors
Participants: 1000
Male: 26
Female: 974
Only result available is an average Kinsey Scale rating: 1.8
(which kind of comes out to 40% queer, but not really)

http://idroppedarice.livejournal.com/59133.html
7-28-2004
Harry Potter slashers, by way of Fiction Alley Park
365 participants
straight: 173
bi: 119
gay: 22
undecided: 49
Percent identified as queer: 52.7%

http://lavinialavender.livejournal.com/179885.html
4-28-2005
locked, but currently available through Google's cache; mostly HP and anime slashers
participants: 203
straight: 85
gay: 8
bi: 73
Confused: 36
Percent identifying as queer: 54.6%

http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/242137/results
2006-2-13
posted by Proserpina "For the yaoi girls", but I have no idea where it was linked/promoted.
total: 43
heterosexual: 23
homosexual: 1
bisexual: 11
pansexual: 2
asexual: 1
unsure: 5
Percent identifying as queer: 53% 47%

http://hederahelix.livejournal.com/259632.html
6-29-2006
Mostly the metafandom crowd; specifically slash-focused.
Participants: 402
Heterosexual: 35
Heterosexual but slasher: 62
Bisexual, but heterosexual in practice: 102
Bisexual: 128
Bisexual, but queer in practice: 26
Lesbian, gay, queer, etc but slasher: 30
Lesbian, gay, queer, etc: 19
Percent identified as queer: 76%

http://wisdomeagle.livejournal.com/931805.html
February 2, 2007
Mostly the metafandom crowd; not all slashers - includes het & gen fans.
469 participants
straight women: 206
bi/omni/pansexual women: 186
lesbians: 56
asexual: 30
Straight men: 10
bi men: 5
Gay men: 3
Percent participants who identify as queer: 59.7%

http://jadelennox.livejournal.com/265022.html
Feb 7, 2007
A small poll of one fan writer's circle, not specifically fandom-focused:
Participants: 35
straight: 8
gay: 1
bisexual: 10
sligtly bisexual (kinsey 1 or 5): 9
other: 5
Percent participants who identified as queer: 71%

http://sailorptah.dreamwidth.org/11270.html
Feb 13, 2008
Mostly the metafandom & anime crowd, but not specifically fandom-focused; a freeform survey which emphasized complex & fluid sexuality
Total participants: 71
Identified as some subset of queer: 60
Percent participants who identified as queer: 84.5%

http://kleenexwoman.livejournal.com/248586.html
2-12-2008
Mostly the metafandom crowd, but with some exposure outside it
Participants: 577
gay: 25
bi-leaning-gay: 47
bi: 62
pan: 76
bi-leaning-straight: 84
straight: 192
asexual: 37
other: 23
no labels: 31
Percent identifying as queer: 66.7%

Polls whose results are not included in this analysis:

There are two other polls on FAP, but they were free-response threads and I'd've had to collate the results by hand, which I didn't have time for: http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.php?s=f041f722f3998ddd1bfbc6055d650507&threadid=19455&highlight=slash+survey and http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.phps=f041f722f3998ddd1bfbc6055d650507&threadid=133998&highlight=slash+survey

...it's on my list.

[personal profile] blnchflr ran a poll through metafandom sometime in early February, 2007, which was deleted, originally at: http://skuf.livejournal.com/132143.html . The only data I could find was a reference that it was "running closer to just 35% saying they are "strictly het".

I found several fandom demographics polls pre-dating 2003, but none of them had a sexuality question, which is interesting in its own right. (I suspect that the farther you go back in slash's history, the less likely it is that we would have even dared to ask these questions, and the less likely we would have gotten accurate answers, if we did. And in a time when fanfic was getting a *lot* of flak from the straight world, presenting an image to outsiders of "ordinary housewives" was important. I think the time when we need that protective image is fading.)

