I've cut out bits here and there but the gist is there. I don't want to cut too much because she's a good writer (other than the actual thinking/tolerance part) and it's bad idea to ignore that fact. . . . romance isn't about just any "two people" celebrating "love in its many forms." Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating love "two people" (or more) finding love in one of its many forms" . . . while they actively promote pedophilia. Think RWA can't go down that slipper slope? Think again. Under our present definition, we cannot exclude such "love stories" under the category of "romance". We, as a culture, seem to have forgotten how to say "enough is enough," but RWA can--indeed, must--do better than that. . . . And, please, spare us the arguments about "censorship" and "inclusiveness." Preference for "one man,...
Hmmm.
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty vast kind of generalization, right there.
Well, they could be *both*.
ReplyDeleteIt's not as elegant out of context. It summed up a whole argument and I liked it.
ReplyDeleteSo there.
Kate's Slice of Soul.
Well, Motown records are arguably slices of soul, but as Kate says, you need to see the sentence in context.
ReplyDeleteGlad you liked it Kate.
. . . and you know the "so there" is silliness, yes?
ReplyDeleteThe world is full of bad feeling at the moment--I figure being clear is the way to go.
i like it...it's as deep as you need it to be....the 'so there" definitely strokes my inner child...
ReplyDeletedo they still use that term...inner child...oh who care ...ya got the drift eh ?????
Noooooooooo! It's my soul, I tell you, my soul!
ReplyDeleteSo happens my soul is full of wingless birds and high power rifle-toting boars and giant romance-loving spiders and porno-loving dogs and . . . you get the idea.