This is the basic tenet of M/M fiction. Straight women pose as gay men—all these writers have either taken male pen names, like Erastes (who has actually had a male bio to go with her male pen name) or names that are, like Beecroft’s purposefully gender-vague—and write about gay male relationships.
Really? All gay romance writers pose as gay men? Goodness, I must have missed the memo! I’d better change my penname, pronto. Er, except for the fact that I’ve never hid that I’m a woman. Yes, some female M/M writers use male pennames — although it seems to be less common today than it was when the current gay romance boom was still a fledgling industry.
Before rising to fame as a suspense/horror writer, Dean Kootnz wrote romance novels under a female pseudonym. He obviously did this because the audience for these novels would likely not buy a book by a man. (One of the aspects I’ve enjoyed in his thrillers is that he often includes a satisfying romance, and I wasn’t surprised at all to learn he’s a former romance writer.)
Perhaps now that so many women are buying M/M novels, authors don’t feel it’s a detriment to their career to have female pennames. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I’ve never hidden my gender. A glance at the author list at M/M publisher Dreamspinner Press reveals a plethora of female names. So this sweeping generalization is simply untrue.
In the M/M stories–a majority of which are historical romances in which class and age inequities prevail–there is a “male” man and a “female” man. As in lesbian pulps written by men, class and power inequities force the younger, “female” partner into situations that would be untenable in a real queer relationship.
A majority of M/M novels are historical romances? Again, here’s another point that is simply untrue. Believe me, as a fan of gay historical romance, it is not the majority of stories! At Torquere Press, a click on the historical genre provides 106 stories. Contemporary? 964. Math was never my strong suit, but I think the majority is clear. Dreamspinner has 73 historicals, and 382 contemporary. (I’m using these publishers as examples because they publish solely M/M or LGBT content.) There are also many more stories in genres such as paranormal and mystery than there are in historical.
A feature of M/M novels is often rape. A stronger man rapes a younger, more feminine man. This was often a feature of lesbian pulps and lesbian porn written by men. The “male” lesbian raped the “female” lesbian, making it easier for her to desert the lesbian for a “real” man because there was suddenly no difference between a lesbian and a “real” man.
In actual gay male relationships, men don’t rape each other. That breaks the bond–just as it would in a heterosexual relationship. That these women writers don’t know that is part of the fetishizing of the gay male bond.
I cannot think of one gay romance I’ve read wherein one protagonist rapes the other. Can anyone name one? I’m sure some must exist, but this is NOT the norm.
In “Sex and the City,” the women occasionally watched gay male porn. In the new film about lesbian parenting, “The Kids Are All Right,” the two lesbians also watch gay male porn. In “Sex and the City,” the reason for watching is clear: there are no women to interfere with the sexuality of the men. But the action is voyeuristic, not paternalistic….Neither of these scenes read as fetishistic–it’s voyeuristic but it’s also approbative. These women are not interested in appropriating, changing or reviling gay male sexuality or relationships.
Ms. Brownworth and I are in complete agreement here. And it is in this spirit that many women, myself included, read and write M/M romance. It’s not a fetishizing, or feminizing. Least of all a reviling of gay male sexuality! Why on earth would we read and write about something we revile?
In M/M fiction, there is an inherent disrespect of the gay male relationship. Even descriptions of gay male sex and the language used to describe it is wrong. The term “fisting” is used repeatedly as a synonym for masturbation. (Try and envision that physical anomaly!) The term “honeyed cleft”–long a term used for the female sexual entrance–is used to describe the male anus.
“Honeyed cleft“? Excuse me while I laugh myself silly! Whether used to describe a vagina or an anus, that’s just terrible writing. “Fisted” has been used in terms of taking a cock in one’s fist and stroking it. IMO, two meanings to the word have evolved, but fair enough.
I think the issue here is that Ms. Brownworth is reading awful M/M. Like badfic in fandom, there are bad gay romances out there. I’m not denying that. But there are also many excellent stories. She goes on to say in the comments to the article:
As long as the majority of M/M writers act as if sexual orientation is a choice like whatever one wears on a given day, then this discourse is meaningless because it misses the point entirely.
Who acts like that? Yes, there are some “gay for you” stories in the genre. But to say that a majority of M/M writers treat sexual orientation as a choice is simply untrue.
How many straight M/M writers even know what ENDA, DOMA and DADT are? And how much they impact our lives?
*raises hand* I’m Canadian, but I know what these American terms mean, and I know their importance. I’ve supported LGBT equality for years. I don’t know anyone who writes M/M and doesn’t.
