Comments: 12
I can tell your upset. Here's how: interested not interesting in reading about lesbians. Same sentence: avoid being triggered.

And I agree. I understand why so many publishers put in warnings about m/m, but I'm guessing that's more of a business decision. (Many people want to read m/m and like knowing it's that going in.) I don't think it's necessary, however. Although even that may be unfair; most people can tell from the covers that it's m/m from the covers.

I'm not sure I'd be able to tell a polyamory book from the cover. Hell, I actually went into a book and it turned into polyamory kind of out of nowhere. Then again, if I hadn't liked it, it wouldn't actually trigger me. (And I like reading about different lifestyles so I did enjoy story not despite, but because of that revelation.)

I've had a ton of stories that went places I didn't want. I bitch about them, but I don't demand warnings.

And btw, if I wanted a trigger warning, it would be for violence by humans against robots. I've ended up shaking and crying because I've read/seen that, because some scenes were horrific enough to bother me enough that they fucked up my sleep for weeks on end. However, as Linda said, I'm in the minority. I want to read about that enough that I'll take my chances, even without the warnings, especially as most scenes may anger me - but don't really shake me up.
The Fangirl 4 years ago
lol I wish being upset was the excuse for my poor grammar and numerous typos.

The m/m distinction is a selling point, but it's also there because the genre demands it be separate. Because mainstream readers would like throw a shit fit if a sexy male lead rode of into the sunset with a dude instead of a girl at the end of the story that wasn't explicitly labeled m/m.

"I've had a ton of stories that went places I didn't want. I bitch about them, but I don't demand warnings." - Exactly! You don't even demand notice, 'cause who's going to give you notice for bad writing. ;)

I really think violence against robots should be on trigger or at least content warnings, just like violence against animals is on it. To me it's even more relevant because Robots often have a humanoid shape are treated by the narrative as people. The impact of their death or violence they experience is not less traumatic than if it were experienced by a human character. People are people, whether they're biologically human or not.
I agree - it's based on economics, so I understand it. But your point that it's a systematic conditioning to veer towards cis het is a valid point. The problem is they're not exclusively mutual. And also, again, the point that romance very often has covers that show the couple - or main couple in situations that might be polyamory - also means that m/m is often a visual cue. That is, even without the written warnings, there would be visual 'warnings'. Without changing the way that the covers are made, which again is a bid to get readers, they'd be clearly m/m romance. I'm not sure, at this point, I like m/m warnings for the reason that you mention: it marginalizes that genre. When I was heavily reading m/m romances, I did like the warnings because it made them so easy to find. So I guess I kinda understand why the publishers do it, and why readers like it, even if I'm not comfortable or even if I don't necessarily agree with them now.

Mwahahah. I think the whole 'human fucking dinosaurs' is my warning!

And fair point. About the robots. I just don't want to enforce that if it's not what most people want. But coming from that POV, it's something to think about. Especially if you look at marginalized people who have been called animals/soulless in the past. Robots - who are at times treated as emotionless (soulless, even) could almost be a stand in for those people much as Frankenstein is usable as a stand in for any other at any point in time. (He's treated as soulless, monstrous, but he's really just human. In the same way that we see the robots as different. and violence against them as unimportant. I'm thinking of slavery-times, the Holocaust, the way the Romani have been treated in the past.) Maybe I'm overreaching, but violence against minorities is often brushed aside. As robots have been presented as sentient so often, especially in modern times, maybe the analogy isn't that off?
The Fangirl 4 years ago
The thing is the assumption that because there are only two people on the cover they must be monogamous is as erroneous as assuming one is human, or that both are heterosexual. Those assumption are based on the viewer's own preconceived notions, and a common misconception that we can tell ANYTHING by what people look like. I get that visual marketing often works off these assumptions, but it doesn't make them true or right. Much like books featuring black characters are called Urban even when they don't take place in the city is a marketing ploy, but one that is high problematic since it's built on racist stereotypes about black people.

