On the Presumed Heterosexual Cisgender Audience and Writing LGBT Romance

This whole argument that only straight cisgender women write and read LGBT romance needs to stop.

First of all there is no evidence that this is true, there has never been any widespread surveys done on either the readership or writers of LGBT romance. The largest statistical survey of romance readers was done by Romance Writers of America, and did not include data on sexual orientation or gender identity. Small survey attempts have been limited and inconclusive. While anecdotal evidence would call a cishet majority into question.

Therefore the assumption that any branch of LGBT romance is prominently written/read by straight cisgender women is questionable at best.

And here is the thing, the vast majority of the time when this assumption is brought up it is in the context of shutting down conversations about diversity, GLBT politics, representation, fetishization, sexism and racism within romance.

Usually this argument goes "well this is what sells because this is what these cisgender heterosexual women want to read. I wish it were different but if you want to sell books you just have to put your ideals aside and get back to writing bare-chested firefighters."  This is a problem because it supports the status quo and shuts down important conversations that need to happen. It also paints cisgender, heterosexual writers and readers in the worst possible light, as more interested in getting off than being allies.

Over the last three years that I have been actively writing in the romance genre I've come to the conclusion that this argument and assumption just needs to end. Whether or not it is based in any kind of statistical reality, we need to stop relying on it.

Not only does it shut down important conversations that need to happen but it also automatically assumes LGBT people are outsiders in a genre that deals primarily with representing them. It also assumes that the most important voices in the LGBT romance community are cisgender heterosexual ones.

For instance a lot of m/m romance publishers assume their readers and authors will mostly be cisgender heterosexual women with some gay cisgender men thrown in and the language they use reflects this. A lot of presses that started out as het romance publisher and have since branched into GLBT romance also use language that presumes cisgender heterosexuality. As does some presses that started out as m/m romance presses and became GLBT romance presses. Review blogs that started out or focus on m/m romance also often uses language rooted in this assumption. As does a lot of general romance, m/m romance or LGBT romance blogs.

Language is important. Inclusive language is something I look for when trying to tell if a publisher, blog or community will be welcoming and safe for me as a queer author and queer person. It doesn't really matter how many rainbows you plaster onto your website, if you participate in homophobia awareness events, or post lots of pictures of gay men kissing. If the language used is homophobic, transphobic or reads like this is a cishet only clubhouse it's going to give me pause. Or it may make me back off and not want to be part of that space all together.  

For instance when I first came into the m/m romance community the phrase "chicks with dicks" was used a lot. Publishers used it, reviewers used it, authors used it. Now I've been in fandom, I've written fanfiction, I know that's where it comes from. On the other hand the phrase itself is incredibly sexist, marginalizes both cis and trans effeminate men and vilifies trans women.

Right from the beginning it's common use make me, as a effeminate trans dude, extremely uncomfortable, and made the space of m/m romance seem unwelcoming and unsafe for someone like me. Luckily people began to voice concerns with it's use, as did I once I was no longer a newbie, and it has since widely stopped being used. But these kinds of language choices that actively marginalize LGBT authors and readers should not be a part of the LGBT romance community at all.

What would cut down on these kinds of language issues I think is if publishers, reviewers, bloggers and authors would stop assuming a cisgender heterosexual majority.

I truly don't think right now the majority of publishers expect all or even the bulk of their authors to be GLBT identified. I think their language reflects this and because for most LGBT people being cautious is a matter of safety, it becomes self-fulfilling. On the other hand I've watched publishers who changed their language to become more inclusive and emphasized a full spectrum of LGBT romance gain dozens of GLBT identified authors.

This doesn't just go for publishers but for writers too. Take that whole narrative of straight cis women liking sexy men and two sexy men being better than one, put it in a box and bury it in the backyard. Because when we write romance novels about queer people assuming our audience is completely or mostly cisgender heterosexual we run the risk of doing several things that are kind of a problem.

First Othering and alienating actual queer people and queer experiences. By assume your readership is straight than you can more easily end up having a large part of your romance being about explaining what it's like to be queer to people who have never had that experience. Which says to those of us who live with those experiences everyday 'this book isn't meant for you.'

In fact there is an unfortunate tendency within contemporary gay romance to 'explain' to the readers that not all gay men are music theater loving hairdressers. It is not something any queer person needs to be told and quite frankly shouldn't be something straight people need to hear either.  Yet it is so common multiple queer romance authors, completely independent of each other, have come up with special terms to refer to it. Laylah Hunter calls it the "Broadway musical moment."

