Blog in Review the Rundown

So I'm starting something new in case you haven't noticed. Its a year in review. I wanted to find the posts that got the most views and garnered the most attention.  Here they are the top 5:

# 5 Inseparable
Her first thought was his name and the pain doubled. This was a soul deep hurt that had survived and fed itself with his passions, ate his shattered dreams and drank of his broken heart. It fueled his nightmares, ignited his pessimism, and nurtured the hearth of his rage.. . 

#4 Unconditional Love, or What We Really Mean
So back to my new year's resolution. I told myself I was no longer going to stifle how I feel about anyone.  I in fact practiced this by sending very personal very gushing messages of love to my closest pals who in some way inspire me by doing nothing more than being who they are. The results were as I expected.  I got back some gushing replies and silence.  I knew who would do what. The gushers are just what they say they are.  The none gushers, the silent, were whelmed. You see all of these people feel as deeply as I do and I know what such a message would've done to me. I would've gushed back but first I would've needed to be silent.  And sometimes when you're silent you just are because "Wow look its a unicorn, how cool is that." Bask in the moment.

#3 Manpaper: The Originals
Now this latest version of manpaper is by no means all there is. Below are the originators.

#2 9 Days - A Novella of Mythic Proportions
But the very interesting thing is that underworld activities were shrouded. There have never been many tales of who Hades actually is. Yet the method of how he acquired his wife and subsequent equal queen of the Underworld is one of the most prolific stories surrounding what I believe is the often very misunderstood lord of needful things such as death and the dead.

Thus 9 days.

Think of 9 days as the mythological version of 9 and a half weeks. A sheltered lovely child, a lord of darkness and the unveiling of who they both truly are.

#1 Missing Love Stories
As a dark woman I've always taken those images with a grain of salt as I much preferred getting lost in a book as opposed to an unrealistic impersonation of who I was supposed to be. The irony is that you tell yourself it’s not that bad. You actually try to accept some of it as truth because the alternative is too much to bear, which is the evidence of others denying you and those like you the very basic staples of humanity.

I was Persephone this past Halloween

Well that has been my year and I hope to have more lovely profound flights of fancy and stunning realizations and always. . keep writing.

Have a LOVEly year,

Always w/love,
Sue

Not Another Bodice Ripper - The Case for Serious Romance

THE INTRODUCTION
Romance in general has always prescribed to formulas. Ask any literary agent who religiously sticks to what sells, and any aspiring romance novelist that would like to change things up. Romance novel trends seem to hate change more than any other genre. It is ironic then that it is the category of fiction that needs a makeover the most. However not truly in style, just in the context this style is delivered and perceived.

THE ISSUE
Romance has always suffered from a fallacy of perception as the people who don't actually read the genre seem to have the most to say about their inefficiency as a viable form of fiction. Yet in their vaulted wisdom of what is literary genius, and what is the lowest common denomination of literary fair, I must broach some fallacies of logic. Most high brow fiction involves some version of a love affair. The difference is usually how sexual interactions are portrayed if they are even portrayed.

THE COMPETITION
I think of some proverbial heavyweights of fiction such as Charles Dickens, Earnest Hemingway, and even Jane Austen. In their stories they seem to have very austere, pre-described, and idealized versions of love being portrayed. This is in some terms a 'clean' ethereal based love that only leaves a mess of the tongue and not of the person in a literal sense. The characters generate more passion for misplaced ideas than they do for the presence of another. Is it this sense of high dungeon that produces literary excellence?

In some instances in Hemingway's work for example there are clear overtones of a consuming misogyny as women can be easily trapped in a box and label of a mother, or a whore. It's always painfully Freudian when they end up as both, and thus rendered perfect. Yet this somehow manages to always be observed as part of the literary genius. The analogous representation of the purity of story because of the personalization of sexuality that is hardly ever actually realized just theorized.

THE THEORY
In some ways I believe the bias towards romance is a much deeper seated issue of humanity's perception of itself. The baser instincts of mating that romance points out are seen as 'immature' and 'unrefined' for many. Physical desire is usually seen as an indication of a simple beast instead of a hallmark of one in tune with the nature of whom and what it actually is. Human beings are mammals, and in many situations that animal instinct and urge is much more reliable in choosing a mate than a pros and cons list. The feeling is that romance makes absurd assumptions about this level of attraction and magnetism. That this 'animal' urge cannot be the basis to eventually grow into a deep and abiding love because love is something of a human nature, and not an animal one.