Finally, Wikipedia's reference for saying that "polls claim most slashers are heterosexual women", which has propagated everywhere, is Anne Kustritz's paper "Slashing the Romance Narrative", first published in the Journal of Amercan Culture in 2003, available in pdf here: http://www.laurientaylor.org/research/sources/slashfic.pdf . She, in turns, cites three informal fandom essays in her fandom demographics section, which is only a small part of the paper - those three essays are no more or less rigorous or inclusive than the 11 I have analysed here, note. The first is a clearly parodic essay on the Sith Academy, http://www.siubhan.com/sithacademy/criticalintro.html , which uses no poll or survey data, and does not even touch on the question of slashers' sexuality (despite Kustritz' citation implying it does.) The second is given the URL http://www.apps4.vantagenet.com/zpolls/count.asp?rlt=91221204045&id=91221204045 , which was a poll of the Darth Maul Estrogen Brigade in 2000. It is no longer available online, nor can I find any other references to it remaining online. The second was at http://www.sockii.com/ma/criticalintro.htm ; it is also no longer online, and I can find no details on it whatsoever except the date given of 1999, though the URL + the other references in the paper strongly imply that it was limited to TPM fandom, like the others.

(I will also note, because it seems worth noting, that the demographics section of that paper was very strongly trying to make the point that slashers are NICE WELL-ADJUSTED WOMEN WHO ARE NOT DEVIANT OR SCARY, so I am inclined to think the author had a bias toward categorizing slashers as heterosexual, especially as she uses the phrase "mostly to totally heterosexual" in the passage with the citation, but does not qualify heterosexual anywhere else. There is a lot of wiggle room in "mostly", as the variety of categories in the polls I listed above demonstrate. ...also, I @#$%&^@$ hate wikipedia's goddamn paternalistic notability and citation rules, since it means those two ten-year-old Phantom Menace polls somehow turned into GOSPEL TRUTH on the way to the printing press.)

So, over 9 polls, in a variety of slash subfandoms from the late-teens yaoi set to the mid-thirties meta fans set, dates ranging over 7 years. Only onetwo polls had less than 50% queer participants, and that wasone of them the earliest one, and even they were at 37% and 47%. The median percent of queer participants was 59.7%, and the mean was 61.5% 60.8%.

SO when people say things like "slash fans are appropriating queer experience", what THE MAJORITY OF SLASHERS, WHO IDENTIFY AS QUEER hear is either "you aren't queer enough, your queer identity isn't real" or "male voices are the only ones qualified to speak for the queer community."

I think the question of how queer women can appropriate queer men's identity, and the damage that can be done when gay men speaking about themselves are drowned out by women, are valid discussion topics, and worth addressing. That is not a conversation that is going to happen as long as THE MAJORITY OF SLASHERS, WHO IDENTIFY AS QUEER, are being erased from the discussion. fyi.

And SO when people say things like "slash is a legitimate way for straight women to express their sexuality", what THE MAJORITY OF SLASHERS, WHO IDENTIFY AS QUEER hear is either "you aren't queer enough, your queer identity isn't relevant" or "straight voices are the only ones qualified to speak for the slash community".

I think the question of how straight women's sexuality interacts with queer sexuality, and the ways straight women's sexuality defines slash, are valid discussion topics, and worth addressing. That is not a conversation that is going to happen as long as THE MAJORITY OF SLASHERS, WHO IDENTIFY AS QUEER, are being erased from the discussion. fyi.

Can I say that one more time? I like saying it. Science makes me happy.

THE MAJORITY OF SLASHERS IDENTIFY AS QUEER.

ETA: People in comments have pointed out math errors that change the numbers slightly: I've added corrections in the relevant places. The conclusions still stand, however (for now.)

ETA 2 early morning jan 18: a short follow-up with more poll numbers + things /ETA 2
princessofgeeks: (Damn Fangirls by Lotr Junkie)

[personal profile] princessofgeeks 2010-01-19 01:52 am (UTC)(link)
i don't see us as having clung to the straight-woman conception, as such -- hard as this may be to believe, no one has made the attempt to gather the available surveys the way you have. We've just swallowed the conventional wisdom, I deem. in the absence of anything other than a vague feeling, and a reluctance to assume our F lists are representative.

i've been following this "who writes slash" question with interest only since 2003, but I honestly have never seen anyone dig into the available data the way you have.