Reading something like this pulls me out of the story and tells me I am reading something that isn't for me despite the fact that it is supposed to be about me. It feels like I've just walked into some straight fantasy of what my life should be like instead of representing any kind of reality I inhabit.

Which brings me to the second risk of writing LGBT romance for a presumed straight heterosexual audience, you become much more likely to fetishize queer people. Because queer people in stories aimed at cishet people are often not reflective of queer experiences or exploring queerness, they become much more of an exotic subject for people to live out their fantasies through. They become objects usually only defined by their sexuality and physical attractiveness.

Consider these very common statements:
The only thing better than one hot men is two hot men having sex with each other.
Why would I want to read a gay romance about men who aren't hot?
Why would I want to read a sex scene if there's no dick?
The reason straight women like gay romance is because straight women like dick.

The accusation of fetishization gets thrown around the m/m romance community a lot, and often in pretty sexist, and even transphobic/homophobic ways. BUT it is important I think for straight cisgender readers and writers to think very critically about the way they talk about queer bodies and queer sexualities within this community.

I am not saying this always happens when gay romance or any other kind of LGBT romance is written for a cisgender heterosexual audience. But it is a lot easier to reduce a gay couple down to the fantasy of two hots guys, a lesbian couple to two hot chicks, and trans people into sexual fetishes when you assume the actual people represented will not be the primary audience for these books.  

Speaking directly to a queer audience will limit the amount of time a writer will spend describing queer identity and queer bodies as strange, exotic or Other. It also becomes a lot harder to fall into the trap of dehumanizing a gay, lesbian or otherwise queer couple, if you write with the intention that the majority of readers will be themselves queer.

I also think speaking directly to a presumed queer audience will encourage cisgender, heterosexual authors to police themselves, and think critically about their internalizing homophobia, transphobia and their privilege. 

Another issue with a presumed heterosexual cisgender audience is that it puts pressure on out queer authors to write about queerness in certain ways that might not feel authentic or only write about say, gay men, rather than queer women or nonbinary people. It also teaches a heterosexual readership that they can demand certain things from queer authors and are entitled to get them. That if there is queer romance authors writing LBGT romance our experiences and our voices must always come second to heterosexual cisgender voices and experiences.  

I can't count how many times I've been told or watched queer author friends be told "all gay romance is written by straight cisgender women for straight cisgender women." Thus denying the identities and very existence of all queer authors, privileging straight authors over queer ones, books written for straight readers or queer ones, and stopping conversations about queer voices within LGBT romance from even happening.

I don't know how many times I've voiced my opinion as a queer trans person only to be told "Yes, but most readers are ..." the heterosexual cisgender majority myth again. The assumption is this is the voice with the buying power, thus this is the voice we should be listening to. The reality being cishet comfort or personal taste is privileged over queer experiences and opinions.

This is how I ended up being lectured by a cishet man who was mad that I chose to write lesbian sex in a way different from what he found most appealing. Or how I get told that because cishet women don't like vagina I can't write about trans men and call it m/m romance. This is how the queer identities of a huge number of authors get erased every time the whole 'women can't write gay men' argument gets brought up.This is how we end up with situations where trans authors are forced to 'prove' they are not really 'women pretending to be men.'

In fact the whole controversy around trans men as characters gay romance does not stem from all straight cisgender women (or cisgender gay men) being against trans inclusion. But because the ones that are know that their voices will be privileged because they are automatically assumed to speak for the majority.

read from the bottom up

Because this is the thing, queer people are actively oppressed by cisgender heterosexual society. Trans women are murdered, queer kids are forced to live on the streets, queer women are raped, people loose their jobs, their homes and their families because of homophobia and transphobia. That is the reality of the world we live in.

LGBT people don't have adequate representation, they don't get to see themselves heroes, don't get to see themselves has being deserving of happy healthy relationships, or non-judgmental partners, they don't get happy endings.

That's what romance brings, a chance for LGBT people to see themselves reflected in narratives that aren't solely tragic.

What kind of an industry are we to turn around and cynically say "but you don't matter. It isn't about you, or your happiness, or your pleasure." Because that what is really being said when someone says  "our readership is cisgender heterosexual so this is the way things need to be" instead of talking about issues of diversity, fetishization, and language. 

