Labels can
be good. They are a way to pass on
information quickly. For example, if I
describe a story as gritty noir, the person I’m talking to can safely assume
that it will deal with dark subject matter, be graphic in describing suffering
and violence, and there’s almost certainly going to be deaths within the
story. On the other hand, if I describe
something as a beach read then they know it is relatively light in terms of
subject matter, happy endings are guaranteed, and the pacing will be quick but not
intense.
 |
| And if I describe it as a George R.R. Martin read, then you know to buckle in for a long ride. |
Sometimes
the terminology used for labels brings its own baggage and issues. And one of the most problematic examples of
that is describing romance novels with no sex (or only
closed-door/fade-to-black sex) as clean.
Our society
already has a challenge with sexuality, particularly women’s sexuality. There is only a narrow window where it is
accepted: when a woman is young, attractive, and thin. (And there’s a corresponding issue that women
who do fall into that category are excessively sexualized and are therefore
made vulnerable to sexual predators. And
for those who aren’t sure what I mean, take the usual drunken rape scenario and
imagine it with a grandmother in her mid-sixties instead of a college girl in
her early twenties. The level of
societal outrage would be much higher.)
Women who are older, not conventionally attractive, or overweight are
not expected to be sexual beings and are often mocked if they defy those
expectations. Luckily for all of us
outside-the-mold gals, we have romance novels with a wide variety of heroines
who get happily-ever-afters in all walks of their lives.
To be
clear, I don’t have an issue with whether or not a story graphically portrays
sex. I’ve read wonderful novels where
everything after a kiss fades to black.
I’ve read wonderful novels that were about the hero or heroine’s erotic
adventures and were 90% or more graphic sex scenes. In the interest of bias disclosure, I’ll
admit that my preference falls in between those two extremes: where there are
some steamy sex scenes but they don’t dominate the plot.
But I do
have a problem with using the term “clean” to describe the fade-to-black end of
the spectrum. Because it implies that
the other end is “dirty” and that is an unfair designation and perpetuates the
stereotype of women’s sexuality as unnatural and undesirable. I much prefer the term “sweet” romance or
using the same system they would use for films.
A G rating would be a book with no sex.
PG would be some implied, but not explicit (closed door/fade to
black). R would be explicit and X would
be a sex-dominant plot. We’d need
something between PG and R for books that were steamy but not necessarily
explicit. Maybe an S for sexy or steamy?
At the end
of the day, quibbling over a single word is a small thing. But small things have a habit of building up,
especially where labels are concerned.
Because labels are verbal short-hands, which means that they carry baggage
by definition. I think it’s worthwhile
to make sure that they’re only carrying the baggage that we intend to convey
and aren’t loaded down with things that are unnecessary or potentially harmful.
Previous blog post: Strangling My Evil Little Voices
Blog homepage
No comments:
Post a Comment