Best of Women's Erotica 2006

[CharleyH]

Actually there are men only contests and publishers, generally gay in nature.

 

[TheEarl]

Okay, managed to tie myself up in knots with my incomprehensible ranting. Just to clarify - when I say 'writes like a guy' I was referring to the stereotype that I was speaking out against - ie straight to the point sex, 'harder-hitting erotica' (to actually quote Lou, sorry for the misquote earlier).

I'm not saying that I should be allowed into this contest to promote gender equality and I do see some point in a collation of female writers. What bugs me is that a lot of these publications see 'female writing' to be somehow intrinsically superior, the intimation being that the possession of a penis makes a writer instantly incapable of writing anything above 'Dear Playboy' smut.

I do apologise to the editors of the Women's Anthology; as Pure has surmised, I haven't actually ever read one and I am assuming a hell of a lot. They may just be collecting together female writing as per Colly's example of an African writing anthology. However the impression that is often given is that, because it's a women's anthology, it contains a higher class of erotica, something that a woman shouldn't be ashamed of owning. Whether this anthology means to or not, it is going to be using this preconception - Women will see it on the shelves and go pick it up ahead of anything else, because women obviously know what they're talking about. Pear herself says 'When I do go erotica book shopping I always browse the titles by women first.'

This anthology has copped my entire rant as this has been a pet peeve of mine ever since reading the Black Lace website, which was blatantly insulting to male writers, and I do apologise for any preconceptions which I've brought into this. Whether it's deliberately playing on it or not, this anthology will get a bigger market share, because it's a Women's Anthology. It's that which pisses me off.

A pseudonym isn't really the point. I don't particularly want to enter this competition and I don't want to have a story in something like Black Lace. It is the attitude itself that bothers me.

Pure: Although I don't have figures to hand, it is widely accepted that men tend to go more for pictures, whilst women get off with stories and ideas. It's to do with the different ways that the sexes get aroused, with the mind being a more prominent sex organ with women (I understand this is the reason why a female Viagra has been so elusive to develop). The exact percentages escape me (although I'm sure they're available from Google), but erotica anthologies tend to be bought more by women than men. Sorry to be so qualitative, but I'm tired and can't be arsed to look up the stats.

The Earl

 

[Seattle Zack]

When I was in colllege twenty years ago there were men's magazines that included stories, pulp style, with lurid covers and titles like "True Detective" and "Bondage Chronicles."

They were pretty trite adventure stories, damsel-in-distress kind of stuff, kidnapped coeds, Nazis and satanic cults, with the hero who rescues the girl in the end. Some sex, although that part was pretty tame.

I sold my first story to "True Detective" and more than a dozen others to mags in that genre. Still have a few of them around somewhere. Most paid $25 per story and a copy of the mag. The writers seemed to be all men (or, perhaps some were women writing under a male nom-de-plume).

There's a website called "Man's Story 2" that's trying to recreate some of that pulp magzine style of the 70's and 80's. They also produce a quarterly magazine. Here are their writer's guideliines:

http://www.mansstory2.com/FreeArea/FAPages/FAWritersGuidelines.htm

So, if you want to write something aimed squarely at the men's market, why not give that a shot. They only pay $25 (same as 20 years ago) and maybe a few copies of the mag if the story makes it to the print issue. I'm finishing up a story called "Biker Gang Captive" that I'll send in next week or so. Not going to get rich doing it, but it would be cool to see one of my stories in an old style men's adventure magazine.

 

[Pure]

Hi TheEarl,

I'll just comment on a couple points.

The Earl I do apologise to the editors of the Women's Anthology; as Pure has surmised, I haven't actually ever read one and I am assuming a hell of a lot. They may just be collecting together female writing as per Colly's example of an African writing anthology. However the impression that is often given is that, because it's a women's anthology, it contains a higher class of erotica,

It is a higher class. One of the finest. I like it better than Bright's collections.

something that a woman shouldn't be ashamed of owning.