It says, we know these books are supposed to be about your but your not as important as the presumed cishet readership.

 LGBT romance needs to first and foremost be about LGBT people. Even if we were to one day do a wide spread comprehensive survey and find that the majority of LGBT romance readers are indeed cisgender heterosexual people that shouldn't matter.

We cannot continue to write, publish, market and form communities under the assumption of a heterosexual cisgender majority. Because when we do we assume heterosexual cisgender needs and opinions come first, they carry the most power, they count for more. We should never ask or expect queer authors to cater their narratives to a cishet audience.

We can no longer continue this behavior where we hold the specter of a heterosexual cisgender readership over the heads of authors who want to write alternative kinds of queer bodies, transgender characters, non-penetrative sex or even female characters.

We can not privilege cisgender heterosexual voices, desires and tastes over queer authors, readers and politics.

We cannot say "all LGBT romance authors and readers are straight cisgender" and erase the queer identities of the authors (especially female authors) already working in these communities, the readers already buying our books. 

NSFW: Queer and Sexy Resources for Authors of Romance and Erotica

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Why Is Lesbian Romance So Unpopular When Compared to Gay or Straight Romance?

I've thought about this a lot. I've written both gay and lesbian romance and although my lesbian romance gets far better reviews and nominated for far more awards I don't sell as many copies. Period. People aren't as interested in reading it. Even when I do give-always people are far more likely to want a copy of my gay romance novella than my lesbian romance novella.

A lot of people say romance readers are straight women so of course they are naturally going to be more interested in books with hot men. I think that is the easiest, least complicated, least threatening way of looking at the issue though.

I also don't really buy it, never have. 

What i really think is that women have a hard time thinking about women; about female bodies, female sexuality and female characters in general.   

Our society tells us female sexuality is dirty, wrong and shameful. Always. It tells us the female body is only ever not shameful or acceptably sexual when a man is looking at it. When a woman looks at herself, she is conditioned to only see the flaws, only see the ways she isn't attractive, only feel ashamed. 

In her article about why female fans hate female characters more than male characters "For All the Women I Have Loved Who Were Dragged Through the Mud"  Aiffe writes:

"Women project the standards society has put on them. If they’re told they’re annoying for talking about their feelings, they’ll think other women are annoying when they talk about their feelings. It’s a continuous cycle of policing. I think there is a certain degree of truth to this. Women absorb the social rules of what women are and aren’t allowed to be (spoiler: it’s all contradictory and we’re not allowed to anything) and judge other women by those rules. She’s annoying when she speaks, her voice is too shrill, she’s too meek and quiet and passive, she’s too rude and direct."

I think for a lot of women reading lesbian romance makes them have to confront their own anxieties and insecurities about their bodies and their sexualities as well as other women's bodies and sexualities. 

If both of the main characters are women and you find yourself having a negative reaction to them or to their gender and sexuality, you might find yourself questioning why? Is it something about you? Something about them? Something about women in general? It might make you stumble upon a whole new level of internalized misogyny you didn't realize you had.

That can be deeply frightening and off-putting. Not something a lot of people want when reading a romance novel.

It is so much easier to think about male bodies and male sexualities which are constructed as natural, normal and overwhelmingly positive. Sexualized cisgender male bodies are not associated with the same kind of body policing or shaming (this isn't actually completely true for all men but generally the kinds of men who are policed and shamed don't get romance novels written about them even in m/m romance) that sexualized female bodies are.

I think this is also where some of the backlash against 'strong female characters' comes from. Anytime this subject get's brought up in the writing community someone always pops up (almost always a woman) to tell me "not all women are strong" and "we need to write stories about non-strong women too." It has happened so frequently at this point that I think it's moved past the point of critiquing the way Hollywood has constructed "the strong female character" (which I think genuinely does need to be critiqued). The conversation is hardly ever framed as "the way the Strong Female Character is constructed in say Hollywood  action films or the fantasy genre is problemtic" instead it it almost always portrayed as "strong women as characters are problemtic." This distinction has caused me to wonder if a lot of women get triggered by any kind of talk of strong female characters because they themselves don't feel strong or don't consider themselves strong and its anxiety inducing for them to have what makes a woman 'strong' talked about at all. 

