This is an absolutely pitch-perfect post in terms of bringing up issues that are Important with a capital I, that show up in books and are too easy to ignore. My day (and night) job is working at a rape crisis center and we don’t see enough people speaking out about both GLBT responses to sexual assault and feminist issues. In fact! Our only official opinion is that sexual assault is wrong no matter who it happens to; we cannot champion for the rights of certain groups because that is not our job. And while I understand the intention – that funding to help the people we can is more important than losing funding for our opinions – it still gets under my skin and makes me angry.

It gets under my skin and makes me angry when sexual assault is non-chalant. No matter who is doing the assaulting or who is being assaulted. I hate it when it is perceived as being less to be a woman. Even I find myself saying things that make me shake my head and say: why do I think it’s okay to make myself feel less because I have a vagina? While I have my qualms about the way certain things are done, the day job has made me infinitely more aware about being a woman.

So, that’s a long, convoluted rant, but I just wanted to say your post made me think and it made me happy, for all the things it says that everyone should be saying.

First of all, what Lu said. And thank you for being brilliant and brave and saying what needs to be said.

Secondly, did you get that “EW GIRLS” vibe from Charlie too? Because I did a bit :/ It made me sad, even more so because the things I loved about it were things I REALLY loved. Chris is probably completely sick of me trying to balance the good and the bad by now :P

I reviewed this book and really enjoyed it (although I did not pick up on the sexual assault thing, I pretty much accepted it because of the confused sexuality issue but yeah when you put it in context it does not seem right).

My issue with the recent YA (male) coming out novels I’ve read (this one included) is not so much the sexist assumptions presented by the male narrators (I think that’s a realistic facet of our current society and while I’d like to see more opposition expressed to it in the novels and to see it challenged more I think it needs to be present so we can all keep realising just how prevalent this kind of thinking is in society and work ourselves to challenge it, taking it out and ignoring it doesn’t help us adjust our society but presenting it and shooting it down would) but the total lack of strong female characters. I get that these books are about the guy experience and that their sexuality should be the focus of the book but would it hurt to write your girls with more guts, personality and just general character? I mean in this book I think Kick is just there to sleep with David, that’s it and her background friend (Molly is it?) is a totally pointless character. If there were strong females maybe they’d be the ones to call the guys on their anti-female fears and bring about the realisation that being called female is not the biggest insult ever.

The girly-boy thing, I think it’s hard to judge here. That was one of my favourite scenes because it did feel like it came from true experience to me and it clearly reflects how some men feel when they come out because of the external pressures of society. Should it be qualified – yes, it would be wonderful if someone somehow without preaching took David aside and explained how masculinity takes different forms and how being associated with women is not something to be afraid or disgusted of and if David came to a wonderful realistation about this, gained some strength and said fuck you I’m forging my own path. It doesn’t happen, it’s a missed opportunity but I think David is so much Bantle (I dunno just a guess) that he felt he had to be true to his own feelings with this character. I think he makes up for putting his own feelings so much in the spotlight with the other two gay characters.

Don’t you think Eddie is the authors attempt to show how people other than David might take this path? Maybe David’s not strong enough, but Eddies out there working on gay activism and happily hanging out with girls despite what the guys say to him. Personally I felt like the three characters showing such different reactions to their sexuality and their life in general was an attempt to create a realistic novel, and give a voice to all kinds of men discovering they’re gay. Not everyone is going to be able to ignore the way society lines up gay guys with women and derides their form of masculinity so you need to show these guys, who don’t yet have the awareness but there’s also a space for men who get it right away and are working on getting the rest of the world up to speed.

What I was really bothered about was the complete lack of strong female characters, with a real role to play in the story. Kick is pretty much just there for David to sleep with. While I get these kind of books are about the guys experiences ( because yep this is something I’m noticing a lot in male coming out stories lately) it does seem that the girls in these books could have been made more well rounded, more purposeful without taking focus from the guys. And if there were strong teenage girls they could deal with the guys ‘oh no society says I am a girl’ issues in an effective way.

@Nymeth I did get the “ew girls” vibe from Charlie. It’s hard not to, and as long male/male GLBTQ continues to be written by men, gender slurs are going to be part of the canon—because boys do talk like that, more’s the pity. It’s not their failure—it’s the culture’s failure, their parents failure, the people who see it and say nothing—their failure, too. It’s invisible and therefore easy. Unless it has a point, but I’ve yet to run into a book where it was the point.