Yes, they want women readers and writers to 'own' their sexuality and erotism.

Its quality probably reflects the editing and selection process. I don't claim that women are intrinsically better writers. They MIGHT be more discriminating consumers, here.

The Earl said, Pure: Although I[Earl] don't have figures to hand, it is widely accepted that men tend to go more for pictures, whilst women get off with stories and ideas. It's to do with the different ways that the sexes get aroused, with the mind being a more prominent sex organ with women (I understand this is the reason why a female Viagra has been so elusive to develop). The exact percentages escape me (although I'm sure they're available from Google), but erotica anthologies tend to be bought more by women than men.

There are complex issues and lots of claims here. MAYBE it's true men (more) like pics and women (more) like stories. (Yet I picture most literotica patrons as male. And most writers).

MAYBE that's because the mind is the more prominent sex organ in women. I always thought it was the womb

I do see women going less for the straight crotch grab, both irl, and in stories. Seems they like a bit of talk, or maybe to know your name or HIV status. Maybe if you'll be around the next day.

As to your claims about 'erotica anthologies,' my impression is you're talking about a different beast than I am. You're talking of the more lovey dovey, or complex charactered stuff, like those Kensington women put together, stuff that was common a decade ago.

I'm thinking of Bright's annuals and the Best Women's Erotica (BWE) annuals among others, and I don't see a preference for 'soft focus' or 'lovey' stories. Hence I strongly doubt that either is mostly bought by women. (The huge market of women wanting 'true love' stories is NOT going to buy or like BWE.)

Indeed, it kinda gets guys off to think of the women writers getting really 'down and dirty'. If I may use an analogy, consider the one or two females who do 'porn' or 'graphic sex' photography (Suze Randall, iirc). They sold mostly to Penthouse and the like, and because of the subject matter would, I think, be mostly 'consumed' by men (the majority of Penthouse readers--well, actually viewers and wankers.)

BTW, Earl, I cant help feeling that your lack of enthusiasm for a pseudonumous submission is a kind of 'manly pride.' Or maybe that's just my diseased imagination.

 

[Seattle Zack]

The Women's Erotica Anthology thing never seemed strange to me, any more than an althology of African-American Horror writers or a lesbian Cookbook.

When that book comes out every year, they have a big release party at Toys in Babeland, the big sex shop a few blocks away. Some of the authors generally show up for a book signing party. It is a very polished, professionally done book.

I just find it cool that there are so many markets for erotica, no matter the gender of the author.

In the late eighties, I sold two stories to a Californian lesbian magazine under a pseudonym. Pretty soft-core stuff, but they paid me $30 each for the stories. Never saw a copy of the magazine, though. I heard it went tits up after 4 issues.

One woman I know in the writer's group I infrequently attend sells gay male BDSM stories. She's had some success, too, sold two stories to a SF publisher for one of their anthologies.

 

[TheEarl]

I do see women going less for the straight crotch grab, both irl, and in stories. Seems they like a bit of talk, or maybe to know your name or HIV status. Maybe if you'll be around the next day.

<sniggers> Good lines.

As to your claims about 'erotica anthologies,' my impression is you're talking about a different beast than I am. You're talking of the more lovey dovey, or complex charactered stuff, like those Kensington women put together, stuff that was common a decade ago.

I'm thinking of Bright's annuals and the Best Women's Erotica (BWE) annuals among others, and I don't see a preference for 'soft focus' or 'lovey' stories. Hence I strongly doubt that either is mostly bought by women. (The huge market of women wanting 'true love' stories is NOT going to buy or like BWE.)

Not really. I am talking about exactly the same beast - I'm not saying that they're lovey-dovey or soft. What I'm saying is that they're not the 'straight crotch grab' of stuff like Playboy and there seems to be a predominant feeling in the market that men do only write the s-c-g and women write the 'proper' erotica, which is what irks me.