In the same way I think for a lot of women it's triggering to see women portrayed as confident and sexual without having men involved. It brings up, all of their own insecurities about their bodies and their sexualities. It highlights all of the ways they've been told that they are bodies aren't good enough and their sexual desires are wrong without the 'safe space' of a male body or male sexuality to retreat to. 

But there is also I think another layer to the question of lesbian romance vs. gay romance and why one is so much more popular than the other.

I also think it also has to do with the way (white, cisgender, able bodied, middle class) gay male identity is portrayed in the media and in Western society. 

Because m/m romance does better than lesbian romance, and bisexual romance, and trans* romance. It just does better period. Also in the m/m romance community the men being represented are almost always in white, able bodied, middle class men who conform to a normative standard of physical male beauty. There aren't a whole lot of chubby guys in m/m romance, disabled guys, working class guys (unless he is falling for a millionaire in which case the class problem will be 'fixed' by the end of the book when he marries into privilege.) Gay guys of color are often not represented and forget about trans guys. That can't be a coincidence.

 In his article "The Myth of the Fag Hag and the Dirty Secrets of the Gay Male Subculture" Rohin Guha writes:

"Popular culture was teaching newly-out gay men that they could be welcomed into the heteronormative fold so long as they shoehorned themselves into these pre-approved [media constructed] molds of gay male identity. " 

Basically he argued that the media and society has created a gay identity that is acceptable and non-threatening to heteronormative culture. These are the kinds of gay characters even otherwise homophobic Americans enjoy seeing as bit roles in tv shows like Will & Grace.  

Lisa Duggan has pioneered the concept of homonormativity which is:

"a politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them, while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption"  [1] (emphasis mine) 

Of course this heteronormatively acceptable homosexuality or homonormativity is really only available to white, cisgender gay men who conform to the acceptable stereotypes of a gay man. But these 'acceptable types of gay masculinity' are exactly what the overwhelming majority of m/m romance novels promote. They are comfortable and non-threatening images of gayness easily consumed by an audience that might even be, in many ways, homophobic. People can feel good about being "supportive allies" to the GLBTQ community through consuming these images of very normative white, able bodied young men. Whiles these images also mean that they never have to question any of the deeper homophobic, biphobic or transphobic views they might still hold.[2]

                                                               

Lesbian or other queer women on the other hand, along with any and all trans* people and QPOC, are still threatening to heteronormativity. These unacceptable forms of queerness are just not as easy or comfortable for a large part of a wider Western audience to consume.

I think that, coupled with a lot of the internalized anxiety and shame women feel about female bodies and female desires, makes lesbian romance or romances that depict queer women significantly less popular.     

----

Thank you to everyone who read over this first and encouraged me to post it. 

1. Luibhéid, Eithne.  "Queer/Migration: An Unruly Body of Scholarship."  GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, Volume 14, Number 2-3, 2008, pp. 169-190 (Article) Published by Duke University Press

2. this needs to be an article in and of itself but I haven't written it yet, because it would involve a long discussion of the hierarchy within gay politics, assimilation, and representation.  

Let's Talk Sex: buying a pack and play realistic dildo

Recently I purchased a "Bendable Bobby"(name given by the manufacturer) or a "Otto"(name given by the retailer) realistic pack and play dildo.

I had originally just wanted a realistic dildo not a pack and play since I, well, often don't pack and play. Plus I already have a packer I like just fine. I very rarely have any money to spend on toys though and so I went with my cheapest option for realistic dildos. It turned out my cheapest option was the Otto pack and play.

Since I try to support small/feminist/queer run sex shops as much as possible I bought my new dildo from Early To Bed's online store.

I had originally seen an add for Early To Bed, a small feminist sex shop in Chicago, on Oh Joy Sex Toy one of my all time favorite webcomics.

It turned out buying from Early To Bed was a great experience. I had originally clicked on the option to picking up the dildo at their store, instead of having them ship it to New York, by mistake. They emailed me with a very friendly and personal reminder when the dildo came into the shop and I explained that I needed it shipped. They told me no problem, shipped it right out and I literally got it the next day. They were friendly, helpful and professional through the whole thing.

They say that "Early to Bed is committed to helping people of all genders and orientations explore their sexuality to the fullest" right up front on their website. I like that they don't hide the fact that they market to the trans* male community.

