Everyone is blogging about it. Monica Jackson, the Smart Bitches, Allison Kent, Mrs Giggles and many others.

The topic on the table? New RWA turmoil. Seems there's a member ballot in their monthly member mag, the RWR, and members are given a choice in defining the romance genre for the purposes of the organization:

1. a romance between a man and a woman, or

2. a romance between 2 people (meaning, obviously, a romance between two men or two women).

Some are suggesting that this is all about RWA's evil plan to punish erotic romance authors, some of whom have written books with a gay romance, and some who write threesomes where everyone penetrates everyone, and some don't even have the romance necessary HEA.

I'd venture that there is a possibility that this new ballot evolved from the many discussions lately about what constitutes a ROMANCE NOVEL, after RWA's recent stance on covers showing neked characters boinking or performing other sex acts, or, well, just plain neked characters. And dirty words (though they left out some pretty obvious dirty words that, if they were going to ban them from website excerpts, should definitely have been included)

But I think this new ballot is about more than erotic romance authors. For me, anyway, it's about do we keep the genre the way it has always been and target our core audience, who no doubt overwhelmingly considers romance a love story between 1 man and 1 woman who live HEA. Or do we change the definition of a romance to include gay romance, threesomes, foursomes or moresomes and include genres that have traditionally not considered themselves "romance"? (you caught that, right? These genres do NOT consider themselves romance! And there's some who'd like to force it on them!)

It's about RESPECT.

I'm a romance READER, who has been reading these books since the 1970s. I'm also of the belief that it's not my business what two men or two women do in the privacy of their own home, regardless of my faith and my politics. Or four men and one woman, for that matter.

But, as a romance READER, the traditional romance novel will always be a love story between 1 man and 1 woman who live HEA.

While I'm certain there are a number of people involved in a threesome or moresome that think that's romanitc, and every gay couple out there thinks their relationship is romantic, we're not talking about real people here or being inclusive of real people. We're talking about fictional people, and specific genres, and whether they should be lumped together for the sake of appeasal.

Let's get this straight right off the bat - I believe that if the book is about 1 man and 1 woman falling in love and living HEA, while having tons of nasty, dirty sex, utilizing toys of all sorts, and sex acts of (almost) all sorts while making their way to that HEA scene, it's still a ROMANCE NOVEL, and it would be categorized as an EROTIC ROMANCE.

Also, I've always been against the labels "African-American Romance" or "Multicultural Romance". I don't believe either should be considered a subgenre of "Romance". To classify them as a subgenre because of the race of the characters is demeaning to the books. Monica Jackson and Donna Hill write CONTEMPORARY ROMANCE. And it's the fact that the industry chose to classify books about black or hispanic characters according to race that has prevented these books from reaching a wider audience.So in this instance, I'm very much for changing a labeling aspect of the romance genre so that it's more INCLUSIVE.

But would I ever consider labeling a black person as a white person? Hell no. Because they are not white people, and I respect blacks enough to not discriminate against them or disrespect them by calling them white.

That would be racism (it would imply that I think all blacks want to be white).

I hang out a lot on Monica Jackson's blog, and I'd be willing to bet big bucks that Monica would be highly insulted if you called her a white woman. Because she's a beautiful black woman, and you'd be disrespecting that.

So this new issue some are having with RWA, as I see it (and it's MY BLOG, so it's all about the way _I_ see it), is about respect. It's about not only respecting the readers, but the genre. And it's not only about respecting the romance readers and genre, but the gay romance readers and genre, the erotic readers and genre, and the mainstream readers and genre.

Saying a "Romance Novel" should be defined as a book about a relationship/love story between 1 man and 1 woman is NOT saying that gay relationships aren't romantic or that three people involved in a relationship aren't romantic. Whether these relationships are romantic or not is quite up to the individuals involved in the relationships, or in the case of books, it's up to the readers reading it to conclude to degree of "romance".

But just because something is "romantic" does not make it a ROMANCE NOVEL.

And why is it that authors who have CHOSEN to write in non-romance genres want to be called romance authors? If an author writes about two men falling in love and living HEA, why wouldn't she want her books labeled as gay romance? Same question for those writing books that could EASILY be categorized as erotica or mainstream. Are you ashamed to be considered a gay romance, erotica or mainstream author?

Holy shit, authors have been jumping genres for ages. Why, all of a sudden, is there a group of authors who want every book they write to be considered romance, even when it would obviously be categorized under a different genre?

