Apparently Barbara Sheridan wrote a book called Beautiful Cocksucker, which has managed to piss off a few people.
I must admit, I didn’t automatically equate the title with abuse generally hurled at gay men, but that could be because I’ve never been called a cocksucker, by people trying to denigrate my sexuality.
Not being a gay man, my point of view may be slightly skewered, but I have to say, I didn’t particularly find the title offensive. It was suggested that it would be like calling a book, Beautiful Nigger or Beautiful Faggot, but I don’t really buy that argument. I personally think that cocksucker is much more generic, whilst nigger and faggot are definitely more specific to black people and gay people. (Yes, I get the whole cock-sucking angle, but I’m much more likely to be called a cock-sucker if I’m being a dick, than a faggot, know what I mean?)
I wonder if there would have been as much offence taken if the writer had been a gay man, rather than a straight (I assume) woman?
For instance, I’m pretty sure that if a white person had written a book called, The Black Tax, there would be more of an outcry, than if the writer had been black. You see what I mean?
For me, the title seems to be more of a question of taste. I mean come on, it ranks right up there with that EC book called A Rock and A Hard-on. Pure bad taste, if you ask me.
I guess one of the reasons why I find it hard to be offended by the title is because the book is by a woman who’s passion seems to be writing M/M books. I think there are times when you have to look at things in context, without the obligatory knee-jerk “You’re a racist/homophobic/sexist!!” reaction.
It was also suggested that it would be similarly offensive to have used the term, Beautiful Pussy, or Beautiful Jugs, but I just don’t see it. I’m sure many women might be offended by such titles, but that’s because some people mostly make a career out of being offended by everything. It seems to me that it’s sometimes not even those directly affected who get the most offended. For example, Ann S seems to think that an inter-racial M/M book entitled Dark Chocolate is offensive and objectifying.
No it’s not. Not to me at least, if any other black people are offended by such a title, then speak up by all means.
Anyhow, without any of the usual PC bullshit, do you guys feel that title of the book is an affront to gay men, or an affront to general taste and decency?
kirstensaell
December 31
10:24 pm
Yes, but even among those black men, there will be some who think the word is fine when used in that context, and others who abhor it no matter who uses it or why. That’s my whole point. Whether a person feels one way or the other is entirely up to him.
And among those who are not black, there will be opinions as well, and people are similarly entitled to them. Any person’s right to use the N-word is protected even here in Canada. If a non-black person used it, they would run the risk of losing my respect (and making me very annoyed), but again, I think it would depend on the context.
I don’t really see Teddypig as contradicting himself, either. He feels a certain way about the word, he thinks he has a right to feel that way without being villified. I don’t see him saying Paul isn’t entitled to his own opinion, just that Paul’s opinion and his do not coincide, and he would rather not have Paul speak for him (or indeed all gay men) in this matter.
Robin
December 31
10:40 pm
Canada has some of the most prohibitive hate speech laws in the world.
West
December 31
10:40 pm
I stand by my statement. Homophobics have that hatred inside of them simply because gays exist. It doesn’t matter if they see them on tv, read about them in book, see them on the streets, or not. Nothing anyone does changes that. My parents are remarkably homophobic. I’ve spent years trying to get them to understand their attitude is wrong. They don’t know any gay people, they don’t watch shows which feature gays, and they would certainly never read a book called “Beautiful Cocksucker”. But they believe, and proclaim, often and loudly, that gays are evil and will burn in hell. They don’t think they should be allowed the same rights as straight people, and that they should not be allowed to show affection in public. But the fact that books or tv shows or what have you exists, do not give them more ammunition. The hatred comes from inside themselves (and their blind devotion to a book that claims to have been ordered written by God), and nothing anyone does makes their hatred worse. It’s as bad as can be. So no, I don’t believe that these things give them “more ammunition”. They have it all already.
They will always have a way to justify their attitudes. This is not giving them ammunition- it’s them using an excuse.
And what’s more, I have heard my own gay friends use the term cocksucker about themselves and others. As my friend said, he doesn’t find it offensive. Not every gay does. His opinion is in the context for which it’s used, and I agree. In this case, I don’t believe it was used homophobically. It was used sexually, in a way that reduces the character to a sexual act, which is what I object to.