I was also impressed by the dildo itself. The Otto is $20.00 from Early To Bed. That is extremely cheap for a sex toy so I had pretty low expectations when it came. Otto or "Bendable Bobby" is a lot better of a toy than I was expecting though.

It's a nice size dildo, 6 insertable inchs with a 1.5 width.  It is made out of PTE, which has that Cyberskin feel to, it with a solid bendable core and full balls. It is a pinky vanilla color which only looks realistic if your skin is undead-pale (luckily for me, mine is.)

Pack and play dildos are able to be bent into a down ward 'flaccid' position to pack into your trousers and give yourself a nice bulge. When it's time to have sex the pack and play can be bent back up into an erects position for blow jobs, penetration and what not.

Right now there is no perfect pack and play on the market. Although it is worth noting I have heard really good things about Silky and Shilo pack and play dildos. Even really good pack and plays will make you look half hard while you are packing with them and are less than perfect dildos for sex. So be aware that there will be flaws to any pack and play dildo you buy.

Early to Bed is pretty upfront about the cons when it comes to this particularly toy:
- The core is not attached to the back.

-PTE or any cyberskin like material dirties easily and is hard to clean well. Plus no one but the manufacture is a 110% sure what is in it. 

-this will probably not last as long as many other dildos.

-it only comes in the vampiric pale shade. So if you are not one of the living dead it will not match your skin color.

-its shape makes it a little awkward to use with a harness.   

Cons I noticed while using are:
-when you bend it the solid but flexible core makes a cracking noise. Which most people, I am guessing, do not want to hear coming from their dick.


-like all cyberskin toys it is nicely squishy but can also be a little tacky on the outside, which is why most people recommend brushing lightly with cornstarch.
 
-I had a hard time using this toy for anal penetration. It's a little soft I found. Even after prepping extensively, trying multiple positions and warming up with a larger and harder toy I still couldn't get it to work. People may have better luck using it for anal when there are two people involves to figure out the angle and positioning. But as far as solo play goes, it's not a great anal toy.

-you do need to store it in a sleeve or bag. If you leave it, say on the coffee table over night, without a sock then it will leave a stain on the surface of said coffee table (don't ask what is in it that leeches out and stains things)


The pros are:
it is extremely cheap

it has nice detailing of veins along the shaft and the head is well defined.

I enjoy the fact that it has balls

it bends a little when it penetrates to fit the contours of the inside of your body. 

it does have a nice squeezable texture in your hand while you're jerking it off.

My recommendation would be this: always use a condom.
Doesn't matter if you're using it for penetration or a hand job, just always cover it.
A condom will keep it clean.
It will allow you to use it to fuck both your, or a partner's, front vagina and ass.
A condom will allow it to safely be used by or on more than one person.
It will make it feel better/more realistic in your hand/mouth/hole.
It will also protect you and/or partner(s) against whatever sketchy chemicals may or may not be in it.

I not only use a condom on it every single time regardless of what I'm doing with it, but I also stretch the condom a little to cover part of the back so as little of my own skin comes into contact with the toy as possible. Better safe than sorry I say.

So yeah, bottom line is if you are looking for a realistic dildo or a pack and play and can afford a better one go for that. If you can't afford it then this is not a bad choice. In fact I've paid a lot more for a lot worse toys.

I was also extremely happy working with Early to Bed and will definitely be buying from them again. If you are in the Chicago area I would check them out, or keep them in mind for your online sex toy/supplies purchases.

Let's Talk Sex: Gay Erotic Comics: Dale Lazarov

A while back Dale Lazarov started following me on Twitter. At first I didn't really notice, a lot of people follow me on Twitter and for the most part usually I can't really figure out why. Then Dale posted a link to his gay erotic comics and I decided to take a look.

The first thing I noticed was Dale and the arts he works with write about bears, big hairy guys having lots of explicit, sometimes piggy sex. The second thing I noticed was there was no dialog in the comics the stories being told through the illustrations alone.

Well I am a fan of this type of gay erotica and porn and I was intrigued by the idea of erotic comics without words so I bought a couple.

NIGHTLIFE 4:

Written and edited by Dale Lazarov, drawn by Bastian Jonsson and colored by Yann Duminil, NIGHTLIFE is a gay erotic comic series that features stories set in gay nightlife. In "Steam", Zeus find himself a calmly detached tourist in a Greek bathhouse until Heph rises from the pool like a marvel of grace and masculinity. That Heph is a paraplegic does not put a damper on their steamy, passionate encounter as he is both ready and able...