It used to be that authors who were writing something besides traditional romance wanted to drop the "romance author" identification and be labeled as an author of the genre they were actually writing in. Now, EVERYBODY wants to be a romance author. Heh.

Saying a "Romance Novel" - specifically, the romance novels published as, well, ROMANCE NOVELS (as opposed to "Gay Romance" or "Erotica" or "Mainstream") - is a love story involving only 1 man or 1 woman is NOT discriminatory. It is simply keeping the existing definition of the genre (I don't care what RWA's site says. The bottom line is that the "1 man, 1 woman" definition has been stated on many a publisher's site, has been implied since the beginning of "romance novels", and it's what readers expect when they pick up a book labled as a ROMANCE NOVEL)

I don't see the need to change the definition of the genre, when there are already genres out there that cover alternative relationships.

Gay people, for ages, have readily published and purchased books about gay lovers that are categorized as "Gay Romance". I seriously doubt a gay reader looking for a gay romance would be thrilled by the prospect of "Gay Romance" (its own genre) becoming a subgenre of "Traditional Romance", nor would they delight at going to the bookstore to find his/her choice in reading material, only to find the gay romances have been lumped in with the traditional straight romances, and now they have to not only read the back covers to find books that appeal to them, but they have to actually sort the books first to find the gay romance admidst all the traditional romance. You'd be hearing a lot of mumbled, "Holy shit! Where are my damned books! Who in the hell came up with this f*cktard idea?"

Erotica readers, for ages, have readily purchased books with lots of graphic sex and are totally Okay with there being a HEA. Or not. But baby, they ain't reading these books for the HEA. And they are not only accustomed to but welcoming of books that feature banging by multiple people at that same time. Put an erotica reader in a bookstore, and force him/her to wade through all the traditional romance novels and gay romance novels to find their erotic books, and you'll be hearing a lot of mumbled, "I don't f*cking read romance novels! I want erotica! I want orgies. I want my kink. And I do NOT want to have to rifle through Regencies and Chick Lit and RoMENce to find my smut! What f*cktard came up with this dumbass idea?"

And, oh, Lord, start categorizing a mainstream novel as a romance just because it has a prominent love story (1 man, 1 woman or two men or three women or whatever), and you watch those mainstreamers' heads explode. They are NOT romance readers. They can smell a romance novel from 100 paces, and they stay clear at all costs. If they have to sort through romances, gay romances and erotica to find their mainstream stuff, the poor booksellers are going to have some very irate customers who are screaming, "WTF! What f*cktard can't tell the difference between a mainstream novel and a romance novel?"

Lastly, start categorizing mainstream, erotica and gay romance as "romance" - all inclusive - and I have no question that romance readers like me, who enjoy going into a bookstore, heading straight to the romance section, and finding a dozen lovely romances featuring 1 man and 1 woman within a dozen minutes, will be PISSED OFF!

I'm just like the gay guy or the lesbian, just like the erotica reader, and just like the mainstream reader - I want to know what to expect from my books before I start reading. And I don't want to have to waste time wading through books that are NOT my choice of reading material, to find what I really want.

And let's not forget that I also read erotic books - some that could be classified as romance, some not. And let me tell you, if I'm looking for a sexy, lots of boinking book about 1 man and 1 woman who live HEA, I don't want to be surprised and get a moresome, with 3 or more people living a commune lifestyle and all of them living HEA. And if I am in the mood to read about 3 or more people banging, I don't want to get stuck with what amounts to a traditional romance with lots of hot, graphic sex. THERE *IS* A DIFFERENCE.

Duh! That's why we have genres in the first place. So readers - inclusive of ALL readers, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or religion - can find the f*cking books they want to read.

This weird-ass Liberal bleeding heart notion of classifying all books that feature any number of people in a loving relationship as a "romance" is just S.T.U.P.I.D. 

Romances are beautiful books to those who read them, and it would be disrespecting the genre to change it.

It would be disrespecting the gay romance genre by making it a subgenre of romance.

And it's disrespecting the erotica and mainstream genres to call their books subgenres of romance just because they feature a love story (was "Bridges of Madison County" a romance? F*ck no! It was mainstream women's fiction, and I'll bet the author of that book would think you were nuts if you tried to put her book in the romance section at Borders)

And you know what? I'm mightily tired <yawn> of hearing all this bullshit about "Conservatives" and "Christians" and "Straights" are the ones who don't want the genres mixed.  Get a clue. Even Liberals and Atheists and Gay people enjoy the convenience of having the books they enjoy reading categorized so they can easily find what they are looking for. And their authors enjoy the categorization of genres so that their readers can easily find them, which results in (duh) MORE SALES.