BTW, Earl, I cant help feeling that your lack of enthusiasm for a pseudonumous submission is a kind of 'manly pride.' Or maybe that's just my diseased imagination.

Not really. I just don't like the idea of pretending to be something I'm not. I may be reticent about some details, but I've never told an untruth about who I am.

This is from the Black Lace guidelines for submissions:

First things first. We accept submissions from female authors only, with no exceptions. We have found that, in this genre, authors tend to write better for their own gender. Besides, the fact that all our authors are guaranteed to be women is a valuable part of our marketing strategy...

...Page after page of undiluted sexual gymnastics is not what we're looking for; this soon becomes dull. Whereas men seem to be fixated by anatomy, women seem to be more interested in scenarios in which the build up, the environment, or the dynamics between the characters are more important than what someone's cock looks like. This doesn't mean that women want 'softer' sex scenes, but they do want characters who are believable - i.e. not the men's magazine ideal of impossibly proportioned nymphets with 18-inch waists who orgasm at first touch

That is what actually started this pet peeve.

The Earl

 

[gauchecritic]

which means that almost anyone that contributes from the AH would qualify using that criterion.

Not so long ago, every other thread was about feelings, plot and character development.

Looks to me like if the editors of the anthology have ever been Lit. they've not been to the AH.

 

[Guest]

"We have found that, in this genre, authors tend to write better for their own gender."

Earl, I'm thinking they meant that women write more 'to' their own gender, not particularly write better. It's reality for me outside Lit., i.e., when browsing published erotica. Same with the discussions we've had about porn flicks by women ('for' women). Outside the writers I know here, men haven't caught on that well to what turns women on. Jmo.

I get you, but personally I'm glad there's such a chance for female writers.

Pear

 

[TheEarl]

I get you, but personally I'm glad there's such a chance for female writers.

Pear

Even when there's no equivalent chance for male writers? If you're writing s-c-g porn, then you can go to a porn magazine. If you want to write for the audience such as Black Lace caters to, then you will always be regarded as a second-class writer if you're male, unless your name is well known.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Even when there's no equivalent chance for male writers?

Yes, without apology; I'm rad-feminist at times. Men are still too far ahead of women professionally, it's a reality that makes me angrier than you've expressed so far.

Pear

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't see why averyone is all offended. Sure there aren't a lot of publications that could get away with searching for only writing by men. BUT you could easily call a work "Modern Writers" or anything out, leave off the gender qualification and still print all male authored stories. Most people would hardly notice- and those who did and put up a fuss would likely be told 'you're being to PC.' I see lists and collections ***all the time*** that don't specify gender and include 0-3 females in the whole lot.

Are we also offended that no women play pro-football or that most sports are divided into men's and women's teams? Should we be fair and put men and women all on the same basketball team and if one gender is highly under represented say- "well, oh well- this is the only fair thing to do? it would be sexist to have separate teams."

And then maybe we should get offfended that people don't **attend** women's sports at nearly the rate they do men's. And then we should get offended that most little boys will NOT read a book that is a) written by a woman [J.K. Rawling- notice the innitials and not the name JoAnne is used-- being a notible exeption] or b) has a female main character, while little girls will read books by and about either- creating much more market for books about boys and there adventures/problems/ect than.

In otherwords- you write a book that apeals to boys and it's by and large 'for everyone' you write one for 'girls' and it's a 'niche market' But we're not allowed to be represented, because you specifically have to say 'girl' and --well that's sexism.

And men have been victimised by sexism for far to long.

 

[TheEarl]

Yes, without apology; I'm rad-feminist at times. Men are still too far ahead of women professionally, it's a reality that makes me angrier than you've expressed so far.

Pear

IMHO Two wrongs don't make a right. Women may be far behind men professionally, but surely the answer is to promote equality, rather than to degrade men's chances of success in other fields.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

IMHO Two wrongs don't make a right. ...

