I sit here trying to be serious and write another thoughtful post with a dog in my lap (“LapDOG Mama, not lapTOP”). Angel is not a small dog. She’s 45 pounds of cuddly canine. God love her. So as I sit here balancing my computer precariously on my knees so that she’s comfortable (I’m a sucker for puppy cuddles, I admit it), I have been thinking about today’s post on Romance Worth Killing For, which discusses how the author had someone who is her biggest fan other than her DH in terms of being proud of her accomplishment, referred to romantic literature as “trash”. This is something I’ve heard before–generally from people who don’t read it. But I’ll one up you on that one Elisabeth. I know someone who thinks of romantic literature as porn for women. :Blinks: Yeah, you heard me. As a writer AND reader of romance and romantic suspense, I find myself massively offended by this because I do not support pornography in any guise. I heard some Washington politician say once that pornography was “that thing everyone knows what it is and no one can define”. Which isn’t to say the dictionary doesn’t try. :Hops on over to dictionary.com: Okay according to the first entry pornography is –noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. How…unenlightening. To my mind, this definition leaves out the very important component of exploitation. It has always been my understanding and belief that pornography exploits the children, women, and men it uses as its subjects. Doesn’t it stand to reason those people have to be real? Can you exploit a character? In any event, I can perhaps see his point when it comes to the erotica subset of romance as sex is a considerably stronger component of the plot. But he applies this same definition to ANY romance (well presumably not the ones without sex–he probably doesn’t know those exist). This is such a narrow-minded and offensive view that I’ve never responded. The fact of the matter is that I do not write trash or pornography, and I do not read it. It is a reality that most adult relationships have sex as a component. It’s unsurprising, then, that books about adult relationships–be they romances or NOT–generally have some love scenes. That doesn’t make them pornography. It doesn’t make them lewd. It doesn’t make them trash. It doesn’t remove all their artistic merit. By his definition, I wonder if he thinks all regular movies with love scenes are pornography as well? By that token we’d never be able to watch anything other than Disney. And while I’m a great fan of Disney, that would be a great loss to cinema.