Remember the scene with Charlie, Bink and Mrs. B? That’s what we need more of.

@ Jodie Even without the sexual assault (and I’m going to keep calling it that until someone can convince me otherwise) I wouldn’t have given this book a positive review. It had no flow, it had no rhythm. There’s something to be said for crisp, short writing, but this writing wasn’t crisp—it was jagged, and it tried too hard to jam these heavy issues into a very tightly controlled space. That doesn’t work for me. It felt rushed. That’s a me thing and I absolutely accept that it is—it’s the other stuff I don’t think is a me thing. I think it is gross!

It is realistic to present our male narrators as—like I said to Nymeth—failed boys. Failed by parents and culture both. I am fine with it if authors don’t just leave it, as if it’s acceptable. This book left it too many times. How many teenagers—and I’m not trying to call teens dumb or willfully ignorant—just accept it and never think if an author leaves it? Too many, probably. I mean, take Parker’s mother: what in the fuck was that about? I almost chucked this book into a wall. So yeah, men can keep writing these flat-footed novels about sexuality and gender and I’m going to keep dismantling them. Your suggestion actually seems like the answer to me: if they had girls with more guts and personality instead of girls that are decoration it was be easier. Out of the Pocket did okay with actual characterization. So did The Vast Fields of Ordinary. Even if they had hiccups when the girls were off-screen in those books, I didn’t want to rend fabric as much.

I would complain less about the girly-boy thing in that someone did qualify it—Eddie did, by choosing not to care how other people framed weakness. David had a choice there, and in the end which definition did he choose? Eddie’s father’s. What was the frame? Girls are weak. And don’t get me started on how Eddie was just as “ew girls” as David was, argh. This scene only works because the patriarchy makes it work. Want some quick angst? Make the character feel like a girl, oh noez. I admit, some people are going to be fine with this. I am not fine with it because it uses sexist assumptions on the part of the reader to work. I’m not down with it! Unfortunately for authors using this trick for some off-the-cuff woe, I will never be down with it. Why not one of the hundreds of other issues gay men face? They’re not hard to imagine. Not good enough, apparently.

It had to be about being girly. That’s appropriately terrifying.

Give me a break.

As for the triangle of David, Eddie and Sean—this is a good point, the path-making. I didn’t notice that at all (because I was so contemptuous of the parts of this story that caught my attention, awesome! This is why I took like two months to do this and I still didn’t pick up on it). I’m probably going to co-review this with a friend, so I will have to write that down as something to explore. The comparison should be interesting and at the very least I’ll be able to figure out why I had such a violent reaction to the book as a whole. ;_;

I am the author of David Inside Out. Sadly, the homophobia which bubbles white hot just below the surface of this review must be flagged for the unwary reader. There are three gay teen boys portrayed in David Inside Out, each of whom represents a different point in the struggle to find self-acceptance. The reviewer condemns them all. David, the protagonist, is described as a molester and a sexual assaulter. Sean is described as a douche. Eddie, while viewed as having at least some redeeming qualities, is nonetheless castigated by the reviewer in the comments section.

David Inside Out has been reviewed more than two dozen times since its release in May 2009. It has been chosen as a Rainbow Book by the American Library Association Rainbow Project. It has been described by a number of reviewers as a refreshing contribution to coming out literature. It has been “strongly recommended” for library purchase by, among others, the LGBT Roundtable. The two words describing the book that show up again and again in those reviews are “realistic” and “honest.” In other words, the three teens which YA Fabulous condemns so stridently are thought by most everyone else (including this author) to be believable gay male teens.