THANK YOU!!!
princessofgeeks: (Default)

[personal profile] princessofgeeks 2010-01-19 02:03 am (UTC)(link)
THIS
kennahijja: (Lucius)

[personal profile] kennahijja 2010-01-19 02:25 am (UTC)(link)
There's also slash darkfic that doesn't focus on romance and relationships (the same goes for het, of course).
sqbr: And yet all I can think is, this will make for a great Dreamwidth entry... (dreamwidth)

[personal profile] sqbr 2010-01-19 03:05 am (UTC)(link)
Also go suggest that Dreamwidth be persuaded to spit up the uncompiled code of any poll that's been posted so you don't have to bust your ass once you have a good one, just take it and go.

I agree with everything you said, but YES to this bit :)
sqbr: A cartoon cat saying Ham! (ham!)

[personal profile] sqbr 2010-01-19 03:07 am (UTC)(link)
Yes! And also yes to melannen 's reply.
sqbr: pretty purple pi (existentialism)

[personal profile] sqbr 2010-01-19 03:08 am (UTC)(link)
*nods*

And yes, the definition of "slasher" seems to be this whole other contentious question!
azurelunatic: "Azz: LiveJournal Suggestions Queen" (suggestions queen)

[personal profile] azurelunatic 2010-01-19 03:09 am (UTC)(link)
And I have. (Though the icon is slightly off-topic in that it's for ye olde zhzh.)
azurelunatic: Vivid pink Alaskan wild rose. (Default)

[personal profile] azurelunatic 2010-01-19 03:19 am (UTC)(link)
And I see "poly" as a different category entirely from swinging and cheating, though more related to swinging.

... this thing's not a small survey, eh.
amycat: Two of our three cats; my moggie-boys being cuddly. (Bjorn&Gryphon)

[personal profile] amycat 2010-01-19 03:45 am (UTC)(link)
"...I am really uncomfortable with arguments like 'I like slash, so therefore I'm queer'..."

Sorry, I didn't phrase that well, did I? :-( For me, it's really a feeling that (as Martin Niemoller said of the Nazis) the "haters" will count me in with the others they want to oppress, due to my associations and choices, so I'd damn well better be standing in solidarity with the rest of my geek, weirdo, and "queer" friends before They come for me "and no one is left to speak up"...

The other point I was trying to express: given how many of my friends in "slash" fandoms are self-identified "queer" (and not just "in solidarity" as I am), I'm uncomfortable with seeing some of the "YOU straight-girl romance fans are f*cking with OUR gay fiction!" comments that started this discussion. There were far too many in some places I found (via LinkSPAM) that feel like "EEEW! Gurrrl-Cooties!" complaints, rather than logical arguments (e.g.: "gay" characters written by non-"gay" authors were negative stereotypes, or followed unrealistically hetero-sexist relationship roles).

OTOH, I checked out the websites of some of those "straight woman writers writing m/m original fiction for straight female romance readers", and going by their own words, they ARE "fetishizing" gay sex the same way "straight" male producers of "girl-on-girl" porn are fetishizing lesbian sex. If I were a gay guy, didn't have any knowledge of "slash" fandoms, and thought ALL non-gays writing m/m fiction were creating commercial products for "straight" female fans, I'd probably find the non-fannish m/m romances annoying, especially if the "straight" writers used stereotypes and the same heterosexist tropes as in mainstream m/f romances.

Does this all make sense?
sqbr: Darkwing Duck in red (dw!)

[personal profile] sqbr 2010-01-19 03:54 am (UTC)(link)
Huzzah!

THE MAJORITY OF SLASHERS IDENTIFY AS QUEER

(Anonymous) 2010-01-19 09:12 am (UTC)(link)
Thank you SO MUCH.

[identity profile] fanficforensics.livejournal.com 2010-01-19 11:49 am (UTC)(link)
Thank you for putting all that together. I will make a coherent comment, once I manage to get away from work for an hour or so to look at these shiny data, and after I've finished strewing rose petals in your path.
erratic: Abstract painting (Default)

[personal profile] erratic 2010-01-19 04:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, I'm probably biased, but the Klein Grid looks to me like the pinnacle of sexual privilege. Seriously, not even the "sexual behavior" questions merit a "no one" option? (I'd add it to all the questions, but assuming people need to have had sex on the last 12 months to figure out their sexual orientation seems crazy to me). I can't fill that thing without lying on half of my answers, and I don't even identify as asexual! I go with queer or "bi", my sexuality is fluid across the Kinsey spectrum and the sexual-asexual spectrum.

