![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
In which I am grouchy about one of my new books.
The bookstore last night was pretty much a total bust. They only had one of books I was looking for, and that was an alternate to begin with! Also, the romance section was woefully tiny, especially compared to all the other sections. SFF covered two walls -- it was, like, thirteen or fifteen floor to ceiling bookcases -- and romance novels got two half-size bookcases. Are you kidding me? Ugh.
Anyway, I ended up just browsing, which is, honestly, one of my favorite things to do. I bought the following:
My friend was late, so I trudged through the snow (snow!) (well, flurries) over to the Waverly diner to eat cheese fries and read while I waited. I started with Forbidden Pleasure by Lora Leigh
. Now, I'd bought it because I was really intrigued by the cover copy and the ostensible plot of the book. I couldn't figure out if the phrase "...[the men] want to indulge the desire to share their women with a carefully selected male partner" was code for "dudes kissing with a lady in between" or code for "the kind of crappy text porn abundant on Usenet in 1995."
I'm about halfway through (I didn't read it on the subway). I'll be blunt, since I know you people are into that: this book, as you may have suspected, is not very good. I can't figure out how this author is a New York Times bestseller. I also can't figure out why her publisher didn't pay more attention to the proofreading. There are a lot of glaring errors. And we're talking about St. Martin's Press! Usually their books are cleaner than this.
I don't think I'm the audience for this book. And, honestly, I am wondering (sincerely!) exactly who the audience is. Because normally I would be 100% into the idea of two hot male FBI agents (who apparently both look like the love child of Christian Kane and mid 90s era Mark Harmon but with long hair) and their ladyfriend getting it on. My problem is with a couple of things the author chooses to do.
1. The woman in the book is a ridiculous caricature of a person. She's a virgin at 23, headstrong and stubborn, with abuse in her past, who is shy and easily hurt and shocked. In one paragraph her husband is worried about overpowering her and making her do something she's not comfortable with, but in the next paragraph he's using his practically magical powers of dominance to bully her into doing what he wants, and justifying it by saying he's a mindreading top who psychically knows when no doesn't mean no.
They never have a negotiation conversation. They don't have a safeword. He just bullies her and manipulates her until she's doing what he wants. Because he loves her!
They have this conversation at one point, after the best friend shows up and the wife -- who's known about the husband's love for mmf threesomes for a while -- realizes that the husband is trying to manipulate her into having a threesome:
....YES. Yes, you have to put it in words, dude! You want to have a threesome, have your best friend have anal sex with your wife (which she's never done before!), and you want to do it without even talking about it first? Later, she says no several times, but the husband and his friend "seduce" her and basically override her objections by just starting to have sex with her until she's pliant.
This is a trope in a lot of romance novels, but I've never understood it. To me, enthusiastic consent is sexy, and people who don't stop when you say "no" without a previous discussion of limits and safewords are rapists, married or not.
On the other hand, romance novels are definitely not playbooks for healthy relationships or safe sex games, and I don't want to judge someone else's fantasies!
Plus there's the element of our society's misogyny -- if a woman wants it (and for "it" feel free to insert basically anything sexual), she's a slut, and therefore deserves whatever she gets. She agrees to making out? She has therefore agreed to all sexual contact with that person and that person's friends and relatives, amirite? If she says no, at least she's put up a fight, so no one will think she's a slut who should be gangraped and killed. And then the pleasure is something being done to her that she can't help; she doesn't have to make the decision, so she's not responsible for the consequences.
(There are whole books written about this in the context of romance novels; they are really interesting.)
Anyway, it made me uncomfortable, but it might work for someone who likes that kind of thing. Your kink is not my kink, but your kink is okay!
2. This is my real problem with the book. I'm pretty sexually liberated and so are most of my friends. Most of us lean (or are radically) politically left, a lot of us are queer and polyamorous and feminist/womynist and kinky. (I'm pretty sure that this shocks no one who is reading this, especially if you've met me in meatspace!) I have a pretty difficult time with the idea that there is a secret club in Washington, D.C., where a bunch of men who actually consider themselves "deviants" and think their own sexuality is weird and gross hang out together.