YA Fabulous is particularly incensed by what it calls the “sexual abuse” that all three of the teens either engage in or approve of. It finds the teens’ behavior — and in fact the whole book — “skeevy.” This is exactly the sort of put-down of gay male sexual behavior that has endured for ages. (And by the way, isn’t skeevy a word that we all left behind — for good reason — in junior high?) What the reviewer sees as sexual abuse on the part of David occurs after Sean has invited David back to his house so they can have sex. Having had too much to drink, Sean passes out in bed. David tries to wake him a number of ways, including: “I reached down and felt for him, hoping he would respond, but he didn’t.” (p.86) David then “rolls away” and “finds relief” in the dark bedroom. Earlier in the book, Sean gropes David while lying across his lap for a photo (p.79) Later in the book, after their relationship has fallen apart, Sean and David are in a car and Sean pushes David’s head toward his crotch hoping for oral sex. (p. 162) David shoves Sean’s arm away and gets out of the car. When David later tells Eddie that Sean tried to force him, Eddie says, “ooh, that’s hot.” (p. 165)

While none of this is model behavior, it is realistic and within the norm for gay teen boys. To condemn this behavior — using terms like “skeevy,” “molester” and “creeped out” is to condemn more than just these three characters. Worse, to suggest, as the reviewer does, that perhaps the police should be involved is beyond the pale. The police have found their way into gay men’s bedrooms for far too long (see Bowers v. Hardwick, upholding police entry into a gay man’s bedroom in 1986).

There are other ways the characters are attacked for the honest, genuine feelings they have. David is heavily criticized for referring to himself — early on in his journey to self-acceptance — as a girly-boy and then crying. (This is not a figment of some dark past — Arnold Scwarzenegger regularly refers to his political opponents as “girly-men.”) Eddie is criticized for saying “ick” the first time he saw a pornographic picture of a woman with her legs spread. These reactions are deemed sexist by the reviewer and so unacceptable.

But more than just the individual parts, the whole review is a tirade reminiscent of the fierce attacks which greeted Heather has Two Mommies when it was first published 20 years ago. YA Fabulous holds itself out as a gay-friendly website. However, it’s attacks on other gay-themed books are part of the record. Sometimes, those professing to be our friends are anything but. As candidly and ominously noted in the comments section, the reviewer is still trying to figure out why she had “such a violent reaction to the book as a whole.” That is not my business or concern. But when a homophobic attack is launched on the web, I feel duty-bound to speak out against it.

Lee Bantle

Wow, Renay. I’ve actually been looking forward to reading this book, and after reading the author’s diatribe, I don’t know how much I want to read it anymore. I hate when authors feel self-righteous enough to get up on their soapboxes. To Mr. Bantle, if you see this – attacking homophobia is admirable. Attacking someone who doesn’t like your book under the guise of attacking homophobia is not. It makes people less likely to want to have anything to do with you.

@Amanda I can’t speak as to whether I’m going to promote this book. I will have to wait until I don’t feel like THROWING THINGS to decide. I appreciate the author allowing me to read it as his expense and think that it is an excellent conversation starter, but probably not for the reasons you’d expect.

Jodie’s comment is excellent, above, she points out something I missed because of my reaction which bears looking at it more thoroughly; this is a big reason why I share my thoughts! You guys help me see things I miss. If you do read it, I would appreciate your thoughts. :D

Mr. Bantle, your characterization of Renay’s review as homophobic is beyond ridiculous. There is a world of difference between the consensual sex that sodomy laws seek to criminalize and sexual assault. I suggest that you take a step back and learn a little more about the framework Renay is using to talk about consent. A good place to start is the book Yes Means Yes; while it focuses on the experiences of women, it contains essays from many perspectives. Among other things, it takes on the idea that the lack of a “no” is the same as a “yes”, and that consenting to sexual activity once is the same as consenting to it forever. These are not always distinctions that are well-drawn in our society, and this is the issue I see Renay pulling out of your work.

And I agree with Amanda — this response hardly makes me want to look more closely at you or your work. Quite the opposite, in fact.

@Lee Bantle I am thoroughly stunned at your accusation of homophobia in the context of this review. YA Fabulous isn’t making a “homophobic” point. The review makes the point that feeling up someone while that person is asleep is skeevy. And no, I don’t think that word ought to have been left behind in junior high, and yes, I think it is thoroughly appropriate to the situation.

Lack of no does not imply yes. You seem to be missing the entire point of this review on that point! Yes, this behaviour may well be “the norm for gay teen boys.” YA Fabulous isn’t critiquing its realism. The critique is of the society that creates this attitude, and your own lack of critique for the same attitude. Yes, it is frequent in our society for gay men to be derided as girly–but that is a huge part of the point that YA Fabulous is trying to make.