And if I was a romance author? I'd yawn again at all the silly threats by readers who say they won't read romances anymore if RWA defines romance as a story between 1 man and 1 woman. So what? If a reader prefers multiple partners in her stories or gay romance, she'd not be reading that author's books anyway. So it's an empty threat. Grow up. Stop expecting any author to be terrified that you are going to take your toys and go home if you don't get your way, especially if you aren't letting her play with your toys anyway! (and if you let this READER'S opinion sway you against an author or a genre, you're just looking for a reason to be pissed off anyway, and any excuse will do ya)

A romance novel - for the sake of definition and for RWA's purpose and for the purpose of those who read them - is a story about the relationship between 1 man and 1 woman, who live HEA. Period.

And it's okay if that means books about gay people falling in love aren't included. THERE IS ALREADY A GAY ROMANCE GENRE! And they don't want to include straight romances in their genre, because, well, damnit, straight romance are NOT gay romances! It's NOT discrimination on the part of gays to say they don't want to mix gay romance with straight romance - on the shelves or by definition. It simply means gays like being able to find the books they want easily and quickly - they like knowing what to expect when they buy a book.

So why is it discrimination if romance readers or authors don't want to mix gay romance novels with traditional romance novels - on the shelves or by definition? Sheesh!

It's okay if that means books that feature multiple people boinking each other and graphic descriptions of the ever popular face shot are not considered romance. THERE IS ALREADY AN EROTIC GENRE! And these readers like having their own genre!

For f*ck's sake, people! Quit looking for a fight or someone to hate or blame for the world's problems. We're talking about BOOKS.

Readers - like me - find it convenient that books are strictly categorized by the type of book it is, so we can find the type of book we want to read. That means if we want to read a romance, we can rest assured that what we're getting is a romance novel, as defined by tradition, publishers and the average romance reader.

If we want to read about two men falling in love and living HEA, we have the pleasure of being able to find these books easily because Gay Romance is its own genre. If we want multiple partners having graphic sex, with either an alternative lifestyle HEA or no HEA at all, then by God, we want to be able to quickly and easily locate these books.

Yeah, I know RWA hasn't asked for my opinion because I'm a nobody non-member. But I want romance categorized as a book about a HEA relationship between 1 man and 1 woman who live HEA. When I'm in the mood to read traditional romance, I don't want to get stuck with a "Bridges of Madison County", or an erotic book, or a mainstream book or a gay romance.

AND, if I'm in the mood to read a book that features 2 dudes and 1 chick, who decide an alternate lifestyle suits them 4EVA, and everyone does everyone, then I don't want to have to sort them out from shelves of Regencies, Romantic Suspenses, and Historical Romances just because some author somewhere wanted to be a card carrying member of the romance authors society, even though what she's writing is not really a romance (it would be like someone demanding to be considered black, when their ancestors, genes and features obviously prove that they are Asian, or Hispanic or white).

These authors should realize that Elizabeth Butler and readers like Elizabeth enjoy reading their non-romance books, and when we want to read them, we want to be able to find them, and we don't want to have to guess what type of story is between the covers because it's classified under some huge single genre umbrella.

No one is going to change the perception of the average romance reader (and most of these readers are not active in the online community and are completely oblivious to the blogs that are hashing and rehashing the issue), and that is that a romance is about 1 man and 1 woman who live HEA. So the industry risks alienating its core readers when they label books that belong in other genres as "romance".

How about respecting the readers of all these genres. Respecting their individuality, their reading tastes, and their books. And hell, let's even respect the authors of these books in all these genres. Let them fucking read and write the types of books they want to read and write, without some fucked up, twisted idea that "romance has to include all genres that include love". Bullshit. No it doesn't. And Gay Romance, Erotica, and Mainstream don't have to be forced to submit to inclusion under that ever growing romance umbrella.

Celebrate and RESPECT the differences, people. It's what makes the world beautiful and interesting.

I'm remembering why I have lurked on lists and boards for years, rather than getting involved in all the petty, batshit crazy madness, pettiness, and general bullshit.

All right. I'm getting down off my podium.