The phrase "dark hungers" is used a lot.
What are these dark hungers? I wanted to know, too! I mean, I thought for sure they would be more intense and kinky than the description on the back of the book. But... no.
The hero of the book likes threesomes, double penetration (on the lady's side), anal sex (on the lady's side), and... the worst one of all! Erotic spanking. Yeah, he likes to slap some ass.
Seriously, I sat in the Waverly laughing to myself and getting weird looks from the other diners. I had forgotten my phone, or I'd've been texting all the anal sex-loving, slap-happy, threesome-having people I know to share the entertainment.
I guess this is shocking to some people? I don't know! I really felt like maybe the hero and his buddy (with whom he wants to indulge in a "forbidden pleasure" -- both doing his wife at the same time... with whom, I should mention, they are both deeply in love) should attend a munch in their area and meet some other kinky, kink-accepting, sex positive people, and learn to love themselves and not judge their sexual appetites so harshly. Plenty of women are into mmf threesomes with two dominant men! Even, I am sure, in North Carolina, where the hero moves to get away from the temptations of his mmf threesome club whilst trying to be monogamous and non-dominant with his delicate wife.
I just can't take his angst seriously. I'm supposed to believe that this guy has never been on the internet? I could understand if it was something he was only just beginning to admit to himself, only just beginning to explore. But in the book he's been a member of this club for, like, over ten years or something. Come on. Doesn't being afraid of what you like in bed get boring and exhausting?
The hero had a really abusive father, whose abuses were all about the hero's sex life as a child, and the mother's supposed "sexual crimes" -- and I'm super uncomfortable with the implication that if the hero had not been abused as a child, he would be "normal"... because, you know, being kinky is only something that happens to people who are screwed up!! Plus the hero had a mentor, a much older man "who saw the darkness" inside him and cultivated it and taught him how to, basically, be fucked up and repressed. It reminded me a lot of Dexter, and how his dad basically screwed him up even more on purpose and for his own ends, instead of taking him to a therapist and getting him some help. I guess I could believe that this older mentor implanted the idea that wanting to have a threesome is super wrong and yucky and the guy should keep it a secret because otherwise everyone will hate and revile him and he'll be fired and have to live in a garbage can in Florida, or something, but... that's not where the author took it, and I don't think that's what I'm supposed to think.
(My baby sister just came downstairs to eat breakfast. We talked about the other books I bought, and I said, "Yeah, I'm writing a blog entry about this one. It's about a man who has dark, deep, deviant desires!!" Her face totally lit up. Then I said, "He likes threesomes, anal sex, and erotic spanking."
Her face fell. It was hilarious. She looked like a cartoon. "That's boring," she snapped at me, and went back to her breakfast.)
There's also a weird flavor of misogyny that makes me uncomfortable... the two men loooooove women soooooo much, but... I don't know. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on exactly where the problem is. There seems to be a lot of putting women on pedestals and not really caring about who women are as individual people, but only about how the men can use them physically. Here's where I started to get uncomfortable:
Like, how come the female partner is not sharing the adventure? That's page 2, and it only made me more uncomfortable from there.
Anyway, I'll finish it (or attempt to, anyway), but after that... Anyone else interested? It might really appeal to someone else more than it does to me! If you want it, drop me a line at annagenoese@gmail.com -- first come gets it.
(Damn it, I just now, when tagging this entry, realized that I read and hated one of this author's books back in 2008, and wrote a blog post wondering how the heck such a terrible writer made it to the NYT list. And even pointed out that the first word on the first page had a typo! Haha. I should reread my own blog posts sometime.)