And as for hate speech? It’s a disgusting thing that we have to put up with so we have the right to free speech. We don’t have to like it, and we can do everything we can to avoid it, but the sad truth is they have the right to say whatever they want, just as much as we have the right to say they’re assholes.
Oh, and also, the people who write m/m romances, but actively oppose gay rights? Fucking hypocrites.
theo
December 31
10:56 pm
No one is telling you not to stand by your opinion. I however stand by mine. After all, if you are facing someone with a gun, would you then hand him a knife, too, just in case the gun missed its mark?? If a small amount of propaganda would have served the Nazis, then why did they constantly inundate with it? Why did Korea continue broadcasting propaganda over the radio, using Tokyo Rose and singling out specific bases and military personnel if one or two broadcasts would have been enough?
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as is anyone here. But so am I entitled to mine. And for me, this type of title just adds fuel to the fire, as evidenced by all the brouhaha that’s already risen in the past week.
And that, to me, is most definitely ‘more ammunition’.
kirstensaell
December 31
11:02 pm
And despite them, would still be within my rights to use the N-word. The hate speech laws apply to the context in which I use it. Hmm….
Andy
December 31
11:05 pm
I can’t believe discussions about this book title are still going on. Ms. Noble and Ms. Sheridan, I hope you sent Ann S and Paul B a big giftbasket for Christmas because their silly, self-righteous tirades must have given the book plenty of publicity.
That being said, I have to agree that it’s a very tasteless title just because the word itself is trashy and unappealing. I personally find the title icky,and I won’t buy the book for that reason. But the author and publisher have every right to call their books whatever they want as this is America, land of free speech and all.
I’m curious. Had those so offended by the ‘homophobic nature’ of the title privately contacted the publisher to express their concerns, I’m almost sure the title would’ve been changed. This theory makes me think the whole argument made by Ann S and Paul B was just to make a public fuss in the first place, rather than address any real issues. That’s very sad because crying wolf detracts from true cases of hateful behavior.
Teddypig
December 31
11:17 pm
I think George Carlin would like a word with you about that.
Emmy
December 31
11:28 pm
Blah?
Ann Somerville
December 31
11:31 pm
Why does it surprise me that the only person uttering wishes of actual harm, is a bottom feeder like you, Emmy. Found any more cancer victims to taunt lately? Or any more gay friends to humiliate?
Okay. I’m done. Karen, I hope you’re happy with what you have wrought. Teddy, god knows what’s wrong with you, but I hope they have pills for it. Kirsten, I’m happy to say my first and only resolution for 2009 is to avoid talking to you completely, because you make the world a dumber place by existing.
Robin
December 31
11:38 pm
Numerous cases have come to trial (post arrest, of course) to *determine* the context. And then it’s an issue of interpretation and adjudication. I assumed that everyone knew of the MacLean’s scandal, but maybe not. And then there is the entire line of cases descending from Keegstra. Not to mention the rioting on Canadian university campuses over what can and can’t be legally said about other groups.
And one of the most powerful ironies here, IMO, is that a number of Paul’s comments are in line with your whole “context” thing:
And while I’m at it, I guess I’ll throw this in, as well, from the same piece:
Because a title provides no context until and unless you read the book.
But in any case, it strikes me that for Paul this issue is all about context — the context of being a gay man who has seen the word used in association with violence as opposed to the lack of context provided in a book title. If his premise is that one can only understand at a visceral level when one has experienced something, then how can he be accusing others who haven’t had that experience of being homophobic or whatever because they don’t share that experience? IMO he can’t and he’s not; IMO he’s simply asking for understanding that this perspective exists and that it perhaps warrants more than a ‘sorry you’re offended but we think this title is perfect.’ In fact, I wonder if the response had been just a little different, a little more ‘we still think the title is perfect but you have given me a lot to chew on,’ if the ensuing debate would even have taken place.
More generally, though, if I believed for one second, Kirsten, that all you are trying to say is that you have a right to think differently from Paul Bens, I wouldn’t have spent the past however many hours arguing with you. Since we seem to be getting nowhere, though, it’s not worth however many more hours to me to keep it going.
