As usual, Monica hits the nail squarely on the head with regards to the discussion of erotic romance that took place over at Romancing the Blog yesterday:
"What gets me is that all detailed romantic love scenes are written for sexual titillation. Even the most florid, feisty, ninnified historical romance. If they have manhoods a’throbbing, nipples perking and womanliness swelling and honey-dewing–it’s about sex. Where is the high ground here?...Maybe the inspirational writers have it, but as I see it, most other romance writers don’t. Pot, meet kettle."
Exactly!! This is what has erotic romance authors in such an uproar. Erotic romance is a natural outgrowth of the explicit sex that has ALWAYS been present in romance, clear back to the days of Rosemary Rogers and Kathleen Woodiwiss. It's franker, to be sure, and free of throbbing manhoods and dewy womanhoods, but it depicts the very same activity (one that most of us engage in from time to time, I might add). And yet some people (the Sisters of the Immaculate Love Scene, to use PBW's immortal phrase) are acting as if most romance is sex-free. Folks, unless you write inspies or sweet romance, you're writing sex too.
This, I think, is what infuriated people most over the Squawk Radio post-- Ellora's Cave books were being dissed as too sexy by... a Blaze author. Which is actually so funny it's hardly worth getting mad about *wry grin*.