Anyway, I ended up just browsing, which is, honestly, one of my favorite things to do. I bought the following:
- Forbidden Pleasure by Lora Leigh
)
- Dangerous Games by Lora Leigh
- Practice Makes Perfect by Julie James
- The Seduction of an Unknown Lady by Samantha James
My friend was late, so I trudged through the snow (snow!) (well, flurries) over to the Waverly diner to eat cheese fries and read while I waited. I started with Forbidden Pleasure by Lora Leigh
. Now, I'd bought it because I was really intrigued by the cover copy and the ostensible plot of the book. I couldn't figure out if the phrase "...[the men] want to indulge the desire to share their women with a carefully selected male partner" was code for "dudes kissing with a lady in between" or code for "the kind of crappy text porn abundant on Usenet in 1995."I'm about halfway through (I didn't read it on the subway). I'll be blunt, since I know you people are into that: this book, as you may have suspected, is not very good. I can't figure out how this author is a New York Times bestseller. I also can't figure out why her publisher didn't pay more attention to the proofreading. There are a lot of glaring errors. And we're talking about St. Martin's Press! Usually their books are cleaner than this.
I don't think I'm the audience for this book. And, honestly, I am wondering (sincerely!) exactly who the audience is. Because normally I would be 100% into the idea of two hot male FBI agents (who apparently both look like the love child of Christian Kane and mid 90s era Mark Harmon but with long hair) and their ladyfriend getting it on. My problem is with a couple of things the author chooses to do.
1. The woman in the book is a ridiculous caricature of a person. She's a virgin at 23, headstrong and stubborn, with abuse in her past, who is shy and easily hurt and shocked. In one paragraph her husband is worried about overpowering her and making her do something she's not comfortable with, but in the next paragraph he's using his practically magical powers of dominance to bully her into doing what he wants, and justifying it by saying he's a mindreading top who psychically knows when no doesn't mean no.
They never have a negotiation conversation. They don't have a safeword. He just bullies her and manipulates her until she's doing what he wants. Because he loves her!
They have this conversation at one point, after the best friend shows up and the wife -- who's known about the husband's love for mmf threesomes for a while -- realizes that the husband is trying to manipulate her into having a threesome:
"Do you think I'd force you?" He leaned forward, touched his lips to hers, electrifying her with the velvet rasp of his lips over her own.
"We need to talk about this."
"What's there to talk about?"
[...]
"Enough." She was out of his arms before he could stop her.
Pushing her hands through her hair, she stared back at him in shock, seeing the glittering purpose in his eyes, the amused, indulgent certainty in his expression.
"You weren't honest with me, Mac." Surprise glittered in his eyes as she made the accusation.
"Did I have to put it in words, Keiley?"
....YES. Yes, you have to put it in words, dude! You want to have a threesome, have your best friend have anal sex with your wife (which she's never done before!), and you want to do it without even talking about it first? Later, she says no several times, but the husband and his friend "seduce" her and basically override her objections by just starting to have sex with her until she's pliant.
This is a trope in a lot of romance novels, but I've never understood it. To me, enthusiastic consent is sexy, and people who don't stop when you say "no" without a previous discussion of limits and safewords are rapists, married or not.
On the other hand, romance novels are definitely not playbooks for healthy relationships or safe sex games, and I don't want to judge someone else's fantasies!
Plus there's the element of our society's misogyny -- if a woman wants it (and for "it" feel free to insert basically anything sexual), she's a slut, and therefore deserves whatever she gets. She agrees to making out? She has therefore agreed to all sexual contact with that person and that person's friends and relatives, amirite? If she says no, at least she's put up a fight, so no one will think she's a slut who should be gangraped and killed. And then the pleasure is something being done to her that she can't help; she doesn't have to make the decision, so she's not responsible for the consequences.
(There are whole books written about this in the context of romance novels; they are really interesting.)
Anyway, it made me uncomfortable, but it might work for someone who likes that kind of thing. Your kink is not my kink, but your kink is okay!
2. This is my real problem with the book. I'm pretty sexually liberated and so are most of my friends. Most of us lean (or are radically) politically left, a lot of us are queer and polyamorous and feminist/womynist and kinky. (I'm pretty sure that this shocks no one who is reading this, especially if you've met me in meatspace!) I have a pretty difficult time with the idea that there is a secret club in Washington, D.C., where a bunch of men who actually consider themselves "deviants" and think their own sexuality is weird and gross hang out together.