It is not okay to touch someone for your own pleasure while that person is incapable of providing consent. That is what David does, and that is something that I personally take a great deal of issue with! As noted in the review, you did manage to critique active acts of sexual assualt–attempts to force oral sex–but shockingly enough, the more passive sexual assault (of the “get them drunk so they can’t consent” variety) passes without comment. This is an enormous problem for me as a woman, as a reader, as someone who has more than a passing acquaintance with the theory and reality of sexual assault. Or are only gay males supposed to be reading your books?

I find your dismissal of this critique to be actively demeaning to persons who have experienced assault, and I’m disappointed that all you can do in response to a review that isn’t sunshine and flowers and oh you’re so fabulous is lash out with accusations of homophobia! The issues that have been unpacked in this review are the elephant in the room, and I’m disappointed that you cannot engage rationally with the critique instead of defaulting to insults.

I hope my comment won’t be as long as others. It’s late and I’m tired, but I wanna get this out. I may end up doing a list cuz I always find those easier to type out since I don’t have to come up with segueways, lol..

1) Thanks for the GLW link- it’s my review! :) So as you can tell from that, I really enjoyed this book and found it to be realistic based on my own experiences and those of my gay friends.

2) What’s the “ew girls” comment about? Just about a character’s aversion to femininity in themselves or are they thinking that about girls in general? No need to explain the latter but the former, while not necessarily the ideal thought process, still happens. I don’t think it’s because of men writing GLBT books this way; it’s just how people are raised. It’s the culture and how men should be manly and all that, so it’s realistic that these characters would think that way. If you’re upset that, in the end, neither one thought “I should have accepted my femininity and not cared what others thought.”, then that’s your problem, not the book’s problem. Some people will accept it and others won’t; these characters happened to be some of the ones that didn’t end up accepting it as who they are. I don’t think one book that hardly anyone knows about is gonna make a big difference if you’re looking for change.

3) Sexual assault. I didn’t think that was sexual assault at all, but I guess we have different definitions of sexual assault. I don’t see how if they already had sex that night and Sean consented to that, why him being unconscious suddenly makes him untouchable. Besides, it’s just groping between two gay men; it’s not like that’s more than they’ve been doing (yknow, in terms of bases and all that). I don’t care about confusion or how closeted they are; at the core of their being, both are gay, so both are enjoying it; yes, Sean is unconscious and not being pleasured but if he had been conscious, he would have enjoyed it just like he has all the times before. If they’ve been being intimate that night already with each other, consent has already been had between the two of them. It’s all fair game. I cannot tell you how many times I have groped a guy while he was sleeping or vice versa after we’ve been intimate. It’s fun to do and sometimes gets things started again. Honestly, I don’t think it’s skeevy at all. Does that make any sense? Not asking if you agree with it, just if it makes sense. As I said before, it’s late and I’m tired so may not be really clear on my points.

4) I loved all the GLBT books you had a problem with- Out of the Pocket, Freak Show, Vast Fields of Ordinary. Have you read any Brent Hartinger, David Levithan or Alex Sanchez? though maybe Brent is probably the best of all three if you want strong prominent female characters in a book about a gay male teen.

I think one of the reasons the opposite gender is a bit thrown in or whatever at times could be because the author is spending a lot of time with two people of the same gender (since it usually involves a romance) and so it can be hard to fully flesh out the side characters who are the opposite gender from the MC. In straight books, the author has to work on making both the boy and girl fully fleshed out and strong and perhaps that work filters out through all the characters. It sounds like a silly thought (and it probably is) but it makes some sense to me.

5) In regards to stereotypes, I don’t have a problem with them. Why? Because they’re true, to an extent. That’s how they became stereotypes in the first place. I don’t see the problem in them existing or being used in a novel. No, the stereotypes aren’t true for EVERYBODY, but they’re true for some or even most, so how is it such a problem if they’re used? The only danger in stereotypes is when someone assumes a statement about everybody and just goes with that when instead you need to take the stereotype with a grain of salt.

I think I’ve gone over everything I wanted to. I want to close off with this: I don’t think you’re a homophobe in any way for writing this review. I do think that you’re overreacting about a lot of things though. Like throughout most of the review while I was reading it, I was thinking “Where the hell is she getting this? Did we read the same book?” I get that you’re upset and PO’d but it seems like you’re angry at the characters for not being perfect and for not learning a nice little lesson at the end and changing their minds about whatever they thought. Well, real life isn’t always like that, and this author knows it and wrote his characters that way; that is, flawed, just like us.