Pros: Nightlife 4 was the first comic I bought. I picked it because I liked the style of the art but also because it is hard to find good representations of gay men with disabilities. I liked this one a lot, the sex was nicely done and hot. I enjoyed the fact that it took place in a bathhouse and that it included a happy ending while still putting the eroticism of a semi-anonymous sexual encounter first and foremost. I apraciated the use of condoms during the sex scenes, and the way Heph's disability was handled.

Cons: my only cons would be that I wanted it to be longer over all. I would have been happy to read a comic twice or three times as long as this short about these characters. Also for whatever reason the pdf version did not play well with my computer and some of the pages looked grainier than I would have liked. If you can get this in the paper copy then it would be well worth your money I think, simply for a better quality of art over the digital version. 

MANLY 1:

MANLY is a book of gay erotic comics full of kink and tenderness between masculine men. Amy Colburn, an up-and-coming illustrator of hot male-on-male art, and color artist Dominic Cordoba join Dale Lazarov to bring you manly stories about manly men doing manly things to each other.

Amy’s clean, muscular Disney-style art meshes with Dale’s eye for carnality and sweetness with a touch of kink and scruff. MANLY #1 features “Busted”, a gay erotic comic about a hot rest stop bubba who helps a tough guy Federal agent stop an escaping crystal meth chef. They both get medals — and then bust each other…

Pros: This is probably my favorite comic of the ones I've bought so far. I loved Amy Colburn's art style. I found it incredibly cute and fun to look at without being too over the top cartoon-y. There was some bondage, which I always like, and definitely a little bit of power play. My hat goes off to both Dale and Amy for making it obvious that a.) power play was happening and b.) it was consensual without the use of words at all. There was some incredibly hot tit play in this one too.

The blond dude is one of my favorite character types ever. I think he and his brooding silver fox of a cop made a really cute couple. The combination of cute and slightly fluffy along with some really hard core sex that veers a little into the raunchy was a combination that totally worked for me.

Cons: Again my computer did not love the pdf format to the point where I actually considered buying the paper version so I could really enjoyed each page of the comic. It should be noted though that not only do I use a Mac but my computer is old enough that it doesn't really place nicely with anyone anymore. Asides from that again I would have loved it to be longer, I was totally up for another round by the end of the comic.

STICKY 2:

STICKY is a three-issue comic series of erotic tales of man-on-man carnality and sweetness written by Dale Lazarov and drawn by Steve MacIsaac. STICKY #2 features a gay erotic comic titled "Talk Show Queers". What happens to the gorgeous gay rodeo star after he's been brutally dumped by a boyfriend who declares himself straight in front of a talk show audience? Well, in 'Talk Show Queers,' he gets picked up by the hot, burly security guy sitting front row center!

Pros: Again both the artist and writer did a great job getting the story across without actually using text to tell us anything. This was particularly impressive because in this one the story was a little more complicated then in the previous two comics I bought. The sex was definitely hot and the relationships was sweet. Overall though this was my least favorite of the comics I've bought so far.

Cons: once again the pdf format worked less than well for me. Also I was a not as much of a fan of the art work in this one. I am also not as much of a fan of cowboys as a lot of people I know. Still I was ultimately glad I'd bought and read it.


Like with most people who put out great LGBTQ erotic or romantic content Dale Lazarov and the artists who work on the individual projects are not making huge amounts of money off it this. These comics are mostly a labor of love -- love for sexy erotica. So if you are into gay erotic comics I would definitely suggest showing your support and check them out. The paper anthologies cost more but the digital copies of the individual comics are only a few bucks a piece and well worth the money I think.

Edit: Dale Lazarov recommended that I get Simple Comic which is free to download and clears up many of the problems involving blurriness and trouble loading I had with the digital format before. It makes my reading experience of the comics much more enjoyable.

Let's Talk Sex: I am now an affiliate of Pink and White Productions

So you might have noticed three new banners have appeared on my blog, two on the side bar to the right and one along the bottom. If you click on them they will take you to the CrashPad Series and Heavenly Spire both produced by Pink and White Productions.

