And The F*cktard Of The Week Goes To...
Jan W Butler for apparently writing the following in an edition of the Romance Writers Report, courtesy of Kate’s blog.
. . . romance isn't about just any "two people" celebrating "love in its many forms." Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating love "two people" (or more) finding love in one of its many forms" . . . while they actively promote pedophilia.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
You know, I’d love to know what the Queen bees of romance think of articles like this. I wonder if they secretly agree, or if they’re disgusted by the absolute drivel that comes from the mouths of people who should know better.
BTW, I didn’t realise that the RWA only targets college-educated, married, middle-class, monogamous, and moral people? So unmarried women don’t read romance?
. . . romance isn't about just any "two people" celebrating "love in its many forms." Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating love "two people" (or more) finding love in one of its many forms" . . . while they actively promote pedophilia.
Think RWA can't go down that slipper slope? Think again. Under our present definition, we cannot exclude such "love stories" under the category of "romance". We, as a culture, seem to have forgotten how to say "enough is enough," but RWA can--indeed, must--do better than that. . . .
And, please, spare us the arguments about "censorship" and "inclusiveness." Preference for "one man, one woman" stories represents what RWA has always claimed is romance's target demographic: college-educated, married, middle-class, monogamous, and moral. . . .Only in recent years has a vocal (translate: shrill) minority tried to drive RWA's focus off that path, under the guise of "broadening its horizons." But refusing to define romance according to the parameters it has held for centuries doesn't "broaden" anything . . . it only starts us down the aforementioned slope, and once we're in that slide, heaven help us.
There's an old saying, "Go home with the one who brought you here." What brought romance fiction to its present level of success is a collection of decades' worth of one-man, one-woman relationships stories, in all their richness, variety, and power. RWA should be the first to endorse that, rather than attempting to placate fringe groups trying to impose their standards upon the rest of us. If anyone's in danger of being "censored" here, it's believers in "what comes naturally": one-man, one-woman romance. We in RWA owe it to ourselves not to let that happen. Jan W. Butler
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
You know, I’d love to know what the Queen bees of romance think of articles like this. I wonder if they secretly agree, or if they’re disgusted by the absolute drivel that comes from the mouths of people who should know better.
BTW, I didn’t realise that the RWA only targets college-educated, married, middle-class, monogamous, and moral people? So unmarried women don’t read romance?
<< Home