That’s my two cents (or maybe a nickel considering how much I wrote) on this. Now, it’s bedtime.

OK, read through the new comments. Here’s a small extra bit:

“the more passive sexual assault (of the “get them drunk so they can’t consent” variety)”

You make it sound like David specifically got Sean drunk for the express purpose of making him unconscious so that he can grope him. That is NOT what happens, and Lee even said so in his comment when he quoted passages from the book. Sean got himself drunk at a party, and both he and David went back to David’s place. Sean CONSENTED to having David help him out, which he did, and then Sean passed out. David copped a feel and took care of himself. David had nothing to do with Sean getting drunk; Sean was being the macho straight guy at a party with his friends and they all got drunk. That is what happens at a party with teens when alcohol is available- people get themselves drunk.

OK that’s all for now, hopefully.

@Book Chic I think you have completely missed the point, again, of what both Renay and myself are upset about. Giving consent once does NOT equal always giving consent! This is equivalent to arguing that a husband who rapes his wife is not raping her because she has consented before, and it’s fallacious and insulting and absolutely horrific. Once again, lack of no does not equal yes!

If someone is too drunk to give consent, they are too drunk to mess around with if you have any kind of respect for them and any desire to see to their pleasure as well as your own. It does not matter what has happened previously. It lacks consent and therefore is assault, no matter how prettily you want to dance around it with the idea that they gave consent BEFORE. Before is not NOW.

I think one of the reasons the opposite gender is a bit thrown in or whatever at times could be because the author is spending a lot of time with two people of the same gender (since it usually involves a romance) and so it can be hard to fully flesh out the side characters who are the opposite gender from the MC. I can barely comprehend a world in which that is a serious contention. So, what, a book about gay characters is automatically exclusive of the other gender? Romance doesn’t happen in a vacuum! Characters don’t exist in a vacuum! This is equally true for straight romances and gay romances. I have gay and straight friends of various gender choices, and one thing I have noticed: they do not exclusively hang out with either their own gender or the opposite gender corresponding to their orientation!

@BookChic: Thanks for your comments. :)

re: #2 It is how people are raised and it’s wrong. I am a woman. I am not an insult or a slur and I resent that people will defend this as realism in books because that’s how teen boys talk in order to slither out from dealing with the sexism behind it—and it’s not just men, either, women do it just as often—I used to do it. I’m not bothered the book didn’t make the characters own their femininity, I am bothered the book kept using them as a the butt of a joke and dragging the feminine down to a slur over and over and over.

re: #3 So far, no woman has come to me to say this book doesn’t contain sexual assault. We have been socialized to believe that lack of consent between partners who have been together before is fine. Your comment is steeped in privilege. Yes once does not mean yes always, yes mean yes. I refer you to KJ and Lassarina’s comments. In the context of this book and how Sean was characterized to be so ashamed of gay sex he ran away and ended up a teary, panicked mess after he and David’s encounters, his explicit consent was required for it not to be sexual assault. The fact this scene with sex and alcohol was framed an unproblematic is the problem.

The trouble people seem to keep having is that I am not calling the realism out. It is realistic and that’s fine. My problem is that reality is screwing people. My problem is the reality of sex is fucked up in bad bad ways that are subtle and dangerous and I think we are to the point that are books should not leave these things lying around assuming they are okay.

re: #4: I didn’t say I didn’t enjoy these books. I had problems, as always, but I loved Out of the Pocket and Freak Show. I refer you to my reviews on them.

I read plenty of books where characters of all genders are perfectly well-rounded. It can be hard to fully flesh out characters, yes, but if an author doesn’t, I call that bad characterization. I don’t want to read about stereotypes, I want to read about people. I am fine with people reading about stereotypes and enjoying it, it is just boring shorthand to me and I find it to be lazy writing. To each his own; it doesn’t make either of us wrong.

Your framing of my review as an overreaction troublesome. That is a tactic used to derail the discussion at hand (see this for a thorough explanation) and I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t do it in the future. This is not about my anger because I am not particularly angry, just frustrated. Please realize that you don’t see these things because you have (male) privilege not to see them.