Pink and White Productions is an American pornographic production company, based in San Francisco, California, that focuses on explicit video web and DVD releases showcasing female and queer sexuality. The company's main director and producer is Shine Louise Houston. Shine Louise Houston founded Pink & White Productions in 2005, aiming to create a sustainable adult entertainment company that exposes the complexities of queer sexual desire. About her project to create ethical queer porn Shine has said “I believe there’s a lot of room and need to create adult content that’s real, that’s respectful and powerful … I think it’s the perfect place to become political. It’s a place where money, sex, media, and ethics converge.”

Pink and White Productions has made multiple stand alone films but their two major porn series are CrashPad and Heavenly Spire.

Crash Pad Series is Pink & White Productions’ longest running membership website. It won the 2012 Feminist Porn Awards “Best Website” and was nominated for the 2011 AVN Awards “Best Alternative Website.” Based on the Feminist Porn Award-winning dyke bestseller “The Crash Pad”, the site focuses on queer female sexuality but features queer performers of many genders and sexual orientations, in addition to diverse bodies, kinks and sexual expression. With over 300 Episodes and Behind the Scenes Videos and a model base of over 170 performers, it’s one of the largest and most diverse queer porn sites in the world. Memberships begin at $22 and include photo sets, streaming and downloadable videos, behind the scenes, and monthly live-streaming of the cast and crew as they film, and other special features.  

Heavenly Spire focuses on masculine beauty and sexuality, and how it manifests on different bodies, in a unique cinematic style. Directed by Shine Louise Houston, the site features cisgender males, trans men, and other performers of masculine sexual expressions. The website won the 2011 Feminist Porn Awards. Heavenly Spire now redirects to it’s studio on PINKLABEL, where videos are available video on demand. 

Pornography is a very fraught subject in our society in general and in the romance industry in particularly.

When the whole "Mommy porn" thing went down far more romance writers were upset by the insinuation that romance authors are the same as pornographers than the insulting gender politics behind the statement.

That being said I have nothing against ethically made porn. Far from it, ethically created queer live action pornography, queer erotic art and comics, and queer erotica is a community and an industry that I not only support but feel at home in.

I definitely grew up reading certain kinds of romance but queer porn like the CrashPad series has had far more of an affect on the way I write and the way I think about representing sexuality, gender and sex.

Throughout my teenage and young adult years I struggled with the fact that people like me were not represented in the mainstream media. Everything the wider world told me was beautiful and sexually desirable in no way reflect what I saw in the mirror. More than that it did not reflect the kinds of bodies and people I personally was attracted to.Watching first CrashPad and then Heavenly Spire though was an eye-openner. Here was people like me and the kind of people I found attractive being treated as if they were desirable --sexy-- deserving of and allowed to flaunting their bodies and their sexuality.

Finally I found images of masculinity that I found desirable:

Genderqueer androgyny:

Genderqueer femininity:

and just really, really hot people:

CrashPad Series is also dedicated to promoting safer sex and uses safer sex supplies and protection in almost every scene. CrashPad's performers are paid and treated ethically, their distributing sites are ethical and they have been on the cutting edge of welcoming all different body types, genders and sexual identities. They have also grappled with issues like creating work places which are disability friendly and working with performers who have a history of sexual trauma to allow them to have sex which is comfortable, safe and non-triggering.


Really I think they set the bar high not only for making ethical queer porn but also for ethically representing sex and sexuality. Something I think about all the time as an author who writes about both.

Heavenly Spire is a much newer project and doesn't have the width and breath of CrashPad yet. Even so I love it.

Not only are the guys hot but there is this moment at the beginning of every episode where they are interviewed and asked to reflect on what they think of as the most attractive parts of their bodies. The answers that the performers give are really interesting and in most cases fairly deep. Most of the answers had more to do with how each man sees himself as a person rather than with any ideas of traditional masculinity. In a really simple way it reflected how deverse and complicated masculinity really is. 

Plus hot fucking. 

Pink and White Productions is a small indie company trying to make a difference in a huge and too often horribly destructive industry.

Shine Louise Houston's statement"I believe there’s a lot of room and need to create adult content that’s real, that’s respectful and powerful" Pretty much sums up what I am trying to do everytime I sit down to write a romantic relationship or sex scene. Because I too think there is a real need for that.

I know this blog does not getting a lot of views or foot traffic but by becoming affiliated with Pink and White Productions I hope to do at least a little bit to support people who work hard doing something I care very deeply about.