People with pets will tell you how well animals know love. Better sometimes than other human beings. They don't go with logic that their love will be returned. They operate on instinct, sometimes presenting themselves to an owner unsolicited on the street. This is how they love. Why is the idea that human love can be similar so seemingly odd? Or maybe they just have issues with the sex.

THE ANSWER
Love is a personal endeavor no matter how universal television commercials would like it to seem. The nature of it is idealized for some, and wide open for others. The truth is when writing about something as profoundly intimate as love, it is really bad form to try and relate love in another voice or fashion other than your own. The truth and charm to a story comes from that bit of truth that is included. That bit of truth is the relatable aspect of any story. This is the core of your own voice as a writer. Regardless of how many people 'understand' your character's plight or not, the truth of the situation will ring forth and give the story just the push it needs to really fly.

With that in mind it is very bad form for generalists to assume that a certain plotline or story premise is in line with any pre-described social agenda. The liberation of women was just that, liberation. Liberation is the right to make choices. A woman can decide if she would like to be a public figure or a private one. A woman can choose to vote, bear children, and get married or not. The claim that the creation of or reading of romance somehow 'tricks' women into believing in self destructive rhetoric is almost more offensive than any other misogynic claim as it actually feeds into the myth that women are incapable of processing thought beyond what they know to be a fictitious account.

In laymen's terms, the claim in essence says that a grown woman is not capable of separating fantasy from reality. This is a claim usually attached to mental illness, and honestly makes light of conditions suffered by those who have legitimate hormonal imbalances, injuries or birth defects that are associated with mental illness. Reading romance is not an illness. Also it no more detracts from feminist prose as it would add to it. With that being said, no romance is the same. Like all forms of entertainment and media there are levels of content. No two books actually read the same.

The romance formula is very easy to follow. Usually two people, and in recent entries sometimes more, have a great potential for a romantic relationship. They must confront each other and often times the results are not initially positive. That is because of individuality. This is an aspect of romance that is explored more than it is in some of its traditional fiction contemporaries. You have the dichotomy of a relationship as opposed to the relationship being a side car to the dichotomy of the story. In the end the essence of the story is to confront relationship boundaries and expose them. This is a very emotional plane of existence that can sometimes hold the same trauma as a tragedy. And it should. Love is a life changing event. Seeking to experience it, and be bound to another person for all time is also a life changing event. As far as I know not a single life changing event has ever gone quietly and without lessons in humility and shame. These are human emotions that bear the weight in most situations. Yet in love they are the core of what this entanglement is about.

The way a writer creates this is wide open. This sense of growing affection and intimacy is developed from one thing and one thing only, seeing the person for who they are and loving them because or despite it. This is a truth that romance novelists understand that is rarely examined in most contemporary literature where relationships seem to be of convenience and not of necessity. Others are forced attachments where the characters are bound by seemingly invisible tendrils of emotion that are strong enough to bond yet not strong enough to carry the story.

To some degree the emergence of more acceptable contemporary popular fiction, and the need to be perceived a certain way by others has taken the blush from the rose as far as sweeping love relationships are concerned. Romance novels have long been the butt of literary jokes and recently in a twisted parody of art imitating life some have even endeavored to live up to this reputation of being incomprehensible smut with bad punctuation and grammar. But what are the far reaching consequences to this? This seeming end to fairytale as it were that now blocks the heart from even seeking some idealized contentment. Is it this lack of 'romance' being taken seriously in day to day life that has enabled a lack of respect for sex, marriage, and all romantic relationships? Has the 'replaceable' mate taken the place of the 'irreplaceable' mate?

Today more than ever in a world of revolving doorlike changes we need the purity of actual romance.

Male Sexuality

Male Sexuality

If you ask a woman what male sexuality is I think most men and women would be shocked.  Same thing goes for asking men the same question. I think the first step is understanding that we're all human.  No really I mean it. For one moment think about what it means to be human.  Treat the term like whales and sharks totally in that national geographic way. What do we all really want? Happiness, love, comfort, care, maybe a little excitement, but mostly the feel goods.  What feels better, a quick fleeting rub or a long thorough caress.  We all have skin, it all has relatively the same sensitivity. Sensitive to heat, to cold, to wet to dry. Sensitive to pressure, light and hard. It seems like we forget when dealing with a body other than our own.  