Robin
December 31
11:48 pm
WTH? Okay, this has reached a whole new — scary — level.
Nonny
December 31
11:51 pm
OK, this is the point at which I say that people seriously need to take a step back and breathe, because this has way gotten out of hand.
EC Sheedy
December 31
11:54 pm
If anyone is wondering if a *mind*, such as it is, has been changed by this discussion. I think mine has. My first reaction upon seeing the title BC was to look for a bucket. That reaction sill holds. I still think it is a yuck-gag title. (AND YES THE PUBLISHER CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER TITLE THEY WANT. YEA, FOR FREE SPEECH.)
But the other issue, whether the title contributes to homophobia or in some way slurs the gay population. At first, I thought not, and simply chalked the title up to monumental bad taste; but now I’m not so sure. After reading so many opinions, I’ve kind of, sort of come around to thinking the title is insulting, at least, and insensitive, at best. Neither is a good position.
Publishers can call a book Shit on a Stick, for all I care, but when they take a risk–even a small one–of offending people, why bother? Why not strap on a foil cap, attach an antenna and see if the universe can give them something which is equally as “good a fit” for the book–and doesn’t stick a pitchfork in some readers’ hearts. Why go for sensationalism when sensational will suffice?
JenB
January 1
12:06 am
OMGWTFBBQ
kirstensaell
January 1
12:12 am
I suppose you are entitled to apply whatever context you want to my arguments (context being about the person receiving as well as the person delivering a message), and draw whatever conclusions you want about what I’m trying to say. But I’m going to have to leave the debate now, because I’m getting close to crossing the lines of civility, and I hate it when that happens.
Cheers.
Teddypig
January 1
12:46 am
What? Pointing out that George Carlin used cocksucker along with those 6 other bad words as part of his act for years as a stand against censorship? I mean those are facts and that is exactly what this argument comes down to.
West
January 1
1:19 am
Hey, this isn’t on Karen. Everyone here had the right to shut up and walk away. She asked a question. No one had to answer.
Is it possible for you to make a point without insulting someone?
Andy
January 1
2:14 am
“Kirsten, I’m happy to say my first and only resolution for 2009 is to avoid talking to you completely, because you make the world a dumber place by existing.”
Ann S critizes a book title because it’s offensive and insulting to certain people, but here she is personally insulting and offending a person with her name calling. This completely discredits her argument with the title and, frankly, makes her a hypocrite from where I’m standing.
Personal attacks against anyone are uncalled for and in poor taste, more so than a trashy book title.
Andy
January 1
2:36 am
Also, calling someone a “bottom feeder”? Very low class indeed.
Nonny
January 1
2:39 am
I’m with you, Andy. Between the insults on this thread and her recent blog post, it’s given me a very poor impression. There’s a difference between standing up for your opinion, if crudely, and personally attacking someone else. That line’s been crossed.
Pity, too, as I’d been looking at her books and planning on buying them. Think I’ll spend the money somewhere else now.
Keishon
January 1
3:40 am
Hi Karen,
I was checking to see if your blog was still stable and I see that it is. I didn’t come because of the controversy but that title, to echo a few other people, not the best. Hope you have a Happy New Year!
Shiloh Walker
January 1
5:17 am
Ditto on West. Nobody had to contribute and all Karen asked was whether others saw any sort of homophobic slur and hatred, or just poor taste in the title.
EVERYBODY is entitled to view things in their own way. Just because they don’t agree with one particular viewpoint doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Some people felt the title was homophobic. They are entitled to that viewpoint.
As Monica J.once described it, people see things through their own filters.
Some people felt the title was just plain ugly, again, viewed through their own filters.
As far as I can tell, nobody once here endorsed any act of hatred against any person, group, sexual orientation, whatever…
Ann, if this got out of hand on this topic, it isn’t on Karen.
It’s on the shoulders of whomever took things too far. We are all grown-ups. We own our own actions.
just as whoever said…(Emmy, was it you? Oye, you’re being bad…but if it was you, chances are you know you’re being bad and doing it just because you can… behave already!!!)