The phrase "dark hungers" is used a lot.
What are these dark hungers? I wanted to know, too! I mean, I thought for sure they would be more intense and kinky than the description on the back of the book. But... no.
The hero of the book likes threesomes, double penetration (on the lady's side), anal sex (on the lady's side), and... the worst one of all! Erotic spanking. Yeah, he likes to slap some ass.
Seriously, I sat in the Waverly laughing to myself and getting weird looks from the other diners. I had forgotten my phone, or I'd've been texting all the anal sex-loving, slap-happy, threesome-having people I know to share the entertainment.
I guess this is shocking to some people? I don't know! I really felt like maybe the hero and his buddy (with whom he wants to indulge in a "forbidden pleasure" -- both doing his wife at the same time... with whom, I should mention, they are both deeply in love) should attend a munch in their area and meet some other kinky, kink-accepting, sex positive people, and learn to love themselves and not judge their sexual appetites so harshly. Plenty of women are into mmf threesomes with two dominant men! Even, I am sure, in North Carolina, where the hero moves to get away from the temptations of his mmf threesome club whilst trying to be monogamous and non-dominant with his delicate wife.
I just can't take his angst seriously. I'm supposed to believe that this guy has never been on the internet? I could understand if it was something he was only just beginning to admit to himself, only just beginning to explore. But in the book he's been a member of this club for, like, over ten years or something. Come on. Doesn't being afraid of what you like in bed get boring and exhausting?
The hero had a really abusive father, whose abuses were all about the hero's sex life as a child, and the mother's supposed "sexual crimes" -- and I'm super uncomfortable with the implication that if the hero had not been abused as a child, he would be "normal"... because, you know, being kinky is only something that happens to people who are screwed up!! Plus the hero had a mentor, a much older man "who saw the darkness" inside him and cultivated it and taught him how to, basically, be fucked up and repressed. It reminded me a lot of Dexter, and how his dad basically screwed him up even more on purpose and for his own ends, instead of taking him to a therapist and getting him some help. I guess I could believe that this older mentor implanted the idea that wanting to have a threesome is super wrong and yucky and the guy should keep it a secret because otherwise everyone will hate and revile him and he'll be fired and have to live in a garbage can in Florida, or something, but... that's not where the author took it, and I don't think that's what I'm supposed to think.
(My baby sister just came downstairs to eat breakfast. We talked about the other books I bought, and I said, "Yeah, I'm writing a blog entry about this one. It's about a man who has dark, deep, deviant desires!!" Her face totally lit up. Then I said, "He likes threesomes, anal sex, and erotic spanking."
Her face fell. It was hilarious. She looked like a cartoon. "That's boring," she snapped at me, and went back to her breakfast.)
There's also a weird flavor of misogyny that makes me uncomfortable... the two men loooooove women soooooo much, but... I don't know. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on exactly where the problem is. There seems to be a lot of putting women on pedestals and not really caring about who women are as individual people, but only about how the men can use them physically. Here's where I started to get uncomfortable:
The club catered to men with a particular sexual taste. Men who ha dseen the darkness in the world for whatever reason, and searched for peace in the extremity of sharing their lovers with other men.
Men who worshipped the female body. Who believed sex was an adventure and adventures were always more exciting when shared. Especially with someone who understood the particular pleasures to be found in pushing a woman to her sexual limits. In giving her more pleasure than she could have conceived possible.
Like, how come the female partner is not sharing the adventure? That's page 2, and it only made me more uncomfortable from there.
Anyway, I'll finish it (or attempt to, anyway), but after that... Anyone else interested? It might really appeal to someone else more than it does to me! If you want it, drop me a line at annagenoese@gmail.com -- first come gets it.
(Damn it, I just now, when tagging this entry, realized that I read and hated one of this author's books back in 2008, and wrote a blog post wondering how the heck such a terrible writer made it to the NYT list. And even pointed out that the first word on the first page had a typo! Haha. I should reread my own blog posts sometime.)