True, but I don't think the wrong here weighs that much on the scale of women's rights. I understand you, dear, but we disagree so I won't argue.

Pear

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yes, without apology; I'm rad-feminist at times. Men are still too far ahead of women professionally, it's a reality that makes me angrier than you've expressed so far.

Pear

 

[TheEarl]

I don't see why averyone is all offended. Sure there aren't a lot of publications that could get away with searching for only writing by men. BUT you could easily call a work "Modern Writers" or anything out, leave off the gender qualification and still print all male authored stories. Most people would hardly notice- and those who did and put up a fuss would likely be told 'you're being to PC.' I see lists and collections ***all the time*** that don't specify gender and include 0-3 females in the whole lot.

Are we also offended that no women play pro-football or that most sports are divided into men's and women's teams? Should we be fair and put men and women all on the same basketball team and if one gender is highly under represented say- "well, oh well- this is the only fair thing to do? it would be sexist to have separate teams."

And then maybe we should get offfended that people don't **attend** women's sports at nearly the rate they do men's. And then we should get offended that most little boys will NOT read a book that is a) written by a woman [J.K. Rawling- notice the innitials and not the name JoAnne is used-- being a notible exeption] or b) has a female main character, while little girls will read books by and about either- creating much more market for books about boys and there adventures/problems/ect than.

In otherwords- you write a book that apeals to boys and it's by and large 'for everyone' you write one for 'girls' and it's a 'niche market' But we're not allowed to be represented, because you specifically have to say 'girl' and --well that's sexism.

And men have been victimised by sexism for far to long.

I'm afraid it's only me who's offended Sweet. I'm just very vocal. Inequality in any way shape or form pisses me off.

To take an example - In South Africa, during apartheid, sports became colour separated. Blacks played football (soccer) and whites played cricket and rugby. When apartheid ended, this continued, partly because of public perceptions of the sports, but partly because of institutional racism on the part of the selectors in white sports. Thus the quota system was invented - the South African cricket and rugby team had to have at least 2 black or coloured players in their starting lineups.

At first, this seems like a useful tool to break down institutionalised racism. But it's so easily racist the other way if there are simply no black players who deserve to be in the team. Take last weekend's rugby match of SA vs England. South Africa had decided to name a white player called Jaques Fourie for his first appearance on the wing, because England are a very physical side and they wanted someone with height and presence. Then political pressure intervened and suddenly Breyton Paulse, a coloured player who is small and not much of a physical presence, was selected. Paulse is a good player, but he knew that the only reason that he was selected in the side was for the colour of his skin and I'm sure he was embarrassed by not earnign his place in the side on merit. And Fourie was prevented from gaining his first cap because he's white. The SA coach is a noted anti-racist campaigner and had named one black player to start and two on the bench. Yet this happened. Discrimination sucks, for whatever reason. You can't tell Jaques Fourie that it's okay for him to be discriminated against because black South Africans are often discriminated against in the workplace. It doesn't even out.

The Earl

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm afraid it's only me who's offended Sweet. I'm just very vocal. Inequality in any way shape or form pisses me off.


The Earl

It might be wrong of me- but I feel much nicer toward you with that face than with the other.

It seems no matter what we do, someone will find a way to discriminate against someone else All we can do is try... and keep trying.

I don't think that a women writer's anthology is discrimination though. I am sorry that you feel left out though.

 

[Guest]

It might be wrong of me- but I feel much nicer toward you with that face than with the other.

Hear, hear!

Pear

 

[Colleen Thomas]

IMHO Two wrongs don't make a right. Women may be far behind men professionally, but surely the answer is to promote equality, rather than to degrade men's chances of success in other fields.

The Earl

How is an all female anthology degrading men's chances? I don't understand the reasoning there. It might be different if this were the only publisher taking open submissions or if there were some imprediment to male writers, but come on, most x-rated writing, from classy Erotica to just plain old beat -off bookshelf porn is done by men, primarily for men.