Of course, I cannot speak for all M/M authors. In every genre, there will be good writers, and there will be bad. To make sweeping and simply untrue generalizations really isn’t going to help an argument. Ms. Brownworth seems to have a particular axe to grind with authors Lee Rowan and Erastes. For the record, I don’t know either of them and am not part of their “band of flying monkeys.” Then there’s this:
Eliza claimed to have read 1,553 M/M novels. (I told her that she might have less of a language problem if she were reading something less low-brow, but that was probably mean of me.)
First, it’s Elisa (Rolle). And the personal attack on her English proficiency (I’d like to see how well Ms. Brownworth writes in a second language) is incredibly unprofessional, mean-spirited and really tells me everything I need to know about Victoria Brownworth.
I hear ya. As I’m sure you already knew.
I think it’s an interesting issue, but when an article is so full of false information presented as facts, it’s not doing anyone any good. The personal attacks from Brownworth in the comments further negate any credibility she might have had.
The “article” sounds like the author heard a friend complaining about some bad M/M books he or she read, and she wrote it based on those complaints.
If this were handed in for a grade in any Freshman English class, it would be returned covered in red ink, asking for sources to be cited and all of the generalizations to be edited. Opinions can be whatever they want to be. Printed Opinion/Editorial pieces need to have some basis in reality, with evidence to back them up. The author, and the “literary magazine” in which it appears, have failed miserably on that count.
Printed Opinion/Editorial pieces need to have some basis in reality, with evidence to back them up. The author, and the “literary magazine” in which it appears, have failed miserably on that count.
Indeed. It’s disappointing, because any valid points Brownworth might have are lost.
I just…I…I can’t even. Rage. Raaaaage.
This is the same feeling I get whenever someone – usually an “outsider,” but not always – thinks they have the right to “explain” why all female M/M writers/readers do what they do – or why women might watch gay porn, etc. etc. The baseless generalizations, the patronizing attitude that they know you better than you know yourself, demeaning the work as “low-brow” and so on. It’s all so insulting. I particularly love the common argument about fetishization and not respecting the real-life struggles of the LGBT community. Of course there are some who are like that, but the vast majority of the people I interact with are MUCH more educated on the issues than the average person, highly dedicated to equality causes and – gasp – may even be personally affected by them in their “real lives.”
And God no! Not pseudonyms! No writer has ever used one of those! Please. You can find that in any genre, especially ones like fantasy/sci fi, mystery and romance. And like you said – there are also plenty of male writers who have taken on female personas to write romance novels. Double standard much?
Yeah, it’s a whole lot of gettin’ it wrong in one article!
the vast majority of the people I interact with are MUCH more educated on the issues than the average person, highly dedicated to equality causes and – gasp – may even be personally affected by them in their “real lives.”
The devil you say! Yeah, I don’t know who these slashers are who don’t care about gay rights. I suppose they exist — there are a ton of stupid people out there — but I can’t think of one M/M author I know who isn’t a LGBT ally.
Something that came back to me this morning about this article that bothered me was the idea that heterosexual women do not know what “fisting” is, or that not knowing what “fisting” is only applies to heterosexual women.
First, some heterosexual women *do* know what fisting is, and some actually engage in fisting with their SOs. And, on the other side of the equation, some young gay people might not know what fisting is, simply because they’ve never heard of it yet. And let’s leave aside the argument that you put forth that perhaps two meanings for the word have come into existence for the purposes of writing sex – the problem isn’t heterosexual women writing m/m sex. It’s that some writers don’t do their research and are writing *bad* stories, period. To sum it up as though the problem is purely because of the person’s sexuality is ridiculous. The problem is ignorance and people writing badly. Gay men write badly sometimes, too.
Err, sorry, I got distracted. What I was trying to get across with the fisting thing is that “fisting” is not “gay language”. It’s not an activity that is owned by gays and that hets know nothing about. So, to imply that a heterosexual woman using that term for masturbation is doing that because she doesn’t understand how gay men (or gay women) have sex is a fallacy. The woman using it that way in her writing *might* not know what fisting is, but it has nothing to do with her sexuality. It has to do, perhaps, with her knowledge of sex acts. Being straight doesn’t mean that you don’t know what fisting means. Not knowing what fisting means is all that is required to not know what fisting means. Sexuality has nothing to do with it. And she *might* be using it in the alternate way that you describe, but that’s beside the point.
I totally agree!
the problem isn’t heterosexual women writing m/m sex. It’s that some writers don’t do their research and are writing *bad* stories, period. To sum it up as though the problem is purely because of the person’s sexuality is ridiculous.
Perfectly stated.