(Anonymous) 2010-01-19 04:59 pm (UTC)(link)
The number of "not-straight" people is probably higher than the polls suggest due to the number of fans who choose not to out themselves online and therefore will not participate in the poll.

Also, I have to ask: if you read (and write) a lot of fiction about gay people, are you "a normal straight woman"? The original intent of people saying that was to present us as non-threatening, mainstream people. Why is there still so much emphasis on "normal" and "straight"? Why do so many slashers want to be seen that way? Fear that queer-bashing will extend to those of us who are normally safe in a little cocoon of straight privilege? I'm thinking of this because I just heard that a well-known slasher has been "outed" in Real Life and it's having serious consequences for her. And I'm certainly aware of many slashers who keep it a secret from family,employers, etc.

What you've done here is great, but let's take it further - let's ask ourselves - if your slash life is in the closet - just how "normal and straight" are you? Are we normal, and do we want to be? If so, why?

(Anonymous) 2010-01-19 07:05 pm (UTC)(link)
FABULOUS! Thank you from a queer gal.
ivorygates: (Default)

[personal profile] ivorygates 2010-01-19 07:46 pm (UTC)(link)
I suspect it goes hand in hand with the greater prevalence of stereotypical m/f romance genre plots and tropes

This might have something to do with the fact that most of the pro m/m i've seen is being marketed as Romances to a Romance audience.

I really do kind of wish you'd used the word "archetypal" rather than "stereotypical" there, because the Romance, like the Hero's Quest, contains certain specific elements for a reason, and it isn't because their readers or writers lack imagination. It's the old thing about the jelly beans and the chili recipe: jelly beans are great, and chili is great, and a chili recipe calling for jelly beans isn't a chili recipe...
ivorygates: (Default)

[personal profile] ivorygates 2010-01-19 07:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Can I say that one more time? I like saying it. Science makes me happy.

THE MAJORITY OF SLASHERS IDENTIFY AS QUEER.


No.

The majority of slash-writers in on-line fandom WHO TAKE POLLS identify as queer.

I admit that yes, your data collection does serve a really important function, as it is irrefutable, based on your evidence, that [in the 21st Century] ALL SLASH WRITERS ARE NOT HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN.

But until you can poll a cross-fandom cross-age-cohort statistically-representative sampling of currently-active slash writers, you cannot say that the majority of them identify with one orientation or another. Or another. Or another...

[identity profile] fanficforensics.livejournal.com 2010-01-19 08:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Word. I feel a bit unsure about the purpose of the sexual experience question, actually. But I have no survey-making experience, so maybe it's just because that question made me flash back to all the times I've heard people claim that actual sexual experience = orientation.

[identity profile] fanficforensics.livejournal.com 2010-01-19 08:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay, coherency time. You may already know this one, but in the poll described in this article (http://www.participations.org/Volume%205/Issue%202/5_02_pagliassotti.htm), 47% of BL manga readers identified as heterosexual in an English-language survey, and 62% of BL manga readers identified as heterosexual in the same survey when it was done among Italian-speaking readers. It's about BL manga, not slash, but pretty interesting in light of your findings. (I should really try to find data about how much overlap there is between slash and BL manga readership. This must have featured in at least a couple of surveys already...)

The following is just speculation based purely on my own personal experience. I think it's possible that numbers in these polls got a little bit skewed in the direction of 'queer' because a) the polls were taken in an environment where admitting queerness is not generally a problem, as others have already mentioned and b) people like to make their voice heard, and if a poll offers them a chance to make their voice heard when they can do that only infrequently IRL, they might rush to participate. People who identify as mostly or entirely heterosexual might not feel much need to affirm their identity. Me on the other hand, I love ticking the little box besides 'bisexual' so much, because I don't get to tick that box every day. It's kind of a way to yell "Hey, I exist, there's bi people in this fandom!". If a poll offers me the opportunity to tick that box, I'll feel happy and be much more inclined to finish it than if it offers only, say, 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' as choices. So perhaps heterosexual fans might not flock towards these polls with quite as much enthusiasm as fans who identify as queer. By which I don't mean to call into question the basic point of your post -if the numbers are skewed towards 'queer', it certainly won't be by much.
kleenexwoman: The legs and shoes of three different people, looking as flirtatious as legs and shoes can be.  (Three pairs of shoes)