I am not angry at these characters. I am contemptuous of characterizations that rely on sexist stereotypes to work and bothered that men are lecturing women on what is and is not sexual assault because they wouldn’t be offended if it happened to them.

I appreciate your point of view about the book regardless, since you enjoyed it. :)

Lassarina- I was just thinking about it as a possibility, not as a definitive answer. It’s just what I came up with at 1 in the morning while having a discussion with myself about this post.

Renay- #2- I understand that it’s BAD realism, but it is still realistic. I don’t see the problem in using it in the book. No author HAS to do anything in their story. If he didn’t feel like going into breaking that whole “I can’t be a girly boy!” thing, he doesn’t have to. This is his story and if he didn’t want to try and break these stereotypes or whatever, that’s his prerogative. Once you start putting in what everyone else wants you to, it’s not your story anymore and it can become an unreadable mess. He has no obligation to do that in his story.

#3- So the women whose reviews you linked to also thought it was sexual assault? As for the “Consent once doesn’t mean always”, I agree with that. It’s on a night-by-night basis. But what I’m saying is, how does five minutes make a difference? Having to say “I consent to that” over and over ruins the moment. I don’t see it as sexual assault when they had just had sex and David had helped Sean out, then Sean passed out. David had to take care of himself a couple minutes later and he did something lesser than what they had already done (a simple grope) that is in no way harmful to Sean or against his consent. My problem is the five minutes- it’s the exact same night and they had just done way more intimate stuff which Sean had consented to. All I’m trying to say is that there’s another side to this where it’s not sexual assault; if you want to keep believing that this particular scenario is sexual assault, that’s fine. But I just think I’m being logical.

@Book Chic: I point you toward this entry which discusses the realism. Once again, I do not care about authors using realism. I care about them using it as an excuse to avoid dealing with the problematic parts of their work, I care about them leaving it unexamined in the text.

How does five minutes make a difference? I’ll be honest: I am not smart enough to educate you on this issue if you seriously do not realize how problematic “that takes all the fun out of it!” truly is.

By framing your reply as logical, you frame my reply as something else—too emotional, hysterical, take your pick. I have a problem with that. As a woman I am trying to kindly tell you you are derailing and arguing with sexist tactics and to please take a step back and examine your language. Please.

Renay, I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you. Thank you. For never shutting up about the things that matter. I wish I could be more eloquent right now. But frankly, I’m on the verge of vomiting. NO QUESTION in my mind, that is sexual assault. And reading those comments denying it, well, that’s why I’m sick right now. Thank you.

@book chic

The five minutes makes a difference when someone becomes unconscious and incapable of saying ‘no’ in those five minutes. So David copped a feel. Presumably Sean wouldn’t have had a problem with that, but that is you, me, and David PRESUMING. What if David had gone further? What if he had flipped Sean over and had his way with him? Sean may have been ok with that, too, but we’ll never know because he was incapable of giving consent. It becomes assault when a person no longer has the opportunity to say no.

By your logic, if a woman said ‘yes’ in the elevator but then ‘no’ once in the apartment, it isn’t rape because only five minutes ago she was consensual. Different situation, I understand, but same principle.

All acts of love, lust or even mere flirting should be entered into with nothing less than a notarized and mutually agreed-upon legal contract.

ETA from Renay: note to readers, this is a comment from a rape apologist. Do not engage them.

Ms Renay -

I enjoyed your review (well… I don’t know about ENJOYED, it’s never FUN to read about rape, etc. At least I hope not!). I won’t belabor the point about sexual abuse – I agree, if someone is incapacitated, you can’t have sex etc. with them. I could see their being a spectrum, sure (I mean, is it okay to, say, wake your long term partner up in the morning in a playful sort of way? It would depend on the relationship, I guess, maybe?), but this event seems on the wrong end of the spectrum (frankly, if not froma legal point of view, then from an ethical one, I don’t think if someone is stupid-drunk that they’re capable fo giving proper consent even if they ARE conscious, and I’d feel ’skeevy’ having sex with them).