Human fucking dinosaurs. Hell, the word tentacle is all I need to see to know what to expect. lol But even in that case those are still my own preconceived ideas. I own those, and if a book surprises me I've been working hard on owning that it was my expectations, and not the responsibility of the author.

As for Robots so many of those narratives are straight up slave stories. Especially stuff like Terminator and the movie I, Robot are a sci fi version of the classic fears of white slave master. This is why so often the Robots in those stories are shown as being emotionless unless they are actively humanize by human characters. Even when that happens it's comical, another role classing inhabited by black people in media, the clown. When you step back and really look at how Robots are treated in classic sci fi it's steeped in racist, classist tropes and promotes the idea that certain people are inherently better or more valuable than others. It's gross.
Agreed. It's normally what's shown, which is a systematic issue - in how romances are marketed, in how people think. I know that I tend to think that when I see a couple, and I like to think I reflect on these things. I'm just so damn used to seeing it - on TV, in movies, on romance covers - that it /is/ my default. It shouldn't be my go to, but it is. In my case, though, I spent a lot of time running away from myself in the fantasy that I was 'normal' - and I went to cis/het/monogamy. So I may be more screwed up than most people when it comes to that.

XD And, yes, some monster porn is well done. But in my experience, most dinoporn is just written pretty awfully . (T-Rexes picking shit up. All the time!)

And yeah, it really is. So, so gross. And plus, my bots all get hurt in the end :(
The Fangirl 4 years ago
I think we're all affected by the systemic issue, especially in how all the media we consume keeps telling us that cis/het/white/monog is the "norm" to the point that we internalize it. So don't be so hard on yourself we all have to work through.

I look at dino porn like a lot of gratuitous porn, the bad writing is almost part of the aesthetic.
Yes, yes, we are. I wasn't going for a hard on myself. I just looked at it factually, and said, 'wow, I /really/ bought into that, and it's because I was trying really hard to fit in, and this is what I was bombarded with, so...' No harshness on self - I understand why I wasn't ready to accept, but there are the facts. A lot of times I'll look back on things with a logical, almost dispassionate view, just to sort out the whys and hows.

And yes, yes it is. I expect to laugh at the bad writing and plot holes in dinoporn.
Kaia 4 years ago
You know, it's funny, there's a book I attempted to read recently that probably has a number of people giving content warnings because there's f/f and f/f/m sex in it. In fact, that's part of why I bought it; I saw a review for it on bisexual-books on Tumblr. (Admittedly, if I'd seen it elsewhere with "content warnings" for said relationships, I would've bought it then, too. I do that a lot. "Eww, teh gays!" complaints in reviews are a pretty good way to make me give a book a shot.)

But I've seen no warnings that the book is set in Magical Libertarian Utopian, and boy, I wish I had. There's so many triggery things in there, like underage prostitution, victim-blaming, dubious consent, actual freakin' slave labor...Yet complaints I did see generally focused on "OMG women having sex with each other!" (Don't get me started on the quoting Hitler thing, just don't.)

Society has a really fucked up idea about what needs warnings, it really does.
The Fangirl 4 years ago
EXACTLY! More often than not I see this misuse of content warnings to specifically call out female sexuality. "Slut" leads, "icky" lesbian sex, etc. It's really discouraging to see that it is women who are doing it. Hello internalized misogyny.

Dude, all those things you listed are thinks that not only I want to know about, but they can really hurt a reader who goes in blind. But women fucking each other OH NO! We can't have that.

What the ever living fucknoodles?!?
The Fangirl 4 years ago
PS Can you message me the title of this book. I'll like to tag it with trigger warnings? Thanks.
Kaia 4 years ago
I have no idea for the life of me how to send messages on here anymore. I did send you a message on Tumblr, but Tumblr might've ate it. They've been terrible about that lately.
The Fangirl 4 years ago
I got your tumblr message just haven't had a chance to respond. Feel free to send it to me there. Thanks.