Not all touching is sexual, not all sex involves touching. Sexual feelings can be gained from imagery, fantasy, smells. Sex can be a projection of what we assume and feel is sexual. The common thoughts are that each of us has a very physical representation for sex and what feels good during sex. It is not cliche but absolute fact that the most sensitive sexual organ is the brain.  Sex is or is not whatever the person thinks it is or projects onto others what it should be. 

America is an interesting place that has reduced male sexuality to baseline shits and giggles.  Our movies don't really feature men as the sex symbols.  If they are it is usually a consequence of the overall story being told. He is also usually portrayed as a total asshole.  The man you're supposed to want is cute, successful, kind.  A slew of characteristics that are to be equated to being a highly desirable male. I don't think the truth of the matter is portrayed as often as it should so American men don't get to enjoy some of the usually hallowed ground of women.  Which is the ability and consequence of being a sexual being no matter the situation.

Women are almost constantly presented as sexual beings.  Certain women the idealized sexual being.  Most of this is a purely physical expression of sexual fulfillment based on the way the woman looks. It does not seem to concern itself with the consequence of the woman actually desiring the man back strictly for his own sexual nature.  And usually the implication is that all types styles or methods of sex wanted by the male are acceptable.  Even mutual satisfaction is a myth as women are reputed to not be as sexually inclined as men only wanting material possessions or emotional commitment in return for an unpleasant actuality. This accomplishes a couple of things.  It makes sex a sellable commodity which advertisers enjoy but it also robs men of their ability to be desired exclusively in a sexual fashion.

I find it ironic that sexuality is often seen as a thing men take and a thing women possess. As if it is this one way street of supply and demand.  Women give men sex and men just get sex which is what they want and women get other things which is never just sex. I just don't think it's that cut and dry.  

Most women can tell you of a man or two who got into their pants just because he was the hottest thing they'd ever seen.  He spoke strictly to their hormones and logical thought just wasn't in the plan. Just like men. Its not our instincts that are different. Its how we express them and how acceptable the form of expression is for both of us.

In the end there is a pull between us no matter your sexual inclinations. The pull is for whom and what you find attractive. The pull stems from desire which is based in potential sexual fulfillment which is visceral not mental. I could go through citing symmetry tests, shoulder to hip ratios, waist to hip ratios all the science.  But is it so hard to believe that some wants are not taught, but hardwired based on a pattern that is older and wiser than any of us.

Take my specimen here:

And let's be honest who wouldn't.  His name is Pedro Perestrello and when I see pictures of him I have a visceral response. Just a tingle here and there that tells me that within his features his look I see traits and features that are hardwired into me.  But he's a model and that's why they pick them.  He has features that are hardwired into a lot of women's sexual response nodes. There is a good chance that away from the camera he wouldn't ping at all.  Why? Because he has learned how to project his sexuality.  He makes his expression carnal and engaging.  It makes promises and promises. . yes sexual fulfillment.  Having the idea response just denotes healthy sexuality.

Let's examine Pedro shall we and figure out what's going on and why he can make me and a lot of other women all tingly.

I don't know about you but that look is what's really getting it done for me. Could it be that I feel that if a man is looking at me this way that promise of sexual fulfillment is very possible? Yes.  

How well does this go without his avid attention?

Mind you I still think he's easy on the eyes but I'm not really feeling anything sexual. I'm just admiring a lovely landscape but there is no connection to sexual ideas to the point that I have a physical response. Any physical response is left over from before.  The piercing direct look photos have given me the impetuous to believe that Pedro here is capable of delivering on sexual fulfillment.

So why is it that male sexuality isn't more of a thing?  Why don't men teach each other how to project sexual fulfillment with their eyes and their bodies?  Use what gifts nature gave them to have a leg up every once in a while on us.  Most guys will tell you about a crazy time when a woman couldn't resist him, but it is usually followed up by the thought that she just wanted other things and actually having him sexually was not the main goal.  What I want to challenge is the idea that this idea is normal. Men and woman should want each other for the most basic of reasons.  The acknowledgement and fulfillment of sexual desire. 

So boys do me a favor and learn to project more because then we'll all have to be more honest about the thing.