What I was really curious about was one of your comments later on:

“as long male/male GLBTQ continues to be written by men, gender slurs are going to be part of the canon—because boys do talk like that, more’s the pity. ”

Well, as a ‘boy’ myself, I’ll just quietly dust myself off before I respond. Ah-hmm. Well. ;)

I’m curious – do you think the problem is that a man cannot properly write a m/m book without gender slurs? Or simply that until the dialogue is more inclusive (inclusive of women writers, for instance) there will be no incentive for things to change? Or rather, do you simply mean to imply that many authors write gender bias into their books? In that case, I’m somewhat curious how you believe women writing will stop biased men from writing their biases?

I hope that didn’t come across as angry, I really am genuinely curious. To be honest, it seems to me that women cannot solve the problem of gender bias any more than men can – the solution would have to be one generated by society as a whole, regardless of gender. After all, women in the past wrote with gender biases as well, victims of the same society that imposes said biases. A quick peruse through the chick-lit canon, I should think, would confirm that?

@Jason Hello. :)

I am cautious in this reply and admit upfront I am very frustrated. Feel free to call me on any inappropriate comments I might make because of that in this reply.

The part your quoted from m review—I find it troublesome because I feel it’s all too true. I might have failed to communicate that I do not mean all men writing GLBTQ books will do this, but the men that will defend this shorthand and use it despite what it stands for in our culture means that we’re stuck with it awhile longer. I mean; you only have to look at some of the comments here to realize that some men will defend and scramble to hold on to views that are…well, I had a word. Scary? Regardless of this, I expressed myself badly in this instance; I apologize.

I think men can write any kind of book they want with or without gender slurs and othering language aimed at women and as long as it’s done with care and honesty and awareness it’s fine. I’m not advocating for silence on this topic: it is a part of our culture, but I feel it’s not useful for characterization unless the author is making it clear it’s about characterization and not about themselves, because if I have to understand something about an author’s personal life and background to understand a book I believe the book has failed. Also, some writers do write gender bias into the books by simply not realizing their place in society means they’re doing so. I know this to be true, because, I wrote these things into my work just a few years ago, clueless flailing until I realized, lest someone thinks I am just picking on the dudes. I am equally critical of the sexism in myself.

Some people only have to realize and others have to be educated and called out. When an author knows what they’re doing with the language, they can make these things wonderful social commentary to enrich character and setting and context. When they don’t, it fails to come off as anything but using the feminine as a slur and other questionable shortcuts That was my experience with this book in particular.

No, women cannot solve these problems, I agree. All men and women have to be all in on these things before we can even make a dent. I get this term from Shakesville post (which is potentially triggering). I believe women can stop men from writing with their biases by educating them where society has failed and continues to fail to do so, just as I believe white people can stop writing with the biases by being educated by people of color, just as I believe straight people can stop writing with their biases by being educated GLBTQ persons. Of course, it is not the job of these groups to educate groups more privileged, but many do and I have been very lucky to receive this teaching.

I pass on what I can in ways I know how. It doesn’t always work, but I feel like: at least I am not being silent. At least I am making people think even if that thinking involves me being wrong. I would rather attempt to educate and be wrong than say nothing and wait around for society to catch up. :)

Thank you for taking the time to point out my inconsistency so I could correct myself. I appreciate it.

My pleasure – I hope I didnt’ come off like I thought you were being intolerant, I’m genuinely interested in what you have to say. I’m DEFINITELY in agreement that there IS bias, and I wouldn’t be as arrogant as to say that men don’t need some reeducation before they can really think from the other side of the X gene, as it were. Though the same could be said of women, and there are a plethora of horrible male stereotype characters out there, too, written by both genders (the ’stupid,lovable dad’ in the TV sitcom is one that particularly peeves me, for instance). But then, having people assume I’m a slightly dopey parent who loves football (well… I can be dopey, but I don’t think much of football) doesn’t, say, prevent me from being paid fairly, or cause me to be sexually assaulted, or what not.