Whoever said that, owns it. Just as whoever else said anything ugly and demeaning needs to own.
Ann, Just as whoever said that was being out of line, so were you…in a number of ways. Namely in the attack on Karen. Karen isn’t responsible for the behavior of others any more than you are.
You can’t demand respect, sensitivity, acceptance, whatever, without giving it in return.
I’m sorry if you had friends hurt in this debacle. But there have been a number of times when you’ve hurt other people in other blog spectacles.
Demanding sensitivity but rarely giving it just makes you seem a hypocrite in the eyes of many.
Sadly, although you’ve got a lot of valid viewpoints, opinions and insights, they all get lost. All because of your delivery.
That’s the power of words. You’ve got a powerful voice…if you could learn to respect the viewpoints of others, you could do a lot more good than you realize.
But because you only respect the viewpoints of those you like (sorry, that’s how it comes across), what you manage to do is alienate people, more often than not.
Your message, far too often, comes across as this… either you agree with me completely, or you’re a moron and nothing else.
Seressia
January 1
8:15 am
words have power. Otherwise writers wouldn’t write and readers wouldn’t read.
As a black woman living in the south, who still won’t go to certain towns, there is no acceptable context for the use of the N-word. IMHO there are words that should never be “owned” and those who have attempted to own that word have made their lot worse, but that is a socio-economic discussion for another time.
I wouldn’t touch a book called Beautiful CS, C*nt, N*, Down With the Swirl, Obama’s Baby Mama, or Thong on Fire. The point is to get me as a reader to crack the cover, and those titles simply won’t. YMMV, and that’s okay.
Karen Scott
January 1
1:33 pm
Hey, I guessed that she was probably a lesbian, but it’s interesting to note that Sheridan’s gender and sexual orientation seems to definitely be a consideration.
I wonder though, doesn’t it give “aid and comfort to the enemy”, regardless of the fact that it belongs to somebody who’s earned the right to use it?
Isn’t it “validating the use of hate speech so that when someone speaks up, as they have now, to say it’s not okay and causes hurt, a bunch of clueless liberals say ‘oh, but X used it, and no one complained, so why can’t Y use it?’
I’m not disagreeing with you by the way, but it does beg the question, does it really matter to ‘the enemy’ who’s using the hate speech and in what context, like you seem to be implying?
Is somebody who hates gay people more likely to look at Sheridan’s book title, and feel more compelled to use it as validation of their beliefs, than if they looked at that commenter’s avatar, just because one of the people in question earned the right to use her ‘hate’ word, and the other didn’t?
Definitely blog fatigue methinks. *g*
This calls for a big old “Bitch, please!” methinks.
I definitely should have made this into a drinking game last night. I’d have been absolutely sozzled.
By the way Ann, Number 1 and Number 2 New Year’s resolutions? Good luck with sticking to them for more than a month.
Word, Shi.
The truth of the matter is, there are many actions/words that are offensive in different ways to different people. Some of these feelings rise from the context of the specific action/word, others from personal biases, others from cultural biases, many from personal experiences etc, etc. If a gay man tells me that he finds the book title in this particular discussion, offensive, then I believe him, but I really don’t have to feel the same way that he does, in order to confirm my humanity, because we are after all different people, with differing thought processes/experiences/biases/hot buttons etc, etc.
Gennita Low
January 1
2:20 pm
Yes, Keishon@171, Karen’s blog is still stable. LMAO. Happy New Year backatcha.
Jill Sorenson
January 1
3:26 pm
I like the title. I’m very aware that the word is offensive, but the intent here is to celebrate an act, not denigrate a group of people. I think.
I got in a bit of a dust-up (and I usually avoid them!) with a guy online over the use of the word “redskin.” Specifically, Redskin Magazine. I said the intent was a reappropriation, taking back the word and using it to celebrate Native American culture. He said I should go read Cunt Magazine and called me a cunt.
So I understand how these conversations can get heated!
dew
January 2
8:19 pm
I am a straight woman. If I were to read a same-gender romance, I’d read a W/W book way before I’d read a M/M book. Everyone gets off to different things, but I don’t get why women enjoy M/M romance/erotica. But it doesn’t matter if ~I~ don’t get it, as long as it tickles their horny/romance bones, to each their own.