At least on this continent, the idea of erotica for women, much less for women by women, is a fairly new concept. It is probably a marketable concept as well as one that allows women to get into the published ranks. I don't see how one anthology or even one publishing house that caters to women readers and does so by marketing women writers is in any way threatening to men.

The caveat is I haven't tried to get published yet, so perhaps there is an implied biase out there that women write better erotica than men that is more pervasive than I know. I can say with some certainty that 5 years ago, when I had money and bought erotic books fairly often, finding a woman author was difficult and many of those who were out there were more or less pidgeon holed into Lesbian/Gay erotica.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

plus ca change

now it's the question of 'affirmative action' for woman porn/erotica writers

well we've got a president who's against it (AA), and wants to appoint folks like Scalia to rule against it...

so there's gotta be something wrong with it.. (after all, two wrongs don't make a right)...


OR...

 

[Monazwx]

Thanks for the heads up on this one Zack.
April 01, 2005 is kind on soon, but I'll look into it.

And Earl, I love Jeff.
It's a damn shame they don't show coupling anymore.

 

[Pure]

forgive the impertinence, but has anyone in this thread actually read any year's 'Best Women's Erotica?' (Maybe Zack? Anyone else?)

is there a policy (personal) NOT to read the better known anthologies? what's behind it?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have read a couple of them Pure. Well, actually selected stories from them, some just don't interest me. And I haven't read any since I started writing, but that is more due to financial constraints thatn a lack of interest.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

i have a theory that, at least occasionally, reading the best of what's 'out there' can help improve one's writing.
since you're one of our best, C, that supports my point.

 

[Sabledrake]

It's not just you, Earl.

I'm offended by it all ... I don't like any venue that limits the type of
people who can participate.

The type of material, sure. I've got no problem with themed anthologies or magazines that only accept stories of a certain genre. I'm okay with regional projects -- "from writers in the Pacific Northwest" or whatever.

But when it's something having to do with sex, ethniticy, religion, politics, or the usual hot topics, it bugs me. None of that should affect my ability to write a good story, and the story itself is what should be being judged here.

If the story's good, what does it matter that I'm a white agnostic female Democrat? I'm the writer, I'm behind the story, I should be invisible. What next? "We only accept stories from people whose Body Mass Index is less than 30"? "We only accept stories from redheads"? Single people? Childless people? People in a certain tax bracket?

All right, so maybe those factors -- being a white agnostic female Democrat -- do influence what I choose to write, my style of writing, etc. But they don't make the story.

And further, one reason why I prefer to avoid those kind of things nowadays is that I resent the implication that I need that kind of help. Submitting to a "women only" or any other limiting/exclusionary project feels like I'm admitting I can't compete on a fair field. And to hell with that!

Sabledrake

 

[Guest]

Couldn't agree more...

It's not just you, Earl.

I'm offended by it all ... I don't like any venue that limits the type of
people who can participate.

The type of material, sure. I've got no problem with themed anthologies or magazines that only accept stories of a certain genre. I'm okay with regional projects -- "from writers in the Pacific Northwest" or whatever.

But when it's something having to do with sex, ethniticy, religion, politics, or the usual hot topics, it bugs me. None of that should affect my ability to write a good story, and the story itself is what should be being judged here.

If the story's good, what does it matter that I'm a white agnostic female Democrat? I'm the writer, I'm behind the story, I should be invisible. What next? "We only accept stories from people whose Body Mass Index is less than 30"? "We only accept stories from redheads"? Single people? Childless people? People in a certain tax bracket?

All right, so maybe those factors -- being a white agnostic female Democrat -- do influence what I choose to write, my style of writing, etc. But they don't make the story.

And further, one reason why I prefer to avoid those kind of things nowadays is that I resent the implication that I need that kind of help. Submitting to a "women only" or any other limiting/exclusionary project feels like I'm admitting I can't compete on a fair field. And to hell with that!

Sabledrake

Here...here!