That being said, I will say (and this isn’t a complaint, so much as just trying to fumble at the idea at hand) that there IS difficulties in being a man in a sexist world, too. Having read Herland (Charlotte Perkins Gilman), recently, I was particularly made aware of this – as a man reading it, I was struck by how miserable the patriarchal world is for men, right alongside women. Patriarchy, matriarchy, any sort of enforcement by gender, implicit or explicit, emasculates women and whatever-the-female-equivalent-of-emasculates-is men (defeminates?). And, since what we call male and female is a lot more gender than it is sex, that’s hard on EVERYBODY, in it’s way (allowing, again, that it’s certainly been harder on women). But, it’s psychically painful knowing, for instance, that I can’t talk about how Fingersmith made me cry at work without having folks look at me like I’m damaged (though, luckily people already think I’m damaged: one of the advantages of social ostracization!). But, particularly in High School, this was very difficult for me: painting Audrey Hepburn in art class, and having people assume it was a teen sex thing, for instance, or having everyone assume I was actually in love with my best friend (including her, apparently), or having to be the only one who didn’t think the dirty jokes were funny (or at least feelign as if I was the only one). It sort of reminds me of F Scott Fitzgerald writing about the mental pain of being rich – I mean, it still sucks far more to be poor, but the rich do have their pain too, I guess.

So, I suppose the reason I mention all of that is to perhaps look at ways for us, as a culture, to look deobjectifying women not as a war, but as a shared struggle. I’m particularly curious, from your perspective as somebody who (apparently?) works with rape victims in some capacity (unless I totally misread that?), how you see this? I mean, since no woman has ever really assaulted me in any fashion for being a man, it’s all well and good for me to talk a unificationist talk, and talk like there’s common ground, but I could understand if it rings pretty hollow to somebody who’s life got ripped in half by what I’m arrogantly saying isn’t a war…

I am a rape apologist because I made a joke? Isn’t that the same logic that lead to your review being labeled a homophobic attack?

ETA from Renay: Really, don’t engage this person.

This will hopefully be my final comment. I took a couple days away from this and I hope that I can convey my side of things a bit better now.

As for the “that takes the fun out of it/ruins the moment” thing, I’m not saying sexual assault or rape is fun. What I’m saying is by the point both parties are in bed naked of their own volition, there is really no need to say “I consent to this” for every sexual act that follows which was the idea I was getting from what you were all saying. Considering Xiu’s first comment, I wasn’t the only one who got that message (I also found that comment funny). I mean, who wants to have sex while someone is saying “I consent to this” over and over? It’s not a necessity in that sort of case.

In regards to the 5 minutes thing, the “yes in elevator, no in apartment” situation is completely different from this situation and any situation like this one. What I am talking about is just how 5 minutes makes a difference when you and your partner have already had sex and been intimate through mutual consent and you have done this SEVERAL times before and you are also still in the same bed. How does the consent change in that time period? This is the only kind of situation I am talking about- the one in the book- and there’s a lot of factors that I’m looking at that I think prove my case. Because if you still think that all these factors still add up to sexual assault, then I have been sexually assaulted many times. And, hell, probably a lot of people have been, especially couples, who have most likely groped their partner while they were sleeping. If that’s what sexual assault is, it seriously decreases the actual severity of this issue and severely downplays the cases where people were extremely sexually assaulted or raped.

If David had done any sort of penetration, that would be sexual assault and rape in my mind. My definition of sexual assault is when force is used against another person and penetration anywhere is happening without consent (i.e. rape) or someone has purposefully drugged or intoxicated another for sex. David did neither of those things, so in my mind, that grope was not sexual assault in any way. Besides, when someone has asked you to give them a bj, how is a little grope a couple minutes later sexual assault?

Now, I’m not trying to convert you to my side. And I’m not converting to yours ever. All I’m trying to do is get you to read my thoughts and attempt to understand my side of things and try to see the logic in my arguments. I am not saying all gropes are fine, just trying to defend this particular one. Sexual assault is not one size fits all.

I picked this up a few months ago, put it down thirty pages in. Lee Bantle emailed me, asked if I would mind trying it again, so reading it now, on page forty. Full discourse and discussion forthcoming.

Also, I loveloveloved Vast Fields of Ordinary and thought that the main character of Freak Show kind of had it coming to him…when he showed up at school dressed as an octopus drag queen!?

@Robbie I have resigned myself to any men who read this book finding very little problem with it (oh, patriarchy! I heart you!), but would be interested in your thoughts! I will follow up with you on your blog. :)

I liked Vast Fields of Ordinary a lot, as well, although Freak Show was, uh. It was interesting, to say the least. I guess I didn’t expect it for some reason, for it to be that explicitly dealt with. He was kind of playing with fire, it’s true. ;_;