I think the title is tacky, but I bet it sells a lot to the people that like those kinds of books. It’s very sensational — look at how many comments are on this post. If it wasn’t M/M, I’d probably read the book after all this controversy. That’s why I read DaVinci Code and the Twilight series. Oodles of controversy, heh heh!
Shiloh Walker
January 3
5:47 pm
Normally I don’t bother explaining myself too much. However, something was brought to my attention and I feel like I should say something publicly.
When I posted the above:
I deliberately kept my comment directed at Emmy light for a reason. Emmy and I have chatted via email enough for me to know that she deliberately says things like this. A big reaction is exactly what she looks for when she says such things.
I didn’t bother trying to track down where the Carlin comment came from-I’ve lost too much time getting caught up in blog dramas and I decided a while back that I wasn’t going to hunt more dramas down. So I don’t know where the comment came from, nor I do really care to.
Yes, I can easily believe Emmy said it to Ann. She enjoys provoking Ann. It was an ugly thing to say, she probably knows that, but I also suspect she doesn’t care if people think it was ugly or not.
When Emmy gets like that, I’ve learned either addressing it as I did or just ignoring her seems to work best.
I apologize to anybody who feels I was patting Emmy on the head, condoning her comment/behavior/etc. That wasn’t my intention.
I didn’t care for the comment, it was ugly, and there’s no denying that.
Lissa
January 4
12:08 am
Wow – very interesting converstation.
For the original question – I don’t find the title especially insulting or offensive, though I can see how others would. I didn’t go directly to it being a derogatory term for a gay man mostly because I am not a gay man and I don’t really know all of the terms that are offensive to them. Put me in the camp that thought the term ‘cocksucker’ was used for anyone who 1) sucked cocks and 2) was a real screw-up.
IMO it is not a good title for a book no matter how well it suits the story. Quite frankly, I would pass on the book because of the title. It is not a book title that I would read in public or risk having it around to be seen by my children. Too many explainations would have to be given and I don’t care to have to explain my reading choices to anyone.
Surely there could have been a title chosen that was less controversal which suited the book just as well.
Lee Goldberg
January 6
8:30 pm
Damn. There goes the title of my next MONK book…
Karen Scott
January 6
9:42 pm
Lee, you are a very bad man. *g*
Barbara Sheridan
January 6
10:59 pm
Both my characters are cops it could work…
(What can I say? It was an opening too perfect to pass up)
Rick Fellow
February 22
6:26 pm
I love it when the guy I’m with calls me a cocksucker. I love to suck cock. I love it when he introduces me to a friend and tells his friend that I am a cocksucker. I am proud of my cocksucking skills and proud to be called a cocksucker. In fact I get to suck more cock because of that label. I don’t consider myself a gay man because I love women but more than anything else I love sucking cock.
Regarding Gay Romance | Dear Author: Romance Novel Reviews, Industry News, and Commentary
September 22
10:02 am
[…] I remember the discussion over at Karen Scott’s blog in response to the Beautiful Cocksucker title (BC II has been […]
REVIEW: Beautiful C*cksucker II: Such a Good Boy by Barbara Sheridan | Dear Author: Romance Novel Reviews, Industry News, and Commentary
October 15
10:37 pm
[…] the name (Paul Bens’ original reaction, Teddy Pig’s response, Karen Knows Best’s extensive discussion) but I also know that in BDSM play, some epithets that would otherwise be unacceptable […]
REVIEW: Beautiful C*cksucker II: Such a Good Boy by Barbara Sheridan | Romance Fiction Books
October 20
2:10 pm
[…] the name (Paul Bens’ original reaction, Teddy Pig’s response, Karen Knows Best’s extensive discussion) but I also know that in BDSM play, some epithets that would otherwise be unacceptable […]
jay
April 24
7:44 pm
I personally am not offended but it can be a turn on (to me) if used by the guy I’m with. Yes, I am gay and love sucking cock which means, I am a cocksucker and love it !!! This is of course, my opinion only. best wishes, jay