[personal profile] kleenexwoman 2010-01-19 09:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Hi! I just noticed you included my poll in your entry; I'd noticed new people voting on it and was wondering WTF was going on, since it's almost two years old. The original purpose of it was going to be to explore the correlation between slashers' sexuality and the way they portrayed the sexuality of the characters they wrote about, but I never got around to compiling all of the data (although there were some fascinating discussions in comments). I'm glad it could be of some use to you!
petronia: (Default)

[personal profile] petronia 2010-01-19 10:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Butting in, sorry!

I've participated in the BL/yaoi end of anime/manga fandom for more than a decade, and would simply not identify myself as a "slasher", even though I read and occasionally write in Wmedia fandoms, and am of the opinion that in 2010 the cultural difference between BL/yaoi fen and slashfen is no greater than what one would normally get cross-fandom. It's just not the word we use. The majority of my flist, I would guess, would pick the "writes non-heterosexual-gender-binary romantic/erotic works but would not describe any of them as slash" option. It's up to you whether you want to isolate BL/yaoi as a separate response from that. I will say, though, that I very much feel BL/yaoi fandom is either erased or misrepresented in these types of debates (eg. one of my major irritations is mischaracterization of the concept of "seme/uke" as "feminization", often by writers who themselves produce very "seme/uke"-type stories... but that's another post), so if the box existed I would tick it with enthusiasm rather than the usual "enhhh not quite but" feeling.
holyschist: Image of a medieval crocodile from Herodotus, eating a person, with the caption "om nom nom" (Default)

[personal profile] holyschist 2010-01-19 11:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, yes. Romances marketed to romance readers are going to have romance tropes. But in this case, I think that may be even more problematic than many of those tropes are in m/f romance.

1) Stereotypes are not inherently bad. Archetypes are not inherently good. The romance genre (like any other) contains both archetypes and stereotypes, as well as its fair share of cliches.

2) Many of the romance genre archetypes/stereotypes are pretty darn toxic from where I'm sitting.

For example, that it's okay for a hero to be "overcome by passion" and rape the heroine, except she turns out to be a virgin, so he feels bad (he wouldn't have if she weren't), but she gets over it and they have True Love. It's still not an uncommon trope in historicals. And there are other, more insidious ones about gender roles, some of which I suspect are the ones gay male readers are objecting to having projected onto m/m couples. For example.

A recipe may call for sweetener, but there's a big difference between honey and high fructose corn syrup.

I don't think the entire romance genre is bad, but I do think it perpetuates some really awful mindsets (I feel the same way about some other genres, although those mindsets don't tend to be as focused in the area of romantic relationships).
ivorygates: (Default)

[personal profile] ivorygates 2010-01-19 11:42 pm (UTC)(link)
...

when was the last time you read a romance novel? no, i'm not trying to be bitchy, but the rape'n'ravage trope that you mention as being "still not uncommon" in historicals...

is.

rape is Just Not On between h/h, "even" in historicals [where accurate social attitudes would imply it, excuse it, and sometimes even mandate it]. even "forced seduction" is iffy.

"stereotypes" is a word commonly held to have a negative connotation as it implies a constellation of tropes which are both untrue and presented without reflection. "archetypes" carries the implication of universal concepts containing underlying truth.

but I am so glad to hear that you don't think the ENTIRE Romance genre is bad. I mean, as long as it knows its place and doesn't get too uppity, right? i mean, a genre written by women for women ... fuck, there's gotta be something wrong with it, amirite?

honestly: do you know how many squares on the Anti-Romance Bingo Card you just hit?

*headdesk*
holyschist: Image of a medieval crocodile from Herodotus, eating a person, with the caption "om nom nom" (Default)

[personal profile] holyschist 2010-01-19 11:50 pm (UTC)(link)
when was the last time you read a romance novel? no, i'm not trying to be bitchy, but the rape'n'ravage trope that you mention as being "still not uncommon" in historicals...

Last week, approximately I actually read quite a few romance novels. It's true it's less common than it used to be, but I've definitely seen it in historicals published within the last decade. And I've seen it in reviews of historicals on a fairly regular basis, so unless romance fans are going out of their way to find bad books, I dunno.

but I am so glad to hear that you don't think the ENTIRE Romance genre is bad. I mean, as long as it knows its place and doesn't get too uppity, right? i mean, a genre written by women for women ... fuck, there's gotta be something wrong with it, amirite?

I didn't realize one couldn't critique certain portrayals of women and of romantic relationships that are common but not universal in the romance genre without being anti-woman and anti-romance. I've seen these tropes critiqued regularly on websites by and for romance readers, like Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. There are many excellent romance novels. There are also many problematic ones. Critiquing the problematic ones is not equivalent to dismissing romance as a genre, any more than critiquing politically problematic scifi (which I do a lot more often, honestly) means scifi as a genre is worthless. But the problematic tropes of other genres is not relevant in a discussion that involves problematic and inappropriate m/f romance tropes being applied to m/m romance.

Do you really think there are no negative or problematic stereotypes that are unique to the romance genre? If that were the case, it would make it unique among genres.
ivorygates: (Default)

[personal profile] ivorygates 2010-01-20 12:29 am (UTC)(link)
Congratulations on several more squares on the Bingo Card.

Last week, approximately I actually read quite a few romance novels.

Published this year? Last year? Last ten years? Major publishing house? (Ellora's Cave doesn't count, for various reasons)

I've seen these tropes critiqued regularly on websites by and for romance readers, like Smart Bitches, Trashy Books.

Yes, I'm familiar with Smart Bitches, and all praise to them for cracking the Cassie Edwards story. But I'm smart enough to know their column is written to entertain: if they can't find bad books to "bitch" about, they don't have a column.

so now you're saying "rape'n'ravage" is something you've *seen*. In books. In the last DECADE. This is somehow different than it being the widespread toxic trope you implied at first.

And I've seen it in reviews of historicals on a fairly regular basis, so unless romance fans are going out of their way to find bad books, I dunno.

Depends on the site: laudatory reviews of good books aren't as interesting. And now [bingo!] we see the ingenuous head-scratch and head-shake...

I didn't realize one couldn't critique certain portrayals of women and of romantic relationships that are common but not universal in the romance genre without being anti-woman and anti-romance.

wow, it's tough to be a white man on teh internetz. oh, wait, sorry, wrong argument. the rape'n'ravage relationship *isn't* common. i may descend to repreating myself here soon. it isn't common, it isn't something the majority of readers like to see, it isn't something most writers feel comfortable with writing, and to say [as you have] that Romance is so filled with toxic stereotypes that it is impossible to write m/m Romance without critically-offending a gay male audience makes it kind of hard for me to imagine you as being *pro* Romance.

The whole subject of queering slash, or whether it was already queer to begin with, is a worthy one and also fascinating. i am saddened to see that so many commenters, in so many venues, take it as an opportunity to launch tangential attacks on the Romance genre at large.

Do you really think there are no negative or problematic stereotypes that are unique to the romance genre? If that were the case, it would make it unique among genres.

I call bullshit. Of course, to be charitable, you may actually not know what the word "stereotype" means. But to answer your question:

I do not think there are any negative or problematic stereotypes that are unique to the Romance genre except in the minds of literary bigots.

The word that screws all meaning out of your sentence?

"Stereotypes."

There are, actually, very few contemporarily-written genres that can claim to house negative or problematic STEREOTYPES in their contemporarily-published offerings. In all the wide world of Bookdom, there are books here and there -- Romances, SF novels, Fantasies, Mysteries -- which will contain (1) errors of fact (2) negative portrayals of an entire group, race, ethnic subgroup, religious denomination, gender, or sexual orientation; this is called a "negative stereotype" or sometimes a "cliche" (3) negative portrayals &c written because the writer is bringing the fail (4) culturally-neutral genre tropes that have the potential to annoy [in mysteries, the guilty are punished and justice is served; in Romance, the climax of the book is the HEA; in Westerns there are guns and